# Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?



## Inevitable

The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?


----------



## Noomi

You are born that way.


----------



## Inevitable

Sunni Man said:


> Homo's are mentally ill and choose their perverted lifestyle.  ..



You do realize you contradicted yourself I hope? People don't choose mental illness. If it was a mental illness it wouldn't be a perverted lifestyle.


----------



## NoNukes

Noomi said:


> You are born that way.



What she said.


----------



## G.T.

I think they are born with it and its probably something with their hard wiring mixed with their hormones maybe.


----------



## Geaux4it

Homos just decide they want to polish domes. That's fine with me.. Knock yourself out...

Just leave me alone

-Geaux


----------



## Inevitable

Sunni Man said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homo's are mentally ill and choose their perverted lifestyle.  ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize you contradicted yourself I hope? People don't choose mental illness. If it was a mental illness it wouldn't be a perverted lifestyle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that people choose their mental illness you freakin nitwit.
Click to expand...

Lol yes you did. You even said it below I will point it out. There is no need to stop being a lady about it




> Many people have different forms of mental illness and still function in society; usually with medication and therapy.


Well if it is a mental illness statement belowis in contradiction. No therapy or medicine exists, and there is no pathology withhomosexuality.  



> And yes, being a faggot is a choice.....a pathetic choice.....but still a choice.  ..
> 
> 
> .


If it is a choice it isn't, a mental disorder.


----------



## USNavyVet

I don't believe it's a one size fits all issue. I believe some are born gay while others choose that lifestyle due to convenience. The convenience part is because many kids have a hard time talking to the other side and are more comfortable with their own gender and act on it. After a while they accept it because it's easier. I saw many women who were lesbians who had been married to a man but felt so screwed over that they changed sides. Very hard to believe that they were born gay. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Votto

Inevitable said:


> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?



I think people can have natural tendencies toward being gay.  I also know that ancient cultures like Sparta saw being gay as a cultural norm, so they all engaged in it.  This tells me it's not simply a "born that way" issue, it is also culturally mediated.


----------



## Toro

All sexuality is hardwired.  You cannot control your biological make-up.  You can, however, control how you act.


----------



## Votto

Toro said:


> All sexuality is hardwired.  You cannot control your biological make-up.  You can, however, control how you act.



We are wired to be sexual creatures.   The only question becomes, how much control do you have over your impulses?

Those who are "straight" often can't keep it in their pants, so to speak.


----------



## Inevitable

Geaux4it said:


> Homos just decide they want to polish domes. That's fine with me.. Knock yourself out...
> 
> Just leave me alone
> 
> -Geaux


Of course they choose to have sex with the respective partner but do they choseto be attracted to the same sex


----------



## Inevitable

Sunni Man said:


> As I said before faggot.


The last two posts you made contradicted themselves.



> People with mental illness (controlled with medicine or not) still make lifestyle choices everyday.


That isn't really even relevant tothe question. lifestyle has nothing to do with this thread.  



> And choosing to engage in fudge packing is a choice.   ..


Get penis off of your mind for a moment. Every one of you guys is just fixated on gay men's penises and butts. 

I am talking about homosexuality, not sex.  

And if it is your contention that it is a mental disorder explain the pathology.


----------



## Votto

Inevitable said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before faggot.
> 
> 
> 
> The last two posts you made contradicted themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People with mental illness (controlled with medicine or not) still make lifestyle choices everyday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn't really even relevant tothe question. lifestyle has nothing to do with this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And choosing to engage in fudge packing is a choice.   ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get penis off of your mind for a moment. Every one of you guys is just fixated on gay men's penises and butts.
> 
> I am talking about homosexuality, not sex.
> 
> And if it is your contention that it is a mental disorder explain the pathology.
Click to expand...


First you have to define what is meant by "disorder"?

Physically speaking, cancer is deemed a "disorder", yet it occurs naturally in about 2 out of 3 people.


----------



## Inevitable

Votto said:


> We are wired to be sexual creatures.   The only question becomes, how much control do you have over your impulses?


So itis your contention that homosexuals cannot control their impulses? 



> Those who are "straight" often can't keep it in their pants, so to speak.


I think I can find about 6.5 billion reasons that statement isn't true. Heterosexualsand homosexuals don't necessarily have differing sex drives.


----------



## editec

It always astounds me when USMB homophobes, like Sunni Man, ADMIT THEY WOULD LOVE TO SUCK COCK if they didn't think it immoral.


----------



## Inevitable

Votto said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before faggot.
> 
> 
> 
> The last two posts you made contradicted themselves.
> 
> That isn't really even relevant tothe question. lifestyle has nothing to do with this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And choosing to engage in fudge packing is a choice.   ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get penis off of your mind for a moment. Every one of you guys is just fixated on gay men's penises and butts.
> 
> I am talking about homosexuality, not sex.
> 
> And if it is your contention that it is a *mental* disorder explain the pathology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you have to define what is meant by "disorder"?
Click to expand...

I did. See the underlined phrase above.



> Physically speaking, cancer is deemed a "disorder", yet it occurs naturally in about 2 out of 3 people.


Well there is a pathology. 

That is why I asked what is the pathology.


----------



## Votto

Inevitable said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are wired to be sexual creatures.   The only question becomes, how much control do you have over your impulses?
> 
> 
> 
> So itis your contention that homosexuals cannot control their impulses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are "straight" often can't keep it in their pants, so to speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think I can find about 6.5 billion reasons that statement isn't true. Heterosexualsand homosexuals don't necessarily have differing sex drives.
Click to expand...


To make a blanket statement like that would be absurd.  It would be like saying that heterosexuals cannot control their impulses.


----------



## Votto

Inevitable said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last two posts you made contradicted themselves.
> 
> That is why I asked what is the pathology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a pathology?  What you call a pathology I might call a natural physiologic response.  We call it a "pathology" because something is produced that we find "bad".
> 
> As for homosexuals, gay men in the US only account for about 5% of the population, yet they account for well over 60% of AIDS cases in the US.
> 
> Is this a bad outcome like cancer?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Inevitable

Votto said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are wired to be sexual creatures.   The only question becomes, how much control do you have over your impulses?
> 
> 
> 
> So itis your contention that homosexuals cannot control their impulses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are "straight" often can't keep it in their pants, so to speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think I can find about 6.5 billion reasons that statement isn't true. Heterosexualsand homosexuals don't necessarily have differing sex drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To make a blanket statement like that would be absurd.  It would be like saying that heterosexuals cannot control their impulses.
Click to expand...


so why did you make it?


----------



## Inevitable

Votto said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a pathology?  What you call a pathology I might call a natural physiologic response.  We call it a "pathology" because something is produced that we find "bad".
> 
> 
> 
> Thereisn't a specific pathology to homosexuality thus there is no reason to call it mental illness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for homosexuals, gay men in the US only account for about 5% of the population, yet they account for well over 60% of AIDS cases in the US.
> 
> Is this a bad outcome like cancer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well is it directly related to homosexuality? Can a man be homosexual without having aids? Is that overwhelmingly more common than not being infected with aids? Is it even common at all? Is it reasonable to think homosexuality isthe causeof aids?
> 
> Do we really have a pathology here?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Inevitable said:


> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?



Everyone is entitled to his subjective opinion provided he understands its legally and Constitutionally irrelevant. 

Whether by birth or choice, gay Americans are entitled to Constitutional protections. 

Unfortunately, those hostile to gay Americans seek to deny them their civil liberties predicated on the choice argument, where if one doesnt wish to sustain discrimination as a consequence of being gay, then the remedy is that he simply stops behaving gay. 

All persons are entitled to make choices concerning their private lives absent interference by the state, regardless how unpopular they might be perceived by some.


----------



## emilynghiem

Inevitable said:


> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?


     [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]

I believe our relations with soul-mates in life, or across generationas beyond lifetimes,
are part of a spiritual plan and purpose for growth in learning unconditional love and forgiveness. Collectively humanity tends toward wholeness or perfection, and in the progress to get there in stages, we overcome conflicts so problems stop repeating.
Whatever lessons we don't learn from the past, these can repeat not only in this lifetime but affect generations untli the cycle ends.

I believe there are spiritual causes and processes in everything,
and homosexuality is just one area.

I believe some attractions (homo or hetero) are Unnatural
while others are Natural, depending on the karma. How it manifests (such as same sex attractions, or people into child porn, or people having affaris or sexual addictions, or people having perfectly healthy happy fulfilling relations regardless of orientation and gender)
can vary and is not limited to just homosexuality which is a small % of the population.

My reasons:
1. I have friends who have shared with me their past life memories and karmic experiences that affected their attractions, to either same sex or opposite sex partners,
where both partners shared these same memories of being connected to
soul-mates from another generation and they still carried the karma from these relations
2. I have friends who have experienced and I have researched generational healing, where some of these karmic attractions can be healed, and the persons or relations changed. (as for orientation, I have two friends who changed their minds about being bisexual or transgender after healing therapy; I have heard of enough cases of people who did not change but stayed their original orientation, and cases of sexual abuse causing "unnatural" sexual behavior, whether heterosexual or homosexual, that changed after healing from abuse.)
3. I also have friends who Do Not Change after receiving spiritual healing.
so just because they heal of the karma does not mean they will
change either their orientation, attraction or religious beliefs. I posted before I even had a friend who came out as transgender AFTER healing, so that was the natural state restored. 

Because I have seen people change or not change, heal or not heal,
this tells me that they do what is natural for them, and go through their spiritual process,
which can come out in any form, and is between them and God what their path is.

This is individual for each person, who has to determine for themselves
what is natural for them and what is unnatural, what is meant to change and what is not; it affects not just sexuality
or not just homosexuality, but all their relationships in life and how they respond and act.

So I look at it as a Spiritual Process, and all other issues work out from there.

The number one issue that is being learned, across all cases and conditions,
is the difference it makes between Forgiveness and Unforgiveness.

That is the common factor, regardless of religion or no religion,
orientation gender or sexuality, application to physical mental or social issues.
Someone recovering from losing a parent or child, or someone addressing a drug addiction, or someone with PTSD all go through stages of Grief that are similar.

Because it involves forgiving emotions and incidents at each step,
this process can never be forced but only works by free will when people feel it is right.

If people learn to forgive and let go, they move to a higher level of understanding
and fulfillment in life. But it has to be in keeping with their seasons as they move through changes and stages in life.

If people are caught in some cycle of unforgiveness, they can stay stuck in
a place of conflict and suffering, internally or with other people.
That is where karma can play a part, in whether they are not ready to change
but are meant to struggle through certain experiences for development of character or conscience, like a butterfly
that has to go through a cocoon phase that cannot be rushed; or a wound that
has to form a protective scab that can't be picked off early or it gets infected all over again.

So this isn't just about homosexuality, but healing or recovering from
negative memories, experiences or karma from the past on any level affecting us
and our relations in life.

Like the Serenity prayer it is about accepting what we can or can't change in life
and forgiving what happens either way. And understanding all other people are going through this in different ways, and we can't dictate their process either.

The one thing I can try to share with people, is to forgive "the process"
so even if we cannot control or change the stages, if we forgive the fact that these conflicts are happening,
at least we can be at peace with the process while it goes on. To get the "fear" out of the way,
so we can help ourselves and others navigate through, even if we can't control when how or where changes are going to happen or not.
But to trust in the process as heading toward positive resolutions, and accepting that it is mutual for others, and universal for humanity.
Thanks for asking!


----------



## GISMYS

So God let them go ahead into every sort of sex sin, and do whatever they wanted to&#8212;yes, vile and sinful things with each other&#8217;s bodies.  25 Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they prayed to the things God made, but wouldn&#8217;t obey the blessed God who made these things.

26 That is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God&#8217;s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other.  27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.Romans 1:24-27
===DO THOSE LIVING IN THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION REALLY WANT TO LIVE LIFE AS OR LOWER THAN ANIMALS AS BITCH DOGS!!! WHERE IS YOUR HONOR,PRIDE LOVE?????? MAN WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD NOT AS A BITCH dog!!!!


----------



## emilynghiem

Votto said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a pathology?  What you call a pathology I might call a natural physiologic response.  We call it a "pathology" because something is produced that we find "bad".
> 
> As for homosexuals, gay men in the US only account for about 5% of the population, yet they account for well over 60% of AIDS cases in the US.
> 
> Is this a bad outcome like cancer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although homosexuality may be natural for some people,
> I can think of no cases where cancer is natural for anyone.
> 
> However there are similar conditions here:
> a. the same way some cancer is by birth, so are some homosexuals spiritually born that way (the difference is that it may not be found in the genetics, but spiritually created)
> b. the same way some cancer is caused by environmental or other outside factors,
> so are some cases of homosexuality unnaturally caused, such as by sexual abuse
> 
> c. the same way some cancer can be healed by applying spiritual healing
> also some cases of homosexuality such as caused by abuse can be healed by the same methods
> d. the same way some cancer cannot be healing by prayer therapy
> some cases of homosexuality cannot change either
> 
> Not all cases are by birth, not all cases are caused by external factors.
> Not all cases can be healed, but yes some cases can be changed.
> 
> We do not judge people for having cancer by birth, and either healing or not healing of it.
> So why do we judge people for their orientation by birth, and either changing or not.
> 
> If we assume all cases are by choice, like choosing cancer by smoking,
> what about the cases that were not caused by any external factors by choice?
> 
> What about people who tried to change, didn't want to stay that way, but didn't change?
> Even if you believe this is a mental illness, like schizophrenia, would you condemn a person who didn't want to have schizophrenia and tried to change but couldn't help it?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although homosexuality may be natural for some people,
> I can think of no cases where cancer is natural for anyone.
> 
> However there are similar conditions here:
> a. the same way some cancer is by birth, so are some homosexuals spiritually born that way (the difference is that it may not be found in the genetics, but spiritually created)
> b. the same way some cancer is caused by environmental or other outside factors,
> so are some cases of homosexuality unnaturally caused, such as by sexual abuse
> 
> c. the same way some cancer can be healed by applying spiritual healing
> also some cases of homosexuality such as caused by abuse can be healed by the same methods
> d. the same way some cancer cannot be healing by prayer therapy
> some cases of homosexuality cannot change either
> 
> Not all cases are by birth, not all cases are caused by external factors.
> Not all cases can be healed, but yes some cases can be changed.
> 
> We do not judge people for having cancer by birth, and either healing or not healing of it.
> So why do we judge people for their orientation by birth, and either changing or not.
> 
> If we assume all cases are by choice, like choosing cancer by smoking,
> what about the cases that were not caused by any external factors by choice?
> 
> What about people who tried to change, didn't want to stay that way, but didn't change?
> Even if you believe this is a mental illness, like schizophrenia, would you condemn a person who didn't want to have schizophrenia and tried to change but couldn't help it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BOTTOMLINE= THOSE THAT CHOOSE TO LIVE IN THE ABOMINATION OF  SEXUAL PERVERSION DO SO BY THEIR OWN CHOICE. GOD'S WORD SAYS WE ARE TO RESIST EVIL AND IT WILL FLEE NOT LOVE IT!!! and you??
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Inevitable said:


> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?



Anyone who thinks its a choice is probably gay.


----------



## GISMYS

The "demons of Lasciviousness". Lasciviousness is all lustful and sexual forms of perverseness. Its the loss of reason to bridle ones desires and causing one to adventure into any and all forms of lustful desires. Its having no control of and living with no boundaries. Lascivious is a demon. Theyre the demons that influence and control the mind of man, causing him not to accept any and all things that are of the natural or normal. For an example, its natural and normal for a man to only want a woman, and a woman to only want a man. But with this demon inside of you, he has your mind in a sexual perverseness of confusion. Thats why, it becomes normal to you if youre a man and want to lie down with a man, and vice versa for a woman being with a woman. Now you live your life with this spirit causing you to go against nature and God, therefore reaping up the Judgement of God against you. Another perfect plan of Satan and his demons.(Rom.1: 24-32/Gal.5: 19) 

The demons use you as much as they can, getting you to commit all ungodliness before they can cause the death of your body and soul. Their primary goal is spiritual death. They want you to die in your sins, but before you do, they want to live inside of you long enough to influence others to agree with your sinful lifestyle, so that they can possess them also. These demons are the creators of Homosexuality". Its not gay, its sin, evil and surely demonic! and biblically called "sodomite". 
==THOSE LIVING IN THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION GOD can free you from demon control,believe,confess and repent and accept JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR AND HE will forgive you and wash you clean. Lasciviousness is all lustful and sexual forms of perverseness. Its the loss of reason to bridle ones desires and causing one to adventure into any and all forms of lustful desires. Its having no control of and living with no boundaries. Lascivious is a demon. Theyre the demons that influence and control the mind of man, causing him not to accept any and all things that are of the natural or normal. For an example, its natural and normal for a man to only want a woman, and a woman to only want a man. But with this demon inside of you, he has your mind in a sexual perverseness of confusion. Thats why, it becomes normal to you if youre a man and want to lie down with a man, and vice versa for a woman being with a woman. Now you live your life with this spirit causing you to go against nature and God, therefore reaping up the Judgement of God against you. Another perfect plan of Satan and his demons.(Rom.1: 24-32/Gal.5: 19)


----------



## Dayton3

It has been a choice for the first lady of New York City.


----------



## GISMYS

LIVING IN THE SEXUAL PERVERSION OF  homosexuality ""IS"" a choice!!!  Men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved. Romans 1:27 ==== SIN IS A CHOICE=A BAD CHOICE.  THEIVES DESIRE TO STEAL SO THEY CHOOSE TO STEAL, LIARS DESIRE TO LIE SO THEY CHOSE TO BE LIARS. SIN IS A CHOICE!!!


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Inevitable said:


> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?



It's a plot by Crab People to take over the world.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?



The APA is not a scientific organization, despite their claims, why do you use them as a source in the first place. 

Studies on monozygotic twins have shown a correlation in sexual preference, but the fact that it is not 100% conclusively proves that it is not genetic. Since we know it is not genetic, and no actual evidence exists to prove that we are controlled by evil aliens from Planet X, I chose to believe that it is a choice. The fact that there are actually people out there who have stated that they have made that choice is also evidence that supports my opinion. The people that reject that we make that choice are, essentially, calling everyone who states they made a choice liars based on nothing other than their own prejudices.

They are the ones that have to live with their bigotry, I prefer to believe people unless the evidence contradicts them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homo's are mentally ill and choose their perverted lifestyle.  ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize you contradicted yourself I hope? People don't choose mental illness. If it was a mental illness it wouldn't be a perverted lifestyle.
Click to expand...


Not that I agree with Sunni, but it is entirely possible to be both mentally ill and a pervert.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Noomi said:


> You are born that way.



/ thread


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Noomi said:


> You are born that way.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> I think they are born with it and its probably something with their hard wiring mixed with their hormones maybe.



The problem with that is that there is not a single "marker" for homosexuality that doesn't exist in straight people as well. Additionally, you have thee problem that, if it is actually a hormone imbalance, that makes sexual preference something that is curable, in theory. 

Which is another reason I go with the ability to chose as my preferred theory, it doesn't leave me floundering when people advocate for a cure. No one  needs to be cured of being able to make choices, they need to be encouraged to do so. I seriously do not understand why freedom scares so many people.


----------



## GISMYS

CrusaderFrank said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are born that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> / thread
Click to expand...


YES!!! WE ALL MUST CHOOSE=GOOD OR EVIL,RIGHT OR WRONG, TO LIVE IN THE LIGHT OF GOD'S TRUTH OR SATAN'S LIES. TO LIVE IN SIN IS A CHOICE!! A BAD Choice.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Toro said:


> All sexuality is hardwired.  You cannot control your biological make-up.  You can, however, control how you act.



Hard wired how? What is the mechanism? Why do monozygotic twins exhibit different hardwired choices?

Until you can answer those questions, and many others, you cannot convince me that sexual preference is not a choice.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is entitled to his subjective opinion provided he understands its legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.
> 
> Whether by birth or choice, gay Americans are entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> Unfortunately, those hostile to gay Americans seek to deny them their civil liberties predicated on the choice argument, where if one doesnt wish to sustain discrimination as a consequence of being gay, then the remedy is that he simply stops behaving gay.
> 
> All persons are entitled to make choices concerning their private lives absent interference by the state, regardless how unpopular they might be perceived by some.
Click to expand...


This thread is not about the law, it is about the science behind sexual preference. The fact that anyone has to explain that to you in the first place is astounding. The fact that you will still come back and scream about the law the next time someone asks about the science is proof that you shouldn't be allowed to post in threads you don't understand.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

GISMYS said:


> So God let them go ahead into every sort of sex sin, and do whatever they wanted toyes, vile and sinful things with each others bodies.  25 Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they prayed to the things God made, but wouldnt obey the blessed God who made these things.
> 
> 26 That is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other.  27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.Romans 1:24-27
> ===DO THOSE LIVING IN THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION REALLY WANT TO LIVE LIFE AS OR LOWER THAN ANIMALS AS BITCH DOGS!!! WHERE IS YOUR HONOR,PRIDE LOVE?????? MAN WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD NOT AS A BITCH dog!!!!



If the rules did not prohibit neg repping in this forum I would neg you for using the Bible to justify your bigotry.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks its a choice is probably gay.
Click to expand...


Anyone that resorts to insulting a person based on their sexual preferences instead of reason in a discussion about science is definitely bigoted and childish.


----------



## GISMYS

Quantum Windbag said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So God let them go ahead into every sort of sex sin, and do whatever they wanted toyes, vile and sinful things with each others bodies.  25 Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they prayed to the things God made, but wouldnt obey the blessed God who made these things.
> 
> 26 That is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other.  27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.Romans 1:24-27
> ===DO THOSE LIVING IN THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION REALLY WANT TO LIVE LIFE AS OR LOWER THAN ANIMALS AS BITCH DOGS!!! WHERE IS YOUR HONOR,PRIDE LOVE?????? MAN WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD NOT AS A BITCH dog!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the rules did not prohibit neg repping in this forum I would neg you for using the Bible to justify your bigotry.
Click to expand...


LOL!!! SATAN AND DEMONS HATE TO SEE GOD'S WORD POSTED HERE LIKE you do!!!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

GISMYS said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So God let them go ahead into every sort of sex sin, and do whatever they wanted toyes, vile and sinful things with each others bodies.  25 Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they prayed to the things God made, but wouldnt obey the blessed God who made these things.
> 
> 26 That is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other.  27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.Romans 1:24-27
> ===DO THOSE LIVING IN THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION REALLY WANT TO LIVE LIFE AS OR LOWER THAN ANIMALS AS BITCH DOGS!!! WHERE IS YOUR HONOR,PRIDE LOVE?????? MAN WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD NOT AS A BITCH dog!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the rules did not prohibit neg repping in this forum I would neg you for using the Bible to justify your bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! SATAN AND DEMONS HATE TO SEE GOD'S WORD POSTED HERE LIKE you do!!!
Click to expand...


I have no problem with the posting of God's word, when appropriate. I have even done so myself. What I despise is people who use  YHWH  to justify hate.


----------



## GISMYS

Quantum Windbag said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the rules did not prohibit neg repping in this forum I would neg you for using the Bible to justify your bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! SATAN AND DEMONS HATE TO SEE GOD'S WORD POSTED HERE LIKE you do!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with the posting of God's word, when appropriate. I have even done so myself. What I despise is people who use  YHWH  to justify hate.
Click to expand...


THERE IS NO HATE IN GOD'S WORD!!! GOD IS LOVE!!! BUT THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH AND HELL!!!wise up!!


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> LIVING IN THE SEXUAL PERVERSION OF  homosexuality ""IS"" a choice!!!  Men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved. Romans 1:27 ==== SIN IS A CHOICE=A BAD CHOICE.  THEIVES DESIRE TO STEAL SO THEY CHOOSE TO STEAL, LIARS DESIRE TO LIE SO THEY CHOSE TO BE LIARS. SIN IS A CHOICE!!!



  [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] Matthew 19:12

"&#8230;11But He said to them,*"Not all men can accept this statement,* but only those to whom it has been given. 
12*"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb;* and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. *He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."*

Dear GISMYS May the Lord give the understanding of this wisdom to you.
Not all can receive and accept it.
Look at the three cases above:
1. some born that way from the womb
2. some made that way by man
If you can see how this applies, you can understand what is going on.
Not everyone can see that BOTH cases are going on; so they
cannot forgive each other, but accuse the other of bearing false witness;
when indeed, both cases are going on at the same time, some by birth, some made by man.
Whether or not we agree these can be changed, there are TWO separate cases - not all are the same.

The greatest "sin" here is not receiving forgiveness but rejecting healing.
Make sure you are not one of those promoting Unforgiveness which is the
one Unforgiveable sin that God cannot change but waits on us to ask.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! SATAN AND DEMONS HATE TO SEE GOD'S WORD POSTED HERE LIKE you do!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with the posting of God's word, when appropriate. I have even done so myself. What I despise is people who use  YHWH  to justify hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THERE IS NO HATE IN GOD'S WORD!!! GOD IS LOVE!!! BUT THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH AND HELL!!!wise up!!
Click to expand...


Perhaps you do not mean to come across as hateful.
But yelling in ALL CAPS does not appear
to be "speaking the truth with love"
or in keeping with "love is patient love is kind"

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 
5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, *does not take into account a wrong suffered,&#8230;*

1 Corinthians 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

@GISMSY as you are "taking into account a wrong suffered"
how is this God's love speaking? Is it not your own interpretation and judgment that biases the SPIRIT of how you speak and puts a SPIN on it that is not loving as the Bible.

Compare how QuantamWindbag speaks above:
"I have even done so myself." 
The SPIRIT of his statement is that he is not going to judge others for what he does himself;
he is not going to expect of others what he does not expect of himself.

This SPIRIT of correcting one's neighbor as an Equal in Christ is clear when he speaks.
When you speak, it connotes that either
(a) you believe you are NOT guilty of equal sins that you pronounce on others
(b) or you FEAR you are judged so you project that FEAR of JUDGMENT onto others
Neither of this speaks to equal children in God's love

There is some condition going on that shows in your speech.
I am guessing there is something you Fear or haven't fully Forgiven.
Can I join you in prayer to remove whatever this Fear or Unforgiveness
is that is preventing your message from being heard and received in God's perfect love?

As with QW, I also cannot fault you for what I've done myself.
I have projected emotionally when I meant to express correction with love,
so I offer the same solution that helps me, which is to forgive and let go the fear causing this screaming.
It happens to me, it happens to people of best intent, of course your desire is to save others.

I'm not sure what your fear or division is coming from.
When you address others equally as yourself,
and you do so with God's unconditional love and forgiveness,
NOT man's conditional love, then you won't have this EDGE to your posts that sounds like projecting judgment on others.


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quantum windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> i have no problem with the posting of god's word, when appropriate. I have even done so myself. What i despise is people who use  yhwh  to justify hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no hate in god's word!!! God is love!!! But the wages of sin is death and hell!!!wise up!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> perhaps you do not mean to come across as hateful.
> But yelling in all caps does not appear
> to be "speaking the truth with love"
> or in keeping with "love is patient love is kind"
> 
> love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, *does not take into account a wrong suffered,*
> 
> 1 corinthians 13:4 love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
> 
> gismsy as you are "taking into account a wrong suffered"
> how is this god's love speaking? Is it not your own interpretation and judgment that biases the spirit of how you speak and puts a spin on it that is not loving as the bible.
Click to expand...


pharisee!! Tool,fool,puppet of satan "begone from me"!!!


----------



## emilynghiem

Quantum Windbag said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> All sexuality is hardwired.  You cannot control your biological make-up.  You can, however, control how you act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard wired how? What is the mechanism? Why do monozygotic twins exhibit different hardwired choices?
> 
> Until you can answer those questions, and many others, you cannot convince me that sexual preference is not a choice.
Click to expand...


Dear Toro and QW: the best way I know to explain this 
is that people's personality, relations, and path in life
are spiritually designed, even before we are born.

No, it is not purely genetic. Studies on identical Twins show at most a 50% correlation
in orientation matching if both Twins are raised in the same family household environment - NOT 100%. Some studies have shown 0% when raised in separate households.
Since study results differ, I would say on average it is 50/50.

But it is NOT 100% so that is not 100% genetic.
Since study results can range from 47-53% matching orientation,
the most common interpretation is that there is some tendency from birth, but not guaranteed this will always manifest.

Most people agree on some "tendency" that people cannot help.
That is one issue, if this is natural born or unnatural (or both, depending on the person).

A second issue is if this condition can be changed or not (or either is possible, depending).

Because of the wide variety of experiences reported,
It is safer to say that BOTH cases are possible or happening:
* some natural, some unnatural
* some born not chosen, some made not chosen, some chosen if people are both ways
* some can change, some cannot

A third issue is if people's beliefs can change or not, or if they cannot help having their beliefs:
* some believe all cases are natural born, some believe all are unnatural, some believe both are possible
* some believe all cases can be changed, some believe none can be, some believe both are possible
* some cannot help or change their beliefs, some can, 
some won't change their beliefs but can accept other cases are possible even if they don't believe those are true

I have heard enough cases that tell me any of these combinations is possible,
and not all cases can be described the same.


----------



## itfitzme

Sunni Man said:


> Homo's are mentally ill and choose their perverted lifestyle.  ..



So is stupidity.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no hate in god's word!!! God is love!!! But the wages of sin is death and hell!!!wise up!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps you do not mean to come across as hateful.
> But yelling in all caps does not appear
> to be "speaking the truth with love"
> or in keeping with "love is patient love is kind"
> 
> love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, *does not take into account a wrong suffered,*
> 
> 1 corinthians 13:4 love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
> 
> gismsy as you are "taking into account a wrong suffered"
> how is this god's love speaking? Is it not your own interpretation and judgment that biases the spirit of how you speak and puts a spin on it that is not loving as the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pharisee!! Tool,fool,puppet of satan "begone from me"!!!
Click to expand...


Now what wrong have you suffered you are taking into account?

Before you risk "bearing false witness" where have I said anything
to be a "puppet of satan"


----------



## GISMYS

Matthew 23 
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds, and to his disciples,  2 &#8220;You would think these Jewish leaders and these Pharisees were Moses, the way they keep making up so many laws![a]  3 And of course you should obey their every whim! It may be all right to do what they say, but above anything else, don&#8217;t follow their example. For they don&#8217;t do what they tell you to do.  4 They load you with impossible demands that they themselves don&#8217;t even try to keep.

5 &#8220;Everything they do is done for show. They act holy* by wearing on their arms little prayer boxes with Scripture verses inside,* and by lengthening the memorial fringes of their robes.  6 And how they love to sit at the head table at banquets and in the reserved pews in the synagogue!  7 How they enjoy the deference paid them on the streets and to be called &#8216;Rabbi&#8217; and &#8216;Master&#8217;!  8 Don&#8217;t ever let anyone call you that. For only God is your Rabbi and all of you are on the same level, as brothers.  9 And don&#8217;t address anyone here on earth as &#8216;Father,&#8217; for only God in heaven should be addressed like that.  10 And don&#8217;t be called &#8216;Master,&#8217; for only one is your master, even the Messiah.

11 &#8220;The more lowly your service to others, the greater you are. To be the greatest, be a servant.  12 But those who think themselves great shall be disappointed and humbled; and those who humble themselves shall be exalted.

13-14 &#8220;Woe to you, Pharisees, and you other religious leaders. Hypocrites! For you won&#8217;t let others enter the Kingdom of Heaven and won&#8217;t go in yourselves. And you pretend to be holy, with all your long, public prayers in the streets, while you are evicting widows from their homes. Hypocrites!  15 Yes, woe upon you hypocrites. For you go to all lengths to make one convert, and then turn him into twice the son of hell you are yourselves.  16 Blind guides! Woe upon you! For your rule is that to swear &#8216;By God&#8217;s Temple&#8217; means nothing&#8212;you can break that oath, but to swear &#8216;By the gold in the Temple&#8217; is binding!  17 Blind fools! Which is greater, the gold, or the Temple that sanctifies the gold?  18 And you say that to take an oath &#8216;By the altar&#8217; can be broken, but to swear &#8216;By the gifts on the altar&#8217; is binding!  19 Blind! For which is greater, the gift on the altar, or the altar itself that sanctifies the gift?  20 When you swear &#8216;By the altar,&#8217; you are swearing by it and everything on it,  21 and when you swear &#8216;By the Temple,&#8217; you are swearing by it and by God who lives in it.  22 And when you swear &#8216;By heavens,&#8217; you are swearing by the Throne of God and by God himself.

23 &#8220;Yes, woe upon you, Pharisees, and you other religious leaders&#8212;hypocrites! For you tithe down to the last mint leaf in your garden, but ignore the important things&#8212;justice and mercy and faith. Yes, you should tithe, but you shouldn&#8217;t leave the more important things undone.  24 Blind guides! You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.

25 &#8220;Woe to you, Pharisees, and you religious leaders&#8212;hypocrites! You are so careful to polish the outside of the cup, but the inside is foul with extortion and greed.  26 Blind Pharisees! First cleanse the inside of the cup, and then the whole cup will be clean.

27 &#8220;Woe to you, Pharisees, and you religious leaders! You are like beautiful mausoleums&#8212;full of dead men&#8217;s bones, and of foulness and corruption.  28 You try to look like saintly men, but underneath those pious robes of yours are hearts besmirched with every sort of hypocrisy and sin.

29-30 &#8220;Yes, woe to you, Pharisees, and you religious leaders&#8212;hypocrites! For you build monuments to the prophets killed by your fathers and lay flowers on the graves of the godly men they destroyed, and say, &#8216;We certainly would never have acted as our fathers did.&#8217;

31 &#8220;In saying that, you are accusing yourselves of being the sons of wicked men.  32 And you are following in their steps, filling up the full measure of their evil.  33 Snakes! Sons of vipers! How shall you escape the judgment of hell?
matthew 23=========BEGONE PHARISEE TOOL,FOOL ,PUPPET  OF SATAN!!*


----------



## G.T.

If you think sexual preference is a choice then you can be aroused homosexually yourself if you choose to.

For me this is literally impossible, therefore my sexual preference for women is not a choice its a predisposition, quite obviously in fact.


----------



## G.T.

Which is why its not ad hominem to say that ppl who think its a choice are probably gay.

Because if you think you can simply "choose" to get an erection from men - then to any real straight man who cannot do that - "youre pretty gay, dude."


----------



## GISMYS

The "demons of Lasciviousness". Lasciviousness is all lustful and sexual forms of perverseness. Its the loss of reason to bridle ones desires and causing one to adventure into any and all forms of lustful desires. Its having no control of and living with no boundaries. Lascivious is a demon. Theyre the demons that influence and control the mind of man, causing him not to accept any and all things that are of the natural or normal. For an example, its natural and normal for a man to only want a woman, and a woman to only want a man. But with this demon inside of you, he has your mind in a sexual perverseness of confusion. Thats why, it becomes normal to you if youre a man and want to lie down with a man, and vice versa for a woman being with a woman. Now you live your life with this spirit causing you to go against nature and God, therefore reaping up the Judgement of God against you. Another perfect plan of Satan and his demons.(Rom.1: 24-32/Gal.5: 19) 

The demons use you as much as they can, getting you to commit all ungodliness before they can cause the death of your body and soul. Their primary goal is spiritual death. They want you to die in your sins, but before you do, they want to live inside of you long enough to influence others to agree with your sinful lifestyle, so that they can possess them also. These demons are the creators of Homosexuality". Its not gay, its sin, evil and surely demonic! and biblically called "sodomite". 
==THOSE LIVING IN THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION GOD can free you from demon control,believe,confess and repent and accept JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR AND HE will forgive you and wash you clean. Lasciviousness is all lustful and sexual forms of perverseness. Its the loss of reason to bridle ones desires and causing one to adventure into any and all forms of lustful desires. Its having no control of and living with no boundaries. Lascivious is a demon. Theyre the demons that influence and control the mind of man, causing him not to accept any and all things that are of the natural or normal. For an example, its natural and normal for a man to only want a woman, and a woman to only want a man. But with this demon inside of you, he has your mind in a sexual perverseness of confusion. Thats why, it becomes normal to you if youre a man and want to lie down with a man, and vice versa for a woman being with a woman. Now you live your life with this spirit causing you to go against nature and God, therefore reaping up the Judgement of God against you. Another perfect plan of Satan and his demons.(Rom.1: 24-32/Gal.5: 19)


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Votto said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before faggot.
> 
> 
> 
> The last two posts you made contradicted themselves.
> 
> That isn't really even relevant tothe question. lifestyle has nothing to do with this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And choosing to engage in fudge packing is a choice.   ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get penis off of your mind for a moment. Every one of you guys is just fixated on gay men's penises and butts.
> 
> I am talking about homosexuality, not sex.
> 
> And if it is your contention that it is a mental disorder explain the pathology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you have to define what is meant by "disorder"?
> 
> Physically speaking, cancer is deemed a "disorder", yet it occurs naturally in about 2 out of 3 people.
Click to expand...


 [MENTION=40768]Votto[/MENTION]

Don't want to hijack the thread but did you really mean to say that 2/3rds of all people get cancer?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

I want to commend [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] for being so respectful and civil throughout this thread and in other threads. While others have been nasty and rude to Inevitable, he has chosen to take the high road. 

Good for you.


----------



## GISMYS

Luddly Neddite said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last two posts you made contradicted themselves.
> 
> That isn't really even relevant tothe question. lifestyle has nothing to do with this thread.
> 
> 
> Get penis off of your mind for a moment. Every one of you guys is just fixated on gay men's penises and butts.
> 
> I am talking about homosexuality, not sex.
> 
> And if it is your contention that it is a mental disorder explain the pathology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you have to define what is meant by "disorder"?
> 
> Physically speaking, cancer is deemed a "disorder", yet it occurs naturally in about 2 out of 3 people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [MENTION=40768]Votto[/MENTION]
> 
> Don't want to hijack the thread but did you really mean to say that 2/3rds of all people get cancer?
Click to expand...


LOL!!! THERE IS NOTHING "NATURAL" ABOUT CANCER!! CANCER AND ALL SICKNESS,PAIN,DEATH IS THE RESULT OF MAN'S CHOICE TO LIVE IN SIN AND REJECT GOD AND GOD'S LOVE,SATAN IS HERE TO KILL AND DESTROY. Think!


----------



## alan1

Inevitable said:


> Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?



I really don't give a rat's ass.

Let's examine two possible media headlines.

1. *Insert Celebrity Name* announces that they are homosexual.
2. *Insert Celebrity Name* announces that they are heterosexual.

Guess which headline you never see?
Why does the media think one of those headlines is more important than the other?
If homosexuals think keeping the government out of their bedroom is so important (and I agree with that), then why do they keep publicizing what is going on in their bedroom?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

alan1 said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't give a rat's ass.
> 
> Let's examine two possible media headlines.
> 
> 1. *Insert Celebrity Name* announces that they are homosexual.
> 2. *Insert Celebrity Name* announces that they are heterosexual.
> 
> Guess which headline you never see?
> Why does the media think one of those headlines is more important than the other?
> If homosexuals think keeping the government out of their bedroom is so important (and I agree with that), then why do they keep publicizing what is going on in their bedroom?
Click to expand...


On the face of it, I agree but they should have the same right I do and that's what they're demanding. 

I support that completely.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

GISMYS said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you have to define what is meant by "disorder"?
> 
> Physically speaking, cancer is deemed a "disorder", yet it occurs naturally in about 2 out of 3 people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=40768]Votto[/MENTION]
> 
> Don't want to hijack the thread but did you really mean to say that 2/3rds of all people get cancer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! THERE IS NOTHING "NATURAL" ABOUT CANCER!! CANCER AND ALL SICKNESS,PAIN,DEATH IS THE RESULT OF MAN'S CHOICE TO LIVE IN SIN AND REJECT GOD AND GOD'S LOVE,SATAN IS HERE TO KILL AND DESTROY. Think!
Click to expand...


So how do explain that almost all cancer victims are heterosexual and living heterosexual lives?


----------



## GISMYS

Luddly Neddite said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=40768]Votto[/MENTION]
> 
> Don't want to hijack the thread but did you really mean to say that 2/3rds of all people get cancer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! THERE IS NOTHING "NATURAL" ABOUT CANCER!! CANCER AND ALL SICKNESS,PAIN,DEATH IS THE RESULT OF MAN'S CHOICE TO LIVE IN SIN AND REJECT GOD AND GOD'S LOVE,SATAN IS HERE TO KILL AND DESTROY. Think!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how do explain that almost all cancer victims are heterosexual and living heterosexual lives?
Click to expand...


People infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have a higher risk of some types of cancer than uninfected people. 
A weakened immune system caused by infection with HIV


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Luddly Neddite said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last two posts you made contradicted themselves.
> 
> That isn't really even relevant tothe question. lifestyle has nothing to do with this thread.
> 
> 
> Get penis off of your mind for a moment. Every one of you guys is just fixated on gay men's penises and butts.
> 
> I am talking about homosexuality, not sex.
> 
> And if it is your contention that it is a mental disorder explain the pathology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you have to define what is meant by "disorder"?
> 
> Physically speaking, cancer is deemed a "disorder", yet it occurs naturally in about 2 out of 3 people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> @Votto
> 
> Don't want to hijack the thread but did you really mean to say that 2/3rds of all people get cancer?
Click to expand...


He is actually off by 33.333...%, everyone on Earth has cancer. 

Why Literally Everyone Has Cancer And What This Means For You


----------



## Luddly Neddite

GISMYS said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! THERE IS NOTHING "NATURAL" ABOUT CANCER!! CANCER AND ALL SICKNESS,PAIN,DEATH IS THE RESULT OF MAN'S CHOICE TO LIVE IN SIN AND REJECT GOD AND GOD'S LOVE,SATAN IS HERE TO KILL AND DESTROY. Think!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how do explain that almost all cancer victims are heterosexual and living heterosexual lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have a higher risk of some types of cancer than uninfected people.
> A weakened immune system caused by infection with HIV
Click to expand...


Which does not address either your original statement OR my reply. 

Stop trying to change the subject.


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> LIVING IN THE SEXUAL PERVERSION OF  homosexuality ""IS"" a choice!!!


Please show evidence.  





> Men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.


Flunky understanding of biblical text isn't a valid argument.



> Romans 1:27 ==== SIN IS A CHOICE=A BAD CHOICE.  THEIVES DESIRE TO STEAL SO THEY CHOOSE TO STEAL, LIARS DESIRE TO LIE SO THEY CHOSE TO BE LIARS. SIN IS A CHOICE!!!


Well since homosexuality is not a sin I assume you mean to say it isn't, a choice?


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> BOTTOMLINE= THOSE THAT CHOOSE TO LIVE IN THE ABOMINATION OF  SEXUAL PERVERSION DO SO BY THEIR OWN CHOICE. GOD'S WORD SAYS WE ARE TO RESIST EVIL AND IT WILL FLEE NOT LOVE IT!!! and you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The APA is not a scientific organization, despite their claims, why do you use them as a source in the first place.
> 
> Studies on monozygotic twins have shown a correlation in sexual preference, but the fact that it is not 100% conclusively proves that it is not genetic. Since we know it is not genetic, and no actual evidence exists to prove that we are controlled by evil aliens from Planet X, I chose to believe that it is a choice. The fact that there are actually people out there who have stated that they have made that choice is also evidence that supports my opinion. The people that reject that we make that choice are, essentially, calling everyone who states they made a choice liars based on nothing other than their own prejudices.
> 
> They are the ones that have to live with their bigotry, I prefer to believe people unless the evidence contradicts them.
Click to expand...

So other than the word of a few people what evidence contradicts the "born that way" crowd?
The fact that there are actually people out there who have stated that they were born that way" is also evidence that goes against your opinion.  Anecdotal evidence isn't very strong.

And just because it isn't genetic doesn't mean you aren't born that way. Dexterity isn't genetic.

What evidence do you have to back up your claims about the APA?


----------



## Noomi

GISMYS said:


> People infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have a higher risk of some types of cancer than uninfected people.
> A weakened immune system caused by infection with HIV



That would be straight people.


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no hate in god's word!!! God is love!!! But the wages of sin is death and hell!!!wise up!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps you do not mean to come across as hateful.
> But yelling in all caps does not appear
> to be "speaking the truth with love"
> or in keeping with "love is patient love is kind"
> 
> love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, *does not take into account a wrong suffered,&#8230;*
> 
> 1 corinthians 13:4 love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
> 
> gismsy as you are "taking into account a wrong suffered"
> how is this god's love speaking? Is it not your own interpretation and judgment that biases the spirit of how you speak and puts a spin on it that is not loving as the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pharisee!! Tool,fool,puppet of satan "begone from me"!!!
Click to expand...

So everybody that doesn't completely agree with you is going to be called a "puppet of Satan?"

Excellent technique.


----------



## Inevitable

Luddly Neddite said:


> I want to commend [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] for being so respectful and civil throughout this thread and in other threads. While others have been nasty and rude to Inevitable, he has chosen to take the high road.
> 
> Good for you.


I very much appreciate that.

I have no need to be disrespectful or anything but civil while questioning others beliefs. 

I really appreciate you noticing.


----------



## Inevitable

alan1 said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't give a rat's ass.
> 
> Let's examine two possible media headlines.
> 
> 1. *Insert Celebrity Name* announces that they are homosexual.
> 2. *Insert Celebrity Name* announces that they are heterosexual.
> 
> Guess which headline you never see?
> Why does the media think one of those headlines is more important than the other?
> If homosexuals think keeping the government out of their bedroom is so important (and I agree with that), then why do they keep publicizing what is going on in their bedroom?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's the homosexuals, It's the celebrity worship "news" that thinks drivel like so and so's sexuality is worth talking about. I would think homosexual people would be perturbed by that. Basically the celebrity chasing media is saying that the fact that a ball player or a dancer's sexual orientation is important. It really isn't.


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! THERE IS NOTHING "NATURAL" ABOUT CANCER!! CANCER AND ALL SICKNESS,PAIN,DEATH IS THE RESULT OF MAN'S CHOICE TO LIVE IN SIN AND REJECT GOD AND GOD'S LOVE,SATAN IS HERE TO KILL AND DESTROY. Think!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how do explain that almost all cancer victims are heterosexual and living heterosexual lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have a higher risk of some types of cancer than uninfected people.
> A weakened immune system caused by infection with HIV
Click to expand...


An overwhelming majority of homosexual men don't have HIV, and thousands of heterosexuals do, what gives?


----------



## GISMYS

inevitable said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luddly neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> so how do explain that almost all cancer victims are heterosexual and living heterosexual lives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> people infected with human immunodeficiency virus (hiv) have a higher risk of some types of cancer than uninfected people.
> A weakened immune system caused by infection with hiv
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> an overwhelming majority of homosexual men don't have hiv, and thousands of heterosexuals do, what gives?
Click to expand...


so you don't know hiv aids is over 95 % a sexual pervert death cause???


----------



## PoliticalTorch

Inevitable said:


> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?


Of course Homosexuality isn't a choice anymore than being Heterosexual is a choice. One is born of those sexual orientations as many health and scientific professionals have brought out and agreed on time and time and again. There are reported differences between Straight men and Gay men having to do with their Hypothalamus gland. Other reports also explain things farther in this regard. Therefore, it is simply inherent.

Study finds genes on X chromosome linked to male homosexuality 

Former Love In Action Director John Smid: Homosexuality Is Not a Choice and Can?t Be Changed | Truth Wins Out 

Geneticist Dean Hamer Testifies In Hawai?i On The Biological Origins Of Homosexuality | Truth Wins Out 

And there is also another very good discussion on this site started by Howey entitled "Can Homophobia Be Cured?" Here!


----------



## GISMYS

PoliticalTorch said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Homosexuality isn't a choice anymore than being Heterosexual is a choice. One is born of those sexual orientations as many health and scientific professionals have brought out and agreed on time and time and again. There are reported differences between Straight men and Gay men having to do with their Hypothalamus gland. Other reports also explain things farther in this regard.
> 
> Study finds genes on X chromosome linked to male homosexuality
> 
> Former Love In Action Director John Smid: Homosexuality Is Not a Choice and Can?t Be Changed | Truth Wins Out
> 
> Geneticist Dean Hamer Testifies In Hawai?i On The Biological Origins Of Homosexuality | Truth Wins Out
> 
> And there is also another very good discussion on this site started by Howey entitled "Can Homophobia Be Cured?" Here!
Click to expand...


drunks say the same!!!ROFLMAO!!! DRUG USERS AND 500 LB FAT SLOBS SAY IT THEIR GENES!!!


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> people infected with human immunodeficiency virus (hiv) have a higher risk of some types of cancer than uninfected people.
> A weakened immune system caused by infection with hiv
> 
> 
> 
> 
> an overwhelming majority of homosexual men don't have hiv, and thousands of heterosexuals do, what gives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you don't know hiv aids is over 95 % a sexual pervert death cause???
Click to expand...

But the people you claim to be perverts that are infected make up a negligible bit of society.


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> PoliticalTorch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Homosexuality isn't a choice anymore than being Heterosexual is a choice. One is born of those sexual orientations as many health and scientific professionals have brought out and agreed on time and time and again. There are reported differences between Straight men and Gay men having to do with their Hypothalamus gland. Other reports also explain things farther in this regard.
> 
> Study finds genes on X chromosome linked to male homosexuality
> 
> Former Love In Action Director John Smid: Homosexuality Is Not a Choice and Can?t Be Changed | Truth Wins Out
> 
> Geneticist Dean Hamer Testifies In Hawai?i On The Biological Origins Of Homosexuality | Truth Wins Out
> 
> And there is also another very good discussion on this site started by Howey entitled "Can Homophobia Be Cured?" Here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> drunks say the same!!!ROFLMAO!!! DRUG USERS AND 500 LB FAT SLOBS SAY IT THEIR GENES!!!
Click to expand...

Those are addictions. sexual Orientation is not.

Drunks can stop drinking, homosexuals can't stop being attracted to the same sex.


----------



## GISMYS

Inevitable said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> an overwhelming majority of homosexual men don't have hiv, and thousands of heterosexuals do, what gives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you don't know hiv aids is over 95 % a sexual pervert death cause???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the people you claim to be perverts that are infected make up a negligible bit of society.
Click to expand...


OVER 40,000,000 DEAD FROM HIV AIDS IS NOT a negligible bit of society.


----------



## Inevitable

​


PoliticalTorch said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Homosexuality isn't a choice anymore than being Heterosexual is a choice. One is born of those sexual orientations as many health and scientific professionals have brought out and agreed on time and time and again. There are reported differences between Straight men and Gay men having to do with their Hypothalamus gland. Other reports also explain things farther in this regard. Therefore, it is simply inherent.
> 
> Study finds genes on X chromosome linked to male homosexuality
> 
> Former Love In Action Director John Smid: Homosexuality Is Not a Choice and Can?t Be Changed | Truth Wins Out
> 
> Geneticist Dean Hamer Testifies In Hawai?i On The Biological Origins Of Homosexuality | Truth Wins Out
> 
> And there is also another very good discussion on this site started by Howey entitled "Can Homophobia Be Cured?" Here!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links. That is some good info.


----------



## PoliticalTorch

GISMYS said:


> PoliticalTorch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Homosexuality isn't a choice anymore than being Heterosexual is a choice. One is born of those sexual orientations as many health and scientific professionals have brought out and agreed on time and time and again. There are reported differences between Straight men and Gay men having to do with their Hypothalamus gland. Other reports also explain things farther in this regard.
> 
> Study finds genes on X chromosome linked to male homosexuality
> 
> Former Love In Action Director John Smid: Homosexuality Is Not a Choice and Can?t Be Changed | Truth Wins Out
> 
> Geneticist Dean Hamer Testifies In Hawai?i On The Biological Origins Of Homosexuality | Truth Wins Out
> 
> And there is also another very good discussion on this site started by Howey entitled "Can Homophobia Be Cured?" Here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> drunks say the same!!!ROFLMAO!!! DRUG USERS AND 500 LB FAT SLOBS SAY IT THEIR GENES!!!
Click to expand...

Poor GISMYS, still in flat denial of the truth. And you know what? Homophobes also think like you because such intolerance, hate and prejudice is something you develop that challenges your normal thinking processes and that's what is truly sad.


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you don't know hiv aids is over 95 % a sexual pervert death cause???
> 
> 
> 
> But the people you claim to be perverts that are infected make up a negligible bit of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OVER 40,000,000 DEAD FROM HIV AIDS IS NOT a negligible bit of society.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt 95% of those folks were whatpeople would call perverts.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The APA is not a scientific organization, despite their claims, why do you use them as a source in the first place.
> 
> Studies on monozygotic twins have shown a correlation in sexual preference, but the fact that it is not 100% conclusively proves that it is not genetic. Since we know it is not genetic, and no actual evidence exists to prove that we are controlled by evil aliens from Planet X, I chose to believe that it is a choice. The fact that there are actually people out there who have stated that they have made that choice is also evidence that supports my opinion. The people that reject that we make that choice are, essentially, calling everyone who states they made a choice liars based on nothing other than their own prejudices.
> 
> They are the ones that have to live with their bigotry, I prefer to believe people unless the evidence contradicts them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So other than the word of a few people what evidence contradicts the "born that way" crowd?
> The fact that there are actually people out there who have stated that they were born that way" is also evidence that goes against your opinion.  Anecdotal evidence isn't very strong.
> 
> And just because it isn't genetic doesn't mean you aren't born that way. Dexterity isn't genetic.
> 
> What evidence do you have to back up your claims about the APA?
Click to expand...


Do you have some reason to think the people that say they made a choice are lying? Delusional? Something else? Maybe you think it is a coordinated conspiracy.

The problem in rejecting anecdotal evidence is that you still have to deal with the fact that people actually believe what they are saying. It might not be scientific, but I don't base my opinion in anecdotal evidence alone. I base it on the actual scientific evidence that free will exists, and that there are no genetic, or any other type of marker, including different brain development, of homosexuality that doesn't also occur in the heterosexual population. That, in my opinion, places the burden on the people who insist that we do not have a choice.

By the way, you are right that  dexterity isn't genetic, it is a learned behavior. The proof of that is that, if you lose your dominant hand, even temporarily, you can learn to use the other just as well. 

As for the APA, you should read this. 

Two Who Resigned From DSM-5 Explain Why | Psychology Today

If they reject science in their most important publication, how can you claim that the organization is scientific?


----------



## Howey

Inevitable said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to commend [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] for being so respectful and civil throughout this thread and in other threads. While others have been nasty and rude to Inevitable, he has chosen to take the high road.
> 
> Good for you.
> 
> 
> 
> I very much appreciate that.
> 
> I have no need to be disrespectful or anything but civil while questioning others beliefs.
> 
> I really appreciate you noticing.
Click to expand...


You really are an intelligent and welcome voice on this forum.


Since me, of course.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PoliticalTorch said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Homosexuality isn't a choice anymore than being Heterosexual is a choice. One is born of those sexual orientations as many health and scientific professionals have brought out and agreed on time and time and again. There are reported differences between Straight men and Gay men having to do with their Hypothalamus gland. Other reports also explain things farther in this regard. Therefore, it is simply inherent.
> 
> Study finds genes on X chromosome linked to male homosexuality
> 
> Former Love In Action Director John Smid: Homosexuality Is Not a Choice and Can?t Be Changed | Truth Wins Out
> 
> Geneticist Dean Hamer Testifies In Hawai?i On The Biological Origins Of Homosexuality | Truth Wins Out
> 
> And there is also another very good discussion on this site started by Howey entitled "Can Homophobia Be Cured?" Here!
Click to expand...


Posting debunked studies is a sure sign of ignorance.

There is no gay gene, unless, of course, you think psychologists know more about biology than actual biologists.

Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalTorch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Homosexuality isn't a choice anymore than being Heterosexual is a choice. One is born of those sexual orientations as many health and scientific professionals have brought out and agreed on time and time and again. There are reported differences between Straight men and Gay men having to do with their Hypothalamus gland. Other reports also explain things farther in this regard.
> 
> Study finds genes on X chromosome linked to male homosexuality
> 
> Former Love In Action Director John Smid: Homosexuality Is Not a Choice and Can?t Be Changed | Truth Wins Out
> 
> Geneticist Dean Hamer Testifies In Hawai?i On The Biological Origins Of Homosexuality | Truth Wins Out
> 
> And there is also another very good discussion on this site started by Howey entitled "Can Homophobia Be Cured?" Here!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drunks say the same!!!ROFLMAO!!! DRUG USERS AND 500 LB FAT SLOBS SAY IT THEIR GENES!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are addictions. sexual Orientation is not.
> 
> Drunks can stop drinking, homosexuals can't stop being attracted to the same sex.
Click to expand...


Yet some do, and others chose to be attracted to the same sex.

Unless, that is, you have actual evidence they are lying.


----------



## GISMYS

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> drunks say the same!!!ROFLMAO!!! DRUG USERS AND 500 LB FAT SLOBS SAY IT THEIR GENES!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Those are addictions. sexual Orientation is not.
> 
> Drunks can stop drinking, homosexuals can't stop being attracted to the same sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet some do, and others chose to be attracted to the same sex.
> 
> Unless, that is, you have actual evidence they are lying.
Click to expand...


PURE BS. SEXUAL PERVERSION IS DEMON INSPIRED CHOICE!!! WISE up!


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Do you have some reason to think the people that say they made a choice are lying? Delusional? Something else? Maybe you think it is a coordinated conspiracy.


This is a strawman fallacy, I never once said any of the sortout even suggested it. Also: Do you have some reason to think the people that say they were born that way are lying? Delusional? Something else? Maybe you think it is a coordinated conspiracy.



> The problem in rejecting anecdotal evidence is that you still have to deal with the fact that people actually believe what they are saying.


Another strawman fallacy. I didn't reject it I said it isn't, reliable. There is far more anecdotal evidence from people that claim they are born that way.  





> It might not be scientific, but I don't base my opinion in anecdotal evidence alone. I base it on the actual scientific evidence that free will exists, and that there are no genetic, or any other type of marker, including different brain development, of homosexuality that doesn't also occur in the heterosexual population.


 No other types of makers? Couldn't that just mean we haven't found one yet? Prove there isn't different brain development.



> That, in my opinion, places the burden on the people who insist that we do not have a choice.


You made a claim, I did not. The burden of proof is on youto support your claim as it would be on people that claim they are born that way. Shifting theburden of proof isa logical fallacy.   



> By the way, you are right that  dexterity isn't genetic, it is a learned behavior. The proof of that is that, if you lose your dominant hand, even temporarily, you can learn to use the other just as well.


You can learn to use the other one, but who taught youto use yourstrong hand?



> As for the APA, you should read this.
> 
> Two Who Resigned From DSM-5 Explain Why | Psychology Today
> 
> If they reject science in their most important publication, how can you claim that the organization is scientific?


I read the link, I sawthey were talking about personalitydisorders and they mentioned leaving something out but I am unclear what it was the claim was left out.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> drunks say the same!!!ROFLMAO!!! DRUG USERS AND 500 LB FAT SLOBS SAY IT THEIR GENES!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Those are addictions. sexual Orientation is not.
> 
> Drunks can stop drinking, homosexuals can't stop being attracted to the same sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet some do, and others chose to be attracted to the same sex.
Click to expand...

Prove it.



> Unless, that is, you have actual evidence they are lying.


I never once claimed anybody was lying, enough with the strawman fallacy.

They may or may not be lying, why should I take their word as gospel truth when others claim that they are born that way? Are the ones claiming tobe born that way lying? If so prove it. If not, it's anecdotal and therefore unreliable.


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are addictions. sexual Orientation is not.
> 
> Drunks can stop drinking, homosexuals can't stop being attracted to the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet some do, and others chose to be attracted to the same sex.
> 
> Unless, that is, you have actual evidence they are lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PURE BS. SEXUAL PERVERSION IS DEMON INSPIRED CHOICE!!! WISE up!
Click to expand...


Prove it.


----------



## Inevitable

Howey said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to commend [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] for being so respectful and civil throughout this thread and in other threads. While others have been nasty and rude to Inevitable, he has chosen to take the high road.
> 
> Good for you.
> 
> 
> 
> I very much appreciate that.
> 
> I have no need to be disrespectful or anything but civil while questioning others beliefs.
> 
> I really appreciate you noticing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are an intelligent and welcome voice on this forum.
> 
> 
> Since me, of course.
Click to expand...


Thank you sir. I see you are hated here by a few rate belligerent posters. I take this to mean that you are as well an intelligent voice onthis forum.


----------



## GISMYS

These ARE the last days, and anyone who says they aren't is either very wishful, or ignorant of Scripture. It's not referring to religion. Our society calls abortion, homosexuality, and just about every activity frowned upon by Scripture "good". They also call those of us who take the Bible seriously "evil".


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> These ARE the last days, and anyone who says they aren't is either very wishful, or ignorant of Scripture.


You are ignorantof scripture, particularly Matthew 24:36 where Jesus said that nobody knows the day. "not the anglesinheaven or the son but only the father." 

I know all you can do is insult people that disagree with you.  



> It's not referring to religion. Our society calls abortion, homosexuality, and just about every activity frowned upon by Scripture "good". They also call those of us who take the Bible seriously "evil".


Homosexuality isn't frowned upon by scripture, and I doubt you take the bible seriously.


----------



## GISMYS

Inevitable said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> These ARE the last days, and anyone who says they aren't is either very wishful, or ignorant of Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignorantof scripture, particularly Matthew 24:36 where Jesus said that nobody knows the day. "not the anglesinheaven or the son but only the father."
> 
> I know all you can do is insult people that disagree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not referring to religion. Our society calls abortion, homosexuality, and just about every activity frowned upon by Scripture "good". They also call those of us who take the Bible seriously "evil".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexuality isn't frowned upon by scripture, and I doubt you take the bible seriously.
Click to expand...


God's word condemns  Homosexuality AS AN ABOMINATION!!!


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

GISMYS said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> BOTTOMLINE= THOSE THAT CHOOSE TO LIVE IN THE ABOMINATION OF  SEXUAL PERVERSION DO SO BY THEIR OWN CHOICE. GOD'S WORD SAYS WE ARE TO RESIST EVIL AND IT WILL FLEE NOT LOVE IT!!! and you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I kind of like abominations....
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

GISMYS said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> These ARE the last days, and anyone who says they aren't is either very wishful, or ignorant of Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignorantof scripture, particularly Matthew 24:36 where Jesus said that nobody knows the day. "not the anglesinheaven or the son but only the father."
> 
> I know all you can do is insult people that disagree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not referring to religion. Our society calls abortion, homosexuality, and just about every activity frowned upon by Scripture "good". They also call those of us who take the Bible seriously "evil".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexuality isn't frowned upon by scripture, and I doubt you take the bible seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's word condemns  Homosexuality AS AN ABOMINATION!!!
Click to expand...


One of the 11 commandments, eh?


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> These ARE the last days, and anyone who says they aren't is either very wishful, or ignorant of Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignorantof scripture, particularly Matthew 24:36 where Jesus said that nobody knows the day. "not the anglesinheaven or the son but only the father."
> 
> I know all you can do is insult people that disagree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not referring to religion. Our society calls abortion, homosexuality, and just about every activity frowned upon by Scripture "good". They also call those of us who take the Bible seriously "evil".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexuality isn't frowned upon by scripture, and I doubt you take the bible seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's word condemns  Homosexuality AS AN ABOMINATION!!!
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.


----------



## GISMYS

Inevitable said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignorantof scripture, particularly Matthew 24:36 where Jesus said that nobody knows the day. "not the anglesinheaven or the son but only the father."
> 
> I know all you can do is insult people that disagree with you.
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't frowned upon by scripture, and I doubt you take the bible seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God's word condemns  Homosexuality AS AN ABOMINATION!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't.
Click to expand...


 Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10


----------



## GISMYS

GISMYS said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> God's word condemns  Homosexuality AS AN ABOMINATION!!!
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Click to expand...


 So God let them go ahead into every sort of sex sin, and do whatever they wanted toyes, vile and sinful things with each others bodies.  25 Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they prayed to the things God made, but wouldnt obey the blessed God who made these things.

26 That is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other.  27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.
Romans 1:24-27 confess and repent!!!


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> God's word condemns  Homosexuality AS AN ABOMINATION!!!
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Click to expand...

Funny, the bible was written 1800 years before the word homosexual existed.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have some reason to think the people that say they made a choice are lying? Delusional? Something else? Maybe you think it is a coordinated conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a strawman fallacy, I never once said any of the sortout even suggested it. Also: Do you have some reason to think the people that say they were born that way are lying? Delusional? Something else? Maybe you think it is a coordinated conspiracy.
Click to expand...


I never said you said it, did I? I responded to your assertion that people are "born that way." You have to deal with the people who actually say they made a choice, the same way I have to deal with the people that claim they were born that way. Unlike you, I don't dodge the issue, I have repeatedly stated that the fact that an individual does not remember making a choice is not evidence they did not make one.

So, once again, how does your belief system deal with the fact that there are actually people out there that make a claim that directly contradicts your position? What is your explanation for data that contradicts your assertions? Are you simply going to dismiss it because you prefer your beliefs to the facts?



Inevitable said:


> The problem in rejecting anecdotal evidence is that you still have to deal with the fact that people actually believe what they are saying.
> 
> 
> 
> Another strawman fallacy. I didn't reject it I said it isn't, reliable. There is far more anecdotal evidence from people that claim they are born that way.   No other types of makers? Couldn't that just mean we haven't found one yet? Prove there isn't different brain development.
Click to expand...


You keep using the term straw man wrong. 

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I never once misrepresented anything you said, I am asking you to explain evidence that contradicts your claims. Dismissing questions as a straw man argument is a childish tactic. People might think you are nice because you never respond to insults with insults, but the fact that you are responding to me by misrepresenting what I am doing proves to me that you just have a different way of insulting people.

It won't work on me, I don't invest myself emotionally, but feel free to keep pretending you are better than the people, like me, who are willing to actually get into the gutter and fight.



Inevitable said:


> You made a claim, I did not. The burden of proof is on youto support your claim as it would be on people that claim they are born that way. Shifting theburden of proof isa logical fallacy.



I did support my claim, which is why I am free to challenge yours.

You really need to learn how to debate, to bad they stopped teaching it in schools since I grew up.



Inevitable said:


> By the way, you are right that  dexterity isn't genetic, it is a learned behavior. The proof of that is that, if you lose your dominant hand, even temporarily, you can learn to use the other just as well.
> 
> 
> 
> You can learn to use the other one, but who taught youto use yourstrong hand?
Click to expand...


Who taught you to think? Some things people learn without external aid, some things people need help to learn. Dexterity isn't one of the latter.



Inevitable said:


> As for the APA, you should read this.
> 
> Two Who Resigned From DSM-5 Explain Why | Psychology Today
> 
> If they reject science in their most important publication, how can you claim that the organization is scientific?
> 
> 
> 
> I read the link, I sawthey were talking about personalitydisorders and they mentioned leaving something out but I am unclear what it was the claim was left out.
Click to expand...


Do some research, you might learn something.

for some reason the board software didn't include your question about markers, I wouldn't want you to accuse me of dodging the question.

The only accurate study of living people showed a difference in the size of INAH3 between straight and gay men.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/10/19/is-homosexuality-a-choice/

The problem is that the difference does not prove that someone is homosexual, it is entirely possible for a straight man to have a relatively small INAH3, and there is no real evidence that links that area of the brain to anything.

http://mith.umd.edu/WomensStudies/ReadingRoom/AcademicPapers/levay-critique

Since I never actually claimed that there isn't a difference in brain structure, I see no reason to respond to your challenge to prove that there is. What I claimed, and still do, is that there are no markers that exist solely in gay people. Feel free to prove otherwise.


----------



## GISMYS

Inevitable said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny, the bible was written 1800 years before the word homosexual existed.
Click to expand...


LOL!!! SO YOU NEVER HEARD OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH??? YOU HAVE A LOT TO Learn!!!


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

GISMYS said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the bible was written 1800 years before the word homosexual existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! SO YOU NEVER HEARD OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH??? YOU HAVE A LOT TO Learn!!!
Click to expand...


Wa ... wa ... wa ... .


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

GISMYS said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> These ARE the last days, and anyone who says they aren't is either very wishful, or ignorant of Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignorantof scripture, particularly Matthew 24:36 where Jesus said that nobody knows the day. "not the anglesinheaven or the son but only the father."
> 
> I know all you can do is insult people that disagree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not referring to religion. Our society calls abortion, homosexuality, and just about every activity frowned upon by Scripture "good". They also call those of us who take the Bible seriously "evil".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexuality isn't frowned upon by scripture, and I doubt you take the bible seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's word condemns  Homosexuality AS AN ABOMINATION!!!
Click to expand...


Fortunately we have a Constitution to protect citizens from such ignorance and hate.


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the bible was written 1800 years before the word homosexual existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! SO YOU NEVER HEARD OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH??? YOU HAVE A LOT TO Learn!!!
Click to expand...

Sodom and Gomorrah's sin wasn't sexual.


----------



## freedombecki

Inevitable said:


> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses. What do you think and why?



I don't know, Inevitable. But there's quite a bit of buzz about it being a choice, sometimes being made after children are born into a family. 

 If there is DNA evidence, I have not seen it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are addictions. sexual Orientation is not.
> 
> Drunks can stop drinking, homosexuals can't stop being attracted to the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet some do, and others chose to be attracted to the same sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless, that is, you have actual evidence they are lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never once claimed anybody was lying, enough with the strawman fallacy.
> 
> They may or may not be lying, why should I take their word as gospel truth when others claim that they are born that way? Are the ones claiming tobe born that way lying? If so prove it. If not, it's anecdotal and therefore unreliable.
Click to expand...


Once again, I never said you said it. I was mocking your position using reductio ad absurdum, not a straw man. Learn the difference.

Believe it or not, people have faulty memories. The funny thing is that, even though people don't remember something, no one has ever taken that as real evidence that it did not happen. Intelligent people accept that memory is faulty, and deal with it. Unintelligent people pretend that the fact that some people actually remember something that happened is irrelevant to the discussion.

As for proof.

Why I chose to be gay


----------



## freedombecki

Inevitable said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the bible was written 1800 years before the word homosexual existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! SO YOU NEVER HEARD OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH??? YOU HAVE A LOT TO Learn!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah's sin wasn't sexual.
Click to expand...


If threat of rape isn't sexual, I don't know what is.


----------



## GISMYS

freedombecki said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! SO YOU NEVER HEARD OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH??? YOU HAVE A LOT TO Learn!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah's sin wasn't sexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If threat of rape isn't sexual, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO!!! THE MEN OF SODOM SAID TO LOT,"SEND OUT THE MEN IN YOUR HOUSE THAT WE MAY HAVE SEX WITH THEM" duh!!! SOUNDS LIKE SEXUAL PERVERT PERVERSION TO ME!!!and you????


----------



## Howey

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet some do, and others chose to be attracted to the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless, that is, you have actual evidence they are lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never once claimed anybody was lying, enough with the strawman fallacy.
> 
> They may or may not be lying, why should I take their word as gospel truth when others claim that they are born that way? Are the ones claiming tobe born that way lying? If so prove it. If not, it's anecdotal and therefore unreliable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, I never said you said it. I was mocking your position using reductio ad absurdum, not a straw man. Learn the difference.
> 
> Believe it or not, people have faulty memories. The funny thing is that, even though people don't remember something, no one has ever taken that as real evidence that it did not happen. Intelligent people accept that memory is faulty, and deal with it. Unintelligent people pretend that the fact that some people actually remember something that happened is irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> As for proof.
> 
> Why I chose to be gay
Click to expand...


WTF?

You do know you just proved your assumption wrong with those, don't you?


----------



## Howey

freedombecki said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! SO YOU NEVER HEARD OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH??? YOU HAVE A LOT TO Learn!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah's sin wasn't sexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If threat of rape isn't sexual, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...



The threat of rape has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with power and control. As a woman, I think you had better realize that.


----------



## GISMYS

LIVING IN THE SEXUAL PERVERSION OF homosexuality ""IS"" a choice!!! Men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved. Romans 1:27 ==== SIN IS A CHOICE=A BAD CHOICE. THEIVES DESIRE TO STEAL SO THEY CHOOSE TO STEAL, LIARS DESIRE TO LIE SO THEY CHOSE TO BE LIARS. SIN IS A CHOICE!!! 
So God let them go ahead into every sort of sex sin, and do whatever they wanted toyes, vile and sinful things with each others bodies. 25 Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they prayed to the things God made, but wouldnt obey the blessed God who made these things.

26 That is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.Romans 1:24-27
===DO THOSE LIVING IN THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION REALLY WANT TO LIVE LIFE AS OR LOWER THAN ANIMALS AS BITCH DOGS!!! WHERE IS YOUR HONOR,PRIDE LOVE?????? MAN WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD NOT AS A BITCH dog!!!!


----------



## Howey

GISMYS said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah's sin wasn't sexual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If threat of rape isn't sexual, I don't know what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! THE MEN OF SODOM SAID TO LOT,"SEND OUT THE MEN IN YOUR HOUSE THAT WE MAY HAVE SEX WITH THEM" duh!!! SOUNDS LIKE SEXUAL PERVERT PERVERSION TO ME!!!and you????
Click to expand...



I just came to the same conclusion that others on this forum have...you are a caricature of a religious bigot...One designed (quite well) to symbolize the idiocy of your kind.

So go away. In case you haven't heard, the end is near. Shouldn't you be packing or something?


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have some reason to think the people that say they made a choice are lying? Delusional? Something else? Maybe you think it is a coordinated conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a strawman fallacy, I never once said any of the sortout even suggested it. Also: Do you have some reason to think the people that say they were born that way are lying? Delusional? Something else? Maybe you think it is a coordinated conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said you said it, did I? I responded to your assertion that people are "born that way." You have to deal with the people who actually say they made a choice, the same way I have to deal with the people that claim they were born that way. Unlike you, I don't dodge the issue, I have repeatedly stated that the fact that an individual does not remember making a choice is not evidence they did not make one.
Click to expand...

This begs the question. There is no fact that an individual made a choice and didn't remember. That is called an assumption. This isn't a dodge. Prove that somebody made a choice. I further don't have to deal with either of the groups because I haven't made a claim, that it is a choice, learned behaviors, or inborn phenomena.  



> So, once again, how does your belief system deal with the fact that there are actually people out there that make a claim that directly contradicts your position?


I don't think you understand my position. Besides there are people that claim to receive radio transmissions in their teeth. 





> What is your explanation for data that contradicts your assertions?


What assertions? 





> Are you simply going to dismiss it because you prefer your beliefs to the facts?


You haven't posted any facts.





> You keep using the term straw man wrong.


I am using it properly. See above you are fabricating assertions, belief systems and positions I have not taken.



> I never once misrepresented anything you said, I am asking you to explain evidence that contradicts your claims.


Yes you did. I never made any claims.


> Dismissing questions as a straw man argument is a childish tactic.


It's apt. 





> People might think you are nice because you never respond to insults with insults, but the fact that you are responding to me by misrepresenting what I am doing proves to me that you just have a different way of insulting people.


No sir you stated I made claims and have a position. Just out of curiosity what do you think my position is?



> It won't work on me, I don't invest myself emotionally


What isn't going to work? And good for you for not investing emotions into debate.



> but feel free to keep pretending you are better than the people, like me,


That is a rather odd projection.  





> who are willing to actually get into the gutter and fight.


So it would be better if I met childish name calling with childish name calling?





> I did support my claim


Quite poorly. You said there is no known genetic marker. That would mean it's unknown. You said there was no known neurological marker, again that is unknown. So you saying that there isn't enough evidence to prove your position wrong is proof that it is right, is a logical fallacy.



> which is why I am free to challenge yours.


I am really curious, what do you think my claim is?



> You really need to learn how to debate, to bad they stopped teaching it in schools since I grew up.


I have pointed out repeated fallacy in your argument. 



[/QUOTE]Who taught you to think? Some things people learn without external aid, some things people need help to learn. Dexterity isn't one of the latter.[/QUOTE]Proof?



Inevitable said:


> As for the APA, you should read this.
> 
> Two Who Resigned From DSM-5 Explain Why | Psychology Today
> 
> If they reject science in their most important publication, how can you claim that the organization is scientific?
> 
> 
> 
> I read the link, I sawthey were talking about personalitydisorders and they mentioned leaving something out but I am unclear what it was the claim was left out.
Click to expand...




> Do some research, you might learn something.


No, this isyour claim theburden of proof is on you.  



> for some reason the board software didn't include your question about markers, I wouldn't want you to accuse me of dodging the question.
> 
> The only accurate study of living people showed a difference in the size of INAH3 between straight and gay men.
> 
> Is Homosexuality a Choice? | Guest Blog, Scientific American Blog Network


Why does there need to be physical markers?



> The problem is that the difference does not prove that someone is homosexual, it is entirely possible for a straight man to have a relatively small INAH3, and there is no real evidence that links that area of the brain to anything.


Well this is evidence that it's unknown, not necessarily a choice.



> http://mith.umd.edu/WomensStudies/ReadingRoom/AcademicPapers/levay-critique
> 
> Since I never actually claimed that there isn't a difference in brain structure, I see no reason to respond to your challenge to prove that there is. What I claimed, and still do, is that there are no markers that exist solely in gay people. Feel free to prove otherwise.


I am not interested in proving otherwise because that isn't the caseI am advocating. What I want to know is the absence of what you call a marker, what ever that may be, allows you to jump to the conclusion that it is a choice.


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah's sin wasn't sexual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If threat of rape isn't sexual, I don't know what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! THE MEN OF SODOM SAID TO LOT,"SEND OUT THE MEN IN YOUR HOUSE THAT WE MAY HAVE SEX WITH THEM" duh!!! SOUNDS LIKE SEXUAL PERVERT PERVERSION TO ME!!!and you????
Click to expand...

Sounds like they wanted to rape them.


----------



## GreenBean

Noomi said:


> You are born that way.



That's an Opinion - Defend it - ---  what you can't ? - Then STFU


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> LIVING IN THE SEXUAL PERVERSION OF homosexuality ""IS"" a choice!!!


Prove it.


----------



## GreenBean

GISMYS said:


> These ARE the last days, and anyone who says they aren't is either very wishful, or ignorant of Scripture. It's not referring to religion. Our society calls abortion, homosexuality, and just about every activity frowned upon by Scripture "good". They also call those of us who take the Bible seriously "evil".



The Scriptures, in particular the Book of Revelations are written in such a way that they can be interpreted  to be describing the end time as almost any time in Human History - durring the waning days of the Roman Empire - Christians believed they were living in the end times.

One thing is certain however , the Bible does not condone or endorse degenerates and perverts .


----------



## Inevitable

freedombecki said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! SO YOU NEVER HEARD OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH??? YOU HAVE A LOT TO Learn!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah's sin wasn't sexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If threat of rape isn't sexual, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

It's more about violence and particularly bein inhospitable.


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LIVING IN THE SEXUAL PERVERSION OF homosexuality ""IS"" a choice!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...


Why are you allways insisting other people should have to proove their points - yet you refuse to proove yours  ?

What makes you think that your opinions are more valid than somebody elses simply because you uttered them ?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Howey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> I never once claimed anybody was lying, enough with the strawman fallacy.
> 
> They may or may not be lying, why should I take their word as gospel truth when others claim that they are born that way? Are the ones claiming tobe born that way lying? If so prove it. If not, it's anecdotal and therefore unreliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, I never said you said it. I was mocking your position using reductio ad absurdum, not a straw man. Learn the difference.
> 
> Believe it or not, people have faulty memories. The funny thing is that, even though people don't remember something, no one has ever taken that as real evidence that it did not happen. Intelligent people accept that memory is faulty, and deal with it. Unintelligent people pretend that the fact that some people actually remember something that happened is irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> As for proof.
> 
> Why I chose to be gay
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> You do know you just proved your assumption wrong with those, don't you?
Click to expand...


Did I? What assumption is that? Why do you assume that I assumed anything?


----------



## Howey

Here's an interesting observation....

After reading that Scientific American guest blog (several times), I came away thinking "Wow, that was well written! ". Then I went back and read it a couple more times. And came to the conclusion that yes, it was well written,  but it says absolutely nothing.

It's like one went to a learned person and asked; "Is being gay a learned behavior or is it genetic?" Like 99.99% of most questions, there is no definitive answer, and that's what the writer of this guest blog did so well. And left me feeling cheated. It's like I read all those words and all I got was a definitive "Maybe." in response to the original question.

So I researched the writer. Apparently, she's not a scientist. She is simply a "writer". Peddling her wares so others can learn how to convince their readers of, well, nothing. What a horrible and unsatisfying goal.

Here's her website if you want to see more: 

Marcia Malory


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignorantof scripture, particularly Matthew 24:36 where Jesus said that nobody knows the day. "not the anglesinheaven or the son but only the father."
> 
> I know all you can do is insult people that disagree with you.
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't frowned upon by scripture, and I doubt you take the bible seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God's word condemns  Homosexuality AS AN ABOMINATION!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't.
Click to expand...


Actually, it does. You would appear more intelligent if you didn't make blanket statements about things you obviously are not familiar with. That doesn't make GISMYS right, but it definitely makes you wrong.


----------



## westwall

Homosexuality is genetic.


----------



## Howey

westwall said:


> Homosexuality is genetic.



Well. There you have it!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a strawman fallacy, I never once said any of the sortout even suggested it. Also: Do you have some reason to think the people that say they were born that way are lying? Delusional? Something else? Maybe you think it is a coordinated conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said you said it, did I? I responded to your assertion that people are "born that way." You have to deal with the people who actually say they made a choice, the same way I have to deal with the people that claim they were born that way. Unlike you, I don't dodge the issue, I have repeatedly stated that the fact that an individual does not remember making a choice is not evidence they did not make one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This begs the question. There is no fact that an individual made a choice and didn't remember. That is called an assumption. This isn't a dodge. Prove that somebody made a choice. I further don't have to deal with either of the groups because I haven't made a claim, that it is a choice, learned behaviors, or inborn phenomena.
> 
> I don't think you understand my position. Besides there are people that claim to receive radio transmissions in their teeth. What assertions? You haven't posted any facts.
Click to expand...


Wow, you actually properly understand the begging the question fallacy.

I never said I wasn't assuming things, so pointing it out doesn't really change my argument. You asked for an explanation of why some people insist they are born that way if they actually made a choice, I provided the only one that makes sense to me. 

I actually did post facts, you just didn't respond to the post where I did. Since I am under no obligation to repeat myself simply because you didn't see my post, feel free to peruse the thread and respond to the post where I posted actual facts.



Inevitable said:


> I am using it properly. See above you are fabricating assertions, belief systems and positions I have not taken.



Actually, I owe you an apology, I misread one of your posts and responded according to that. That said, you are actually wrong in saying I set up a straw man. I never set up an argument you didn't make and used that to attack your position, I simply asked you a few questions based on the mistaken assumption that you had a position.

Bit feel free to keep misusing the term if it makes you feel better, most people do.

To save time I am going to delete the portion of your post where you kept replying to my mistake.



Inevitable said:


> What isn't going to work? And good for you for not investing emotions into debate.



Accusing me of fallacies I am not using isn't going to work. it really isn't your fault, straw man is the most misused fallacy next to begging the question.



Inevitable said:


> That is a rather odd projection.  So it would be better if I met childish name calling with childish name calling?



Did I say that? What I said that your tactic of calling questions a straw man is childish.



Inevitable said:


> Quite poorly. You said there is no known genetic marker. That would mean it's unknown. You said there was no known neurological marker, again that is unknown. So you saying that there isn't enough evidence to prove your position wrong is proof that it is right, is a logical fallacy.



No, what I said is that all of the markers that are cited as proof that people are born that way that are not also present aming the straight population. I actually posted articles that say that the science is inconclusive, and admitted that my position might be wrong.

Your problem here is you are assuming that I am am dogmatic in my position. You really should stop assuming you know what other people think.

Who taught you to think? Some things people learn without external aid, some things people need help to learn. Dexterity isn't one of the latter.[/QUOTE]Proof?[/quote]

Of what? That people can learn?



Inevitable said:


> Do some research, you might learn something.
> 
> 
> 
> No, this isyour claim theburden of proof is on you.  ['/quote]
> 
> I provided the evidence to back my position up. You claimed you didn't understand what I posted, and now you are demanding that I explain it. If you want to know, do the research. If you want to pretend that the fact that you understand something puts an obligation on me, feel free.
> 
> Just do not expect me to cooperate.
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for some reason the board software didn't include your question about markers, I wouldn't want you to accuse me of dodging the question.
> 
> The only accurate study of living people showed a difference in the size of INAH3 between straight and gay men.
> 
> Is Homosexuality a Choice? | Guest Blog, Scientific American Blog Network
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does there need to be physical markers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do people insist that they exist when they don't?
> 
> In other words, ask the people who are looking for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that the difference does not prove that someone is homosexual, it is entirely possible for a straight man to have a relatively small INAH3, and there is no real evidence that links that area of the brain to anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well this is evidence that it's unknown, not necessarily a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is exactly my point, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that it is not a choice, so my position is totally valid. If someone ever comes up with conclusive evidence that I am wrong, I will change my position.
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://mith.umd.edu/WomensStudies/ReadingRoom/AcademicPapers/levay-critique
> 
> Since I never actually claimed that there isn't a difference in brain structure, I see no reason to respond to your challenge to prove that there is. What I claimed, and still do, is that there are no markers that exist solely in gay people. Feel free to prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not interested in proving otherwise because that isn't the caseI am advocating. What I want to know is the absence of what you call a marker, what ever that may be, allows you to jump to the conclusion that it is a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The scientific fact that free will exists.
> 
> Fruit flies display rudimentary free will - life - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist
> 
> Any other questions? Or do you want to keep pretending that I have no facts to back up my position?
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Howey said:


> Here's an interesting observation....
> 
> After reading that Scientific American guest blog (several times), I came away thinking "Wow, that was well written! ". Then I went back and read it a couple more times. And came to the conclusion that yes, it was well written,  but it says absolutely nothing.
> 
> It's like one went to a learned person and asked; "Is being gay a learned behavior or is it genetic?" Like 99.99% of most questions, there is no definitive answer, and that's what the writer of this guest blog did so well. And left me feeling cheated. It's like I read all those words and all I got was a definitive "Maybe." in response to the original question.
> 
> So I researched the writer. Apparently, she's not a scientist. She is simply a "writer". Peddling her wares so others can learn how to convince their readers of, well, nothing. What a horrible and unsatisfying goal.
> 
> Here's her website if you want to see more:
> 
> Marcia Malory



The fact that she is a writer doesn't change the fact that no geneticist or biologist  who have studied the issue have ever said anything but "We don't know." The only people that make that claim are psychologists who are looking for answers in fields that don't have the education to understand.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> Homosexuality is genetic.



That is the one thing anyone who pays attention knows it isn't.


----------



## westwall

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is genetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the one thing anyone who pays attention knows it isn't.
Click to expand...






My sister is lesbian.  We knew she was lesbian by the time she was 10 years old.  She is a man in every respect save her genitalia and has ALWAYS been so.  She was the toughest kid in her school and regularly took on the bullies who were tormenting her friends.

She has been in a committed relationship with her wife for over 15 years.  There is no doubt that she is lesbian and has always been one.  

Likewise my daughters godmother.  She too has always been a lesbian.  She tried real hard to be "normal".  She comes from a devout Catholic family and dated guys up into college.  It was never comfortable for her.  Never.  She then was introduced to a lesbian from another college student and instantaneously she knew that it was the right thing for her.

I am sorry but you and those who think like you are simply wrong.  You allow your religious training and upbringing to bias your thinking.


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LIVING IN THE SEXUAL PERVERSION OF homosexuality ""IS"" a choice!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you allways insisting other people should have to proove their points - yet you refuse to proove yours  ?
Click to expand...

What point did I make?



> What makes you think that your opinions are more valid than somebody elses simply because you uttered them ?


Not sure when I said that.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wow, you actually properly understand the begging the question fallacy.


I am prettygood with logic.



Quantum Windbag said:


> I never said I wasn't assuming things, so pointing it out doesn't really change my argument. You asked for an explanation of why some people insist they are born that way if they actually made a choice, I provided the only one that makes sense to me.


You don't seem able to support it with facts, but if this isjust your opinionI don't believe it is necessary.



> I actually did post facts, you just didn't respond to the post where I did. Since I am under no obligation to repeat myself simply because you didn't see my post, feel free to peruse the thread and respond to the post where I posted actual facts.


Factsthat prove it's a choice? Whatis the post number?   





Quantum Windbag said:


> Actually, I owe you an apology, I misread one of your posts and responded according to that. That said, you are actually wrong in saying I set up a straw man. I never set up an argument you didn't make and used that to attack your position, I simply asked you a few questions based on the mistaken assumption that you had a position.


no need to apologize, I tend to take a very different position on thisthanmost people. And often times people automatically assume that I hold the position that is the opposite of theirs.



> Bit feel free to keep misusing the term if it makes you feel better, most people do.


I didn't misuse the term, you admit that you were mistaken.  




> Accusing me of fallacies I am not using isn't going to work.


I didn't.





> it really isn't your fault, straw man is the most misused fallacy next to begging the question.


I didn't misuse it. Youmisrepresented my position and thus my argument whether you were mistaken or not isn't really relevant.






Quantum Windbag said:


> Did I say that? What I said that your tactic of calling questions a straw man is childish.


It isn't a tactic, I used the term properly. You misunderstood my position then made one up, and than argued against it. I understand why you made the error, and it isn't your fault (completely) but it is apt.





Quantum Windbag said:


> No, what I said is that all of the markers that are cited as proof that people are born that way that are not also present aming the straight population. I actually posted articles that say that the science is inconclusive, and admitted that my position might be wrong.


The fact that they are inconclusive supports my position completely.  



> Your problem here is you are assuming that I am am dogmatic in my position. You really should stop assuming you know what other people think.


You arecorrect I did assume that and I apologize for that assumption. I do have to tip my hat to you for being open minded.




Quantum Windbag said:


> Of what? That people can learn?


That dexterity, barring loss of function of limbs, is learned.




> I provided the evidence to back my position up. You claimed you didn't understand what I posted, and now you are demanding that I explain it. If you want to know, do the research.


Have you done the research? And your evidence is inconclusive.





> Why do people insist that they exist when they don't?
> 
> In other words, ask the people who are looking for them.


They aren't the ones here making claims.   




Quantum Windbag said:


> Which is exactly my point, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that it is not a choice, so my position is totally valid. If someone ever comes up with conclusive evidence that I am wrong, I will change my position.


My position is completely validated by this. Claiming that no proof contrary to your position thus your position must be correct is logical fallacy.





> The scientific fact that free will exists.
> 
> Fruit flies display rudimentary free will - life - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist
> 
> Any other questions? Or do you want to keep pretending that I have no facts to back up my position?


None of your facts prove your position they all prove mine.


----------



## Inevitable

westwall said:


> Homosexuality is genetic.





Howey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is genetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well. There you have it!
Click to expand...


I simply must say this, there could be a million other factors that contribute to homosexuality, and I simply won't rule out genetics or a genetic predisposition, but it's hard to say with any certaintythat it either is or is not genetic.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Actually, it does.


No it doesn't.



Quantum Windbag said:


> You would appear more intelligent if you didn't make blanket statements about things you obviously are not familiar with.


You fussed at me for making assumptions about your position, but I did so without libelous comments. I know it never mentioned that homosexuality was an abomination.   



Quantum Windbag said:


> That doesn't make GISMYS right, but it definitely makes you wrong.


Prove it.


----------



## G.T.

I don't know how any straight person gets around the paradox unless they're either gay or bisexual. 

There is no way I can "choose" who my "sex organ" rises up for. It's a natural occurrence. I cannot change it merely by choice.


----------



## yidnar

Inevitable said:


> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?


 homosexuality is when one liberal has sex with another liberal.


----------



## Inevitable

yidnar said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> homosexuality is when one liberal has sex with another liberal.
Click to expand...


Not quite.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Inevitable said:


> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?



As a 42yo who's enjoyed sex with both males and females I don't believe x-sexuality as an orientation even exists. I think instead, we're just animals and are capable of having sex with whomever we desire at that moment. x-sexuality orientation is a relatively new concept. Until they were coined, people just had sex with no special delineation between gay or straight. It was such a non-issue in fact that most everyone we read about now in history books was by today's definitions bisexual. They married opposite sexed people, but for recreative or social bonding sex had such experiences with their own sex as well. No where is this more pronounced than in ancient Greek and Roman circles. 

For ease of reference, I'm bisexual. Though I prefer to think of it as simply 'sexual.' I'm not automatically attracted to every man or every woman, and sexual attraction for me requires actually knowing someone personally. If I'm simply horny I masturbate. But before I involve another person's feelings and emotions I wanna make sure we're into each other beyond simply mutual desire to have a bit of fun. But the last thing on my mind is what sex they happen to be. Both are fun for different reasons, and in point of fact a lot of cross-over fun as well. 

But we are unfortunately a label-obsessed society. I'm not sure why, but we distance ourselves throughout our experience into this or that labels. Liberal/conservative, black/white, gay/straight, rich/poor are some of the big ones. But as animals, I think in objective reality we're just human beings and what to most is a label difference between two people, is to me simply natural variation seen throughout nature. If people wanna break other people down into camps with labels that's their problem.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

If you're an example of 'blessed' no thanks.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Seems logical to me that anyone who thinks homosexuality is a choice is someone who has to consciously choose heterosexuality (in other words, an in the closet homosexual).

I duno bout the rest of you - I don't choose to be heterosexual. I was born that way.


----------



## Inevitable

Delta4Embassy said:


> If you're an example of 'blessed' no thanks.



My thoughts exactly.

I find bible beaters aren't really even worth having discussion with. They seem incapable of it. Almost to the point they suffer from Tourette's syndrome.


----------



## Inevitable

Delta4Embassy said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a 42yo who's enjoyed sex with both males and females I don't believe x-sexuality as an orientation even exists. I think instead, we're just animals and are capable of having sex with whomever we desire at that moment. x-sexuality orientation is a relatively new concept. Until they were coined, people just had sex with no special delineation between gay or straight. It was such a non-issue in fact that most everyone we read about now in history books was by today's definitions bisexual. They married opposite sexed people, but for recreative or social bonding sex had such experiences with their own sex as well. No where is this more pronounced than in ancient Greek and Roman circles.
> 
> For ease of reference, I'm bisexual. Though I prefer to think of it as simply 'sexual.' I'm not automatically attracted to every man or every woman, and sexual attraction for me requires actually knowing someone personally. If I'm simply horny I masturbate. But before I involve another person's feelings and emotions I wanna make sure we're into each other beyond simply mutual desire to have a bit of fun. But the last thing on my mind is what sex they happen to be. Both are fun for different reasons, and in point of fact a lot of cross-over fun as well.
> 
> But we are unfortunately a label-obsessed society. I'm not sure why, but we distance ourselves throughout our experience into this or that labels. Liberal/conservative, black/white, gay/straight, rich/poor are some of the big ones. But as animals, I think in objective reality we're just human beings and what to most is a label difference between two people, is to me simply natural variation seen throughout nature. If people wanna break other people down into camps with labels that's their problem.
Click to expand...


I mostly agree with you on your understanding of sexuality, though I tend to think of it as  more of a spectrum. Some people keep to one side or the other and naturally do so. Few peopleexist in the middle.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

G.T. said:


> I don't know how any straight person gets around the paradox unless they're either gay or bisexual.
> 
> There is no way I can "choose" who my "sex organ" rises up for. It's a natural occurrence. I cannot change it merely by choice.



Yep. 

If its true that homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Inevitable said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a 42yo who's enjoyed sex with both males and females I don't believe x-sexuality as an orientation even exists. I think instead, we're just animals and are capable of having sex with whomever we desire at that moment. x-sexuality orientation is a relatively new concept. Until they were coined, people just had sex with no special delineation between gay or straight. It was such a non-issue in fact that most everyone we read about now in history books was by today's definitions bisexual. They married opposite sexed people, but for recreative or social bonding sex had such experiences with their own sex as well. No where is this more pronounced than in ancient Greek and Roman circles.
> 
> For ease of reference, I'm bisexual. Though I prefer to think of it as simply 'sexual.' I'm not automatically attracted to every man or every woman, and sexual attraction for me requires actually knowing someone personally. If I'm simply horny I masturbate. But before I involve another person's feelings and emotions I wanna make sure we're into each other beyond simply mutual desire to have a bit of fun. But the last thing on my mind is what sex they happen to be. Both are fun for different reasons, and in point of fact a lot of cross-over fun as well.
> 
> But we are unfortunately a label-obsessed society. I'm not sure why, but we distance ourselves throughout our experience into this or that labels. Liberal/conservative, black/white, gay/straight, rich/poor are some of the big ones. But as animals, I think in objective reality we're just human beings and what to most is a label difference between two people, is to me simply natural variation seen throughout nature. If people wanna break other people down into camps with labels that's their problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mostly agree with you on your understanding of sexuality, though I tend to think of it as  more of a spectrum. Some people keep to one side or the other and naturally do so. Few peopleexist in the middle.
Click to expand...


Well sexual behaviours may well occur on a spectrum, but that doesn't then mean those behaviours EXIST on that spectrum. Merely they OCCUR on it. Objective reality is like things we observe among other animals. We are merely another species of primate this planet has given a shot at evolution (or conversely, even if you thump your Bible, another animal God created.) But be definition, anything other animals do is natural behaviour. Same-sex sexual behaviour in particular. Some 1500 other animals have been observed engaging in same-sex sexual behaviours but are those 'homosexual' animals? Probably not. Instead they're simply animals doing what animals do. So why should we be any different?

All the hetereo/homo/bisexual labels suggest we're special, but I don't beleive we are. We're just another primate blessed (or cursed) with advanced brains enabling us to complicate simple things.


----------



## sameech

Inevitable said:


> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?



I haven't thought much about it.  Does the origins of homosexuality have some relevance as to how we live in a society with homosexuals?


----------



## AquaAthena

Good morning all, in the *Clean Debate Zone. *


----------



## Luddly Neddite

GISMYS said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> God's word condemns  Homosexuality AS AN ABOMINATION!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY where, in your bible, does god say "homosexuality is an abomination"?
> 
> EXACTLY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leviticus 18:22==GOD SAYS===Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Click to expand...


That's what I thought.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

sameech said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't thought much about it.  Does the origins of homosexuality have some relevance as to how we live in a society with homosexuals?
Click to expand...


I think that's a good point. 

Bottom line is, if its between consenting adults, its their business and other need to MYOB.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Luddly Neddite said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignorantof scripture, particularly Matthew 24:36 where Jesus said that nobody knows the day. "not the anglesinheaven or the son but only the father."
> 
> I know all you can do is insult people that disagree with you.
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't frowned upon by scripture, and I doubt you take the bible seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God's word condemns  Homosexuality AS AN ABOMINATION!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EXACTLY where, in your bible, does god say "homosexuality is an abomination"?
> 
> EXACTLY.
Click to expand...


...Word 'homosexuality' didn't exist when the Torah was written. Thus, no Bible should say 'homosexuality' is...Anything. 

Levticus 18:22 says 'men who lie with men, as men lie with women is an abomination.' In English anyway. Of course, more importantly is asking why if you don't identify as Jewish you're using a Jewish religious text? If you claim to be Christian, but are using the BIble to read about Godly things form, you're not a very good Christian since the first Christians didn't use what became the Bible centuries later. Instead they used single Gospels in circulation at the time, but entire OT+NT Bibles wouldn't exist for at least a thousand years.


----------



## sameech

GISMYS said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus 18:22==GOD SAYS===Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10
Click to expand...


Isn't that between them and God?  What is one person's interest in another person's damnation or salvation?


----------



## GISMYS

delta4embassy said:


> luddly neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> god's word condemns  homosexuality as an abomination!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly where, in your bible, does god say "homosexuality is an abomination"?
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...word 'homosexuality' didn't exist when the torah was written. Thus, no bible should say 'homosexuality' is...anything.
> 
> Levticus 18:22 says 'men who lie with men, as men lie with women is an abomination.' in english anyway. Of course, more importantly is asking why if you don't identify as jewish you're using a jewish religious text? If you claim to be christian, but are using the bible to read about godly things form, you're not a very good christian since the first christians didn't use what became the bible centuries later. Instead they used single gospels in circulation at the time, but entire ot+nt bibles wouldn't exist for at least a thousand years.
Click to expand...


lol!!! So you don't even know what God inspired(God breathed) books make up the Holybible??????????


----------



## emilynghiem

1 John 4:18 http://biblehub.com/1_john/4-18.htm
&#8230;17 By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. 
*18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love*

Dear    [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]: Unlike Satan who seeks to divide and destroy you from achieving your calling, I SUPPORT you in your calling and also in CLEANING up your language so your  message is received. Satan would delight in letting you divide and turn your audience away from you so you fail to communicate. 

I do not rejoice in this, but seek to support you in speaking the message and spirit of the Bible in integrity, wholeness, and perfect love.

See below:
Your WORDS in Italics are Biblical and compassionate and wise.
Nothing wrong there.

But your yelling in BOLDFACE is skewed by fear of judgment.

This "BITCH-DOG" language is NOT the love of words of God.
Where in the Bible are we ever instructed to speak in this manner?

*Please Do Not Let your words, and the beautiful wisdom and truth in the Bible
become as a "tool of Satan" through fear of judgment and punishment.

(And do not go around "bearing false witness" by claiming others are
doing what you,  yourself, are doing instead -- accusing others of what you do here!)*

*Perfect Love casts out all Fear.

Please speak with LOVE and Divine GRACE, not with FEAR, and you will not have
ANY problem with Satan using God's words as any tool to divide conquer or reject truth*

Thank you GISMYS
and I pray for complete and perfect unity, agreement, correction and understanding
in Christ Jesus so that all may be one with God with no fear of rejection or division.
Amen!
================================


GISMYS said:


> _So God let them go ahead into every sort of sex sin, and do whatever they wanted to&#8212;yes, vile and sinful things with each other&#8217;s bodies._
> 25 Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they prayed to the things God made, but wouldn&#8217;t obey the blessed God who made these things.
> 
> 26 That is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God&#8217;s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other.  27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.Romans 1:24-27
> ===DO THOSE LIVING IN THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION REALLY WANT TO LIVE LIFE AS OR LOWER THAN ANIMALS AS *BITCH DOGS!!! WHERE IS YOUR HONOR,PRIDE LOVE?????? MAN WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD NOT AS A BITCH dog!!!!*





GISMYS said:


> LIVING IN THE SEXUAL PERVERSION OF homosexuality ""IS"" a choice!!! Men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved. Romans 1:27 ==== SIN IS A CHOICE=A BAD CHOICE. THEIVES DESIRE TO STEAL SO THEY CHOOSE TO STEAL, LIARS DESIRE TO LIE SO THEY CHOSE TO BE LIARS. SIN IS A CHOICE!!!
> So God let them go ahead into every sort of sex sin, and do whatever they wanted to&#8212;yes, vile and sinful things with each other&#8217;s bodies. 25 Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they prayed to the things God made, but wouldn&#8217;t obey the blessed God who made these things.
> 
> 26 That is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God&#8217;s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.Romans 1:24-27
> ===DO THOSE LIVING IN THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION REALLY WANT TO LIVE LIFE AS OR LOWER THAN ANIMALS AS *BITCH DOGS!!! WHERE IS YOUR HONOR,PRIDE LOVE?????? MAN WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD NOT AS A BITCH dog!!!!*



1 John 4:18 http://biblehub.com/1_john/4-18.htm
&#8230;17 By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. 
*18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love*


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Delta4Embassy said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a 42yo who's enjoyed sex with both males and females I don't believe x-sexuality as an orientation even exists. I think instead, we're just animals and are capable of having sex with whomever we desire at that moment. x-sexuality orientation is a relatively new concept. Until they were coined, people just had sex with no special delineation between gay or straight. It was such a non-issue in fact that most everyone we read about now in history books was by today's definitions bisexual. They married opposite sexed people, but for recreative or social bonding sex had such experiences with their own sex as well. No where is this more pronounced than in ancient Greek and Roman circles.
> 
> For ease of reference, I'm bisexual. Though I prefer to think of it as simply 'sexual.' I'm not automatically attracted to every man or every woman, and sexual attraction for me requires actually knowing someone personally. If I'm simply horny I masturbate. But before I involve another person's feelings and emotions I wanna make sure we're into each other beyond simply mutual desire to have a bit of fun. But the last thing on my mind is what sex they happen to be. Both are fun for different reasons, and in point of fact a lot of cross-over fun as well.
> 
> But we are unfortunately a label-obsessed society. I'm not sure why, but we distance ourselves throughout our experience into this or that labels. Liberal/conservative, black/white, gay/straight, rich/poor are some of the big ones. But as animals, I think in objective reality we're just human beings and what to most is a label difference between two people, is to me simply natural variation seen throughout nature. If people wanna break other people down into camps with labels that's their problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mostly agree with you on your understanding of sexuality, though I tend to think of it as  more of a spectrum. Some people keep to one side or the other and naturally do so. Few peopleexist in the middle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well sexual behaviours may well occur on a spectrum, but that doesn't then mean those behaviours EXIST on that spectrum. Merely they OCCUR on it. Objective reality is like things we observe among other animals. We are merely another species of primate this planet has given a shot at evolution (or conversely, even if you thump your Bible, another animal God created.) But be definition, anything other animals do is natural behaviour. Same-sex sexual behaviour in particular. Some 1500 other animals have been observed engaging in same-sex sexual behaviours but are those 'homosexual' animals? Probably not. Instead they're simply animals doing what animals do. So why should we be any different?
> 
> All the hetereo/homo/bisexual labels suggest we're special, but I don't beleive we are. We're just another primate blessed (or cursed) with advanced brains enabling us to complicate simple things.
Click to expand...


If one does believe in a god, a magical super being created us, then he/she also created homosexuals. 

Is that god so imperfect that he/she screwed up on such a large minority? I mean, he/she screwed up the male human so badly that we have to chop off part of his penis to fix god's mistake.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Luddly Neddite said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mostly agree with you on your understanding of sexuality, though I tend to think of it as  more of a spectrum. Some people keep to one side or the other and naturally do so. Few peopleexist in the middle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well sexual behaviours may well occur on a spectrum, but that doesn't then mean those behaviours EXIST on that spectrum. Merely they OCCUR on it. Objective reality is like things we observe among other animals. We are merely another species of primate this planet has given a shot at evolution (or conversely, even if you thump your Bible, another animal God created.) But be definition, anything other animals do is natural behaviour. Same-sex sexual behaviour in particular. Some 1500 other animals have been observed engaging in same-sex sexual behaviours but are those 'homosexual' animals? Probably not. Instead they're simply animals doing what animals do. So why should we be any different?
> 
> All the hetereo/homo/bisexual labels suggest we're special, but I don't beleive we are. We're just another primate blessed (or cursed) with advanced brains enabling us to complicate simple things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one does believe in a god, a magical super being created us, then he/she also created homosexuals.
> 
> Is that god so imperfect that he/she screwed up on such a large minority? I mean, he/she screwed up the male human so badly that we have to chop off part of his penis to fix god's mistake.
Click to expand...


Problem with the 'God also mader some homosexual' arguement is God made pigs, made them very tasty, yet forbade eating them. So it's logical God may have made some homosexual yet expect them to remain celibate. Assuming God exists for the sake of example.


----------



## Inevitable

sameech said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't thought much about it.  Does the origins of homosexuality have some relevance as to how we live in a society with homosexuals?
Click to expand...


Not really, just thought it would be an interesting topic.


----------



## emilynghiem

Delta4Embassy said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well sexual behaviours may well occur on a spectrum, but that doesn't then mean those behaviours EXIST on that spectrum. Merely they OCCUR on it. Objective reality is like things we observe among other animals. We are merely another species of primate this planet has given a shot at evolution (or conversely, even if you thump your Bible, another animal God created.) But be definition, anything other animals do is natural behaviour. Same-sex sexual behaviour in particular. Some 1500 other animals have been observed engaging in same-sex sexual behaviours but are those 'homosexual' animals? Probably not. Instead they're simply animals doing what animals do. So why should we be any different?
> 
> All the hetereo/homo/bisexual labels suggest we're special, but I don't beleive we are. We're just another primate blessed (or cursed) with advanced brains enabling us to complicate simple things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one does believe in a god, a magical super being created us, then he/she also created homosexuals.
> 
> Is that god so imperfect that he/she screwed up on such a large minority? I mean, he/she screwed up the male human so badly that we have to chop off part of his penis to fix god's mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem with the 'God also mader some homosexual' arguement is God made pigs, made them very tasty, yet forbade eating them. So it's logical God may have made some homosexual yet expect them to remain celibate. Assuming God exists for the sake of example.
Click to expand...


Thank you  [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]
Yes, you are perceptive to be open to this understanding that SOME are for different reasons --
not all the same, as those assume who have no ability to discern the difference, as most of us don't.

Matthew 19:12
12"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb;
and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men;
*and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.*

There was a Catholic priest who remained celibate and explained his calling this way.
Another Christian theology grad student who, after praying and not receiving any healing or change came to an understanding that God made her this way -- which she used in her ministry to teach others "the difference" and she helped many other fellow Christians to understand that some are NOT unnaturally made by lust, and are just "born that way for a spiritual reason." SOME are this way in life for spiritual reasons; it may be to help address wrongs in an unconditional way.

If we can learn, accept and forgive that "only God" can discern the difference between which of these three cases is which,
that is another way to let go of judgment, forgive and trust in God, not our own understanding in trying to judge people when we don't know God's full plan or purpose for each soul.

The sins and wrongs can still be wrong, but it is NOT our "place to judge" because God has his reasons.
If we trust to leave this between them and God, then God will still work things out and does not "depend on us to pass judgment for him."

The only thing wrong I see here, is not teaching forgiveness and healing, but promoting rejection of it.
So yes, if people promoting homosexuality as natural or those who condemn it as unnatural
BOTH missing the point about "forgiveness and healing," they are BOTH causing harm by denying this gift to others.
  [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] complains that I am a stumbling block, but promoting "unforgiveness" that blocks healing and destroys relations,
is probably the worst stumbling block. Passing the buck of unforgiveness to other people to create bigger spiritual debts and damages.

Unconditional love and forgiveness can heal all wounds and correct all wrongs.
But we must ask. And we cannot ask in unity if we are divided by fear of rejection and judgment.
We need to heal our relations first, and then these other issues can be resolved in that spirit.


----------



## sameech

emilynghiem said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that between them and God?  What is one person's interest in another person's damnation or salvation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To learn forgiveness that such persons may also find salvation.
Click to expand...


The first part does not make sense.  Only God can forgive them for salvation purposes, so it still is between them and God.  What is my interest in whether or not someone else is saved?


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> to learn forgiveness that such persons may also find salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the first part does not make sense.  Only god can forgive them for salvation purposes, so it still is between them and god.  What is my interest in whether or not someone else is saved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> believers are to give the lost the word of god and warn them of the cost of living in sin!!!
Click to expand...

You aren't speaking to the lost, you aren't speaking to anybody you are just ranting and it isn't on topic.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Ultimately this all boils down to homosexuality's only a sin if you're believe in a given religion  which says that. But all religions came from some previous version, and not all of them say it's sinful or wrong. And the ones that do aren't the original religious systems, not even Judaism. Oldest extant religion (still around and practiced) is Hinduism and it doesn't have a problem with homosexuality.

Homosexuality and Hinduism - ReligionFacts

But even if we take the oldest estimate for Hindum at about 10,000 years, that's no where even close to the oldest known religions which so far are dated to about 65,000 years. So putting all your emotional, intellectual, and spiritual faith in a system just a couple thousand years old reveals a complete ignorance of the history of religions.

But for religion, no one says homosexuality is bad, wrong, or naughty. So objectively, if someone does, F* 'em.


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> believers are to give the lost the word of god and warn them of the cost of living in sin!!!
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't speaking to the lost, you aren't speaking to anybody you are just ranting and it isn't on topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THOSE LIVING IN SEXUAL PERVERSION ARE LOST
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the topic.

Please go wax religious in the religion forum.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi   [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION]
What about the people who were not, 
but whose sexual behavior resulted from rape or repeated abuse?



Noomi said:


> You are born that way.



You don't have to believe that such cases exist.
But to "deny the possibility" makes you lose credibility
with people who have experienced and reported this, themselves,
or have friends who suffered it and went through therapy to heal afterwards.

If you leave these cases out, you sound as close minded to truth
as those who INSIST that "all cases are UNNATURAL"
which excludes the many people who report otherwise.

Why not acknowledge "it is possible" for those other cases of "unnatural abuse" to exist,
where people claim to have returned to their original orientation
after healing from abuse that affected their behavior?
Both homosexual and heterosexual people have benefited from
spiritual healing and forgiveness therapy to recovery from abuse, so it isn't just targeting gays.

What is wrong with acknowledging those cases?
Where people of either orientation healed from sexual abuse that wasn't natural?

You can still argue that some are BORN and not caused by abuse.
It does not hurt your argument or beliefs, but helps them by not discrediting you
as ignorant and "deliberately excluding" other cases where people experienced unnatural abuse.

What does it hurt to be open to DIFFERENT cases as all being possible?

You seem like a deeply caring person, with sincere convictions,
and I commend you for speaking out in defense of others.

Please reconsider how to be more inclusive, since that is the key point we are trying to promote!
All people I've met concerned about this issue want their experiences and information to be INCLUDED.
Why can't we see that these cases are different for each person, and do not have to contradict each other?
Why can't they all be happening at once, and nobody is wrong about the parts we have seen and understand are true?


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> Hi [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION]
> What about the people who were not,
> but whose sexual behavior resulted from rape or repeated abuse?
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are born that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to believe that such cases exist.
> But to "deny the possibility" makes you lose credibility
> with people who have experienced and reported this, themselves,
> or have friends who suffered it and went through therapy to heal afterwards.
> 
> If you leave these cases out, you sound as close minded to truth
> as those who INSIST that "all cases are UNNATURAL"
> which excludes the many people who report otherwise.
> 
> Why not acknowledge "it is possible" for those other cases to exist,
> where people claim to have returned to their original orientation
> after healing from abuse that affected their behavior?
> Both homosexual and heterosexual people have benefited from
> spiritual healing and forgiveness therapy to recovery from abuse.
> 
> What is wrong with acknowledging those cases?
> 
> You can still argue that some are BORN and not caused by abuse.
> It does not hurt your argument or beliefs, but helps them by not discrediting you
> as ignorant and "deliberately excluding" other cases where people experienced unnatural abuse.
> 
> What does it hurt to be open to DIFFERENT cases as all being possible?
Click to expand...


prove they are possible.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Who we decide to be sexual with is a choice. Who we're attracted to is the result of conditioning. We could therefore condition somoene to be attracted to same-sex sexes, or they could be traumatized into it as with rape or childhood abuse. 

American culture is heterosexualized. It's from different color clothese and wristbands in the hospital, bliue for boys, pink for girls onwards. Gender roles like that condition us boys are one thing, girls are another and because we're different, we're supposed tounite. Doesn't help that unfortunately nature seems to conspire against us too with (so far...) only males with females can make babies without technological assistance, nor that opposite poles of a magnet attract each other but same-poles repel.  (Given that fact I'm always surprised no one against homosexuality mentions it, "See! Even nature's against it!")


----------



## AquaAthena

_This above all: To thine own-self, be true. _

I think Shakespeare had it right.  

Is this discussion turning into a Bible discussion? Is this what the OP had in mind?


----------



## emilynghiem

sameech said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that between them and God?  What is one person's interest in another person's damnation or salvation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To learn forgiveness that such persons may also find salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first part does not make sense.  Only God can forgive them for salvation purposes, so it still is between them and God.  What is my interest in whether or not someone else is saved?
Click to expand...


1. I am talking about the forgiveness of the person who is taking interest in another.
THAT person needs to understand forgiveness, instead of worrying about "another person's sin" -- 
this helps "learning by experience" how to forgive instead of project onto others.
(And to correct others by correcting oneself at the same time so any changes are mutual.)

2. because we receive forgiveness as we forgive others,
then "learning to put your interest in others" IN PERSPECTIVE
is part of your process of "working through your salvation with fear and trembling"

For example, if you, me or GISMYS cannot forgive the "sins of others" that we are focused on, 
this process is REALLY about "you, me or GISMYS" learning forgiveness and not judging others outside of ourselves
We think it's about their salvation, but it's really about us coming to peace with our own through MUTUAL forgiveness and correction.

Does this make sense?
The person projecting judgment is learning about forgiveness for their own sake!
(or about how to communicate effectively so all people benefit from corrections shared between us)

3. See Matthew 19:12
Since we cannot always know which cases are natural, unnatural or for some other spiritual reason, this can also be a "lesson in letting go and letting God"

So your point about "this being between that person and God"
IS the lesson and purpose.

But the person "taking interest or projecting judgment" cannot always
understand this except "by experience." So the process of "projecting on others"
is part of their learning experience, to learn what does or does not achieve anything.

I think in the end, we end up practicing "removing the beam
from our own eyes while pointing out the splinter in our neighbors'
which is another lesson we learn from projecting on and correcting each other!

We learn the process is MUTUAL and all people end up influencing change for the better in each other so we all benefit.
Taking interest in our neighbor ends up benefiting our own knowledge and understanding of the process.


----------



## emilynghiem

AquaAthena said:


> _This above all: To thine own-self, be true. _
> 
> I think Shakespeare had it right.
> 
> Is this discussion turning into a Bible discussion? Is this what the OP had in mind?



Some ppl communicate that way as their primary language.
I could help GISMY interpret and translate into secular language
if he weren't so afraid I am some tool of Satan!

(The other verses I posted are also to help secular speakers
cite these sources when answering others who only understand using Bible terms.)


----------



## Inevitable

AquaAthena said:


> _This above all: To thine own-self, be true. _
> 
> I think Shakespeare had it right.
> 
> Is this discussion turning into a Bible discussion? Is this what the OP had in mind?


No, I wrote the op and this isn't supposed to be a bible chat.


----------



## sameech

Inevitable said:


> This is off topic.



how so?  the thread is about judging the root of homosexuality.  questioning whether or not one should be making such judgments seems fairly on-topic to me at least.


----------



## westwall

*The OP is not about Bible Study.  If you wish to start your own OP in Religion have at it.  Keep the religious arguments out of this one.*


----------



## Inevitable

So sad all that drek and only one sentence with some mild argument value, extremely mild.





GreenBean said:


> Gays make a consious choice based on subconsious factors


Prove it.

See I told you it was mild.

I guess you can't really come up with valid points when you are so busy attempting to insult me.


----------



## emilynghiem

sameech said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is off topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how so?  the thread is about judging the root of homosexuality.  questioning whether or not one should be making such judgments seems fairly on-topic to me at least.
Click to expand...


I can see where the OP was not clear, but left it open to any personal response:


			
				OP said:
			
		

> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses. *What do you think and why?*



If some people explain "why" and "what they think" using the Bible, to them, they are answering the question. That is what they think and why.

Inevitable made it clear after that this is not what was wanted or intended.

It is clear from Inevitable replies that the real point was more scientific proof or
analysis of what constitutes a PATHOLOGY under the "APA" as "known causes"
like a "physical disease."

To that issue, I would bring up researched observations and case studies of
PAST LIFE karmic influences (or in Christianity, studies on GENERATIONAL healing
of past conditions "passed down" and experienced by other people).

This field is NOT fully researched and confirmed, but therapists have been pushing for this area to be taken seriously for formal medical studies.

It is interesting to me there are both BUDDHIST approaches using "past life regression" and CHRISTIAN spiritual healing, through deliverance prayer, that both address SPIRITUAL ROOTS of the phobias, addictions, or other physical/mental conditions or DISEASES which many clients/subjects have been documented as HEALING after therapy.

My understanding of this process as natural, is that the mind and body are designed to heal themselves; but when the spirit mind or body has an obstruction to the flow of life energy, then the healing and health is blocked.

So the common factor in these recovery methods is IDENTIFYING the root conflict (which Buddhists call karma or Christians call generational sins or curses) and praying/agreeing to remove that blockage by forgiveness or letting go, so that HEALING is received instead.

 [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION], some research has been done
You can cite in general the studies that show that "Unforgiveness" is related or correlated with over 80% of human illnesses.

If you want to see statistical research, compare all cases of people healing or not healing, and document the reports of forgiveness and unforgiveness.

The people who heal can tell you exactly which memories or concepts they had to forgive that otherwise blocked them and kept them sick or stuck.

So you could do further research to show that UNFORGIVENESS
is the cause of most human disease, in spirit mind body and relations, including social ills.

If it isn't the direct cause (like not forgiving parents as a teen, so you smoke and get cancer later) it can be the indirect cause of not healing normally. 

Such as NOT forgiving Christians so you don't get the help you need to heal of religious abuses, and your body gets sick and you lose your health from the suppressed stress.


----------



## PixieStix

Much of it is indoctrination. The internet has been key

If you feel funny or strange at age 12 to 16. It must be because you are gay. That has been The argument by some. Oh the drama.

Like I said. The internet, the emo culture and political correctness is key to propagating these ideals


----------



## emilynghiem

[MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION] can you help research any cases of people who healed of homosexuality
because they traced it to things they didn't FORGIVE and choices they MADE; and 
after they went back and FORGAVE those decisions, then they healed and changed?

Can a pattern of "forgiveness/unforgiveness" be shown to be a recurring theme
in cases where people healed of sexual behavior/abuse/addiction
whether this was homosexual or heterosexual, to show the common factors involved?

Note: Some cases involve actions and influences in this lifetime. I am also interested in cases where people report karma carried over from past generations. Can you help find research that would BACK UP what you are saying about conscious or unconscious choices?

Whether or not we choose these life influencing events,
we can choose later to FORGIVE THEM in order to receive healing.
Not all people change when they heal, but enough people to do to report a higher than average success rate.

Can you help find research that would meet Inevitable's standards of proof medically?



GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that people choose their mental illness you freakin nitwit.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol yes you did. You even said it below I will point it out. There is no need to stop being a lady about it
> 
> 
> Well if it is a mental illness statement belowis in contradiction. No therapy or medicine exists, and there is no pathology withhomosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, being a faggot is a choice.....a pathetic choice.....but still a choice.  ..
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is a choice it isn't, a mental disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a rather silly statement little fella  - a choice is not always a consouis choice, there are a myriad of subconsious factors involved .  Your knowledge of psychology is extremely limited it would appear .
> 
> Serial Killers make a consious choice based on subconsious factors - they are damaged goods psychologically-
> 
> Gays make a consious choice based on subconsious factors - they are damaged goods psychologically-
> 
> Are you damaged Goods ?  It would appear so -
> 
> Can you control your Dementia / psychosis/ *dysphoria* ?  - Yes , in mnay cases , but it requires professional help known as Reperative Therapy
> 
> Homosexual Serial Killers
Click to expand...


----------



## GreenBean

emilynghiem said:


> [MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION] can you help research any cases of people who healed of homosexuality
> because they traced it to things they didn't FORGIVE and choices they MADE; and
> after they went back and FORGAVE those decisions, then they healed and changed?
> 
> Can a pattern of "forgiveness/unforgiveness" be shown to be a recurring theme
> in cases where people healed of sexual behavior/abuse/addiction
> whether this was homosexual or heterosexual, to show the common factors involved?
> 
> Note: Some cases involve actions and influences in this lifetime. I am also interested in cases where people report karma carried over from past generations. Can you help find research that would BACK UP what you are saying about conscious or unconscious choices?
> 
> Whether or not we choose these life influencing events,
> we can choose later to FORGIVE THEM in order to receive healing.
> Not all people change when they heal, but enough people to do to report a higher than average success rate.
> 
> Can you help find research that would meet Inevitable's standards of proof medically?
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol yes you did. You even said it below I will point it out. There is no need to stop being a lady about it
> 
> 
> Well if it is a mental illness statement belowis in contradiction. No therapy or medicine exists, and there is no pathology withhomosexuality.
> 
> If it is a choice it isn't, a mental disorder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a rather silly statement little fella  - a choice is not always a consouis choice, there are a myriad of subconsious factors involved .  Your knowledge of psychology is extremely limited it would appear .
> 
> Serial Killers make a consious choice based on subconsious factors - they are damaged goods psychologically-
> 
> Gays make a consious choice based on subconsious factors - they are damaged goods psychologically-
> 
> Are you damaged Goods ?  It would appear so -
> 
> Can you control your Dementia / psychosis/ *dysphoria* ?  - Yes , in mnay cases , but it requires professional help known as Reperative Therapy
> 
> Homosexual Serial Killers
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Karma is a powerful thing - I'm a strong believer - but it is faith based not science based - at least not yet anyway.  Although I share your moral sense of duty I try to shy away from 
faith based arguments on the net - that's a bit more personal as oppossed to the down and dirty internet debacles.

I still have your email address and will send anything I come across your way - but probably not right away.


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> So sad all that drek and only one sentence with some mild argument value, extremely mild.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays make a consious choice based on subconsious factors
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> See I told you it was mild.
> 
> I guess you can't really come up with valid points when you are so busy attempting to insult me.
Click to expand...


Scroll back - [NO SILLY NOT WITH YOUR JOY STICK !!!!]  - ONce again you are engaging in the Circle Jerk round house logic .


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is genetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the one thing anyone who pays attention knows it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My sister is lesbian.  We knew she was lesbian by the time she was 10 years old.  She is a man in every respect save her genitalia and has ALWAYS been so.  She was the toughest kid in her school and regularly took on the bullies who were tormenting her friends.
> 
> She has been in a committed relationship with her wife for over 15 years.  There is no doubt that she is lesbian and has always been one.
> 
> Likewise my daughters godmother.  She too has always been a lesbian.  She tried real hard to be "normal".  She comes from a devout Catholic family and dated guys up into college.  It was never comfortable for her.  Never.  She then was introduced to a lesbian from another college student and instantaneously she knew that it was the right thing for her.
> 
> I am sorry but you and those who think like you are simply wrong.  You allow your religious training and upbringing to bias your thinking.
Click to expand...


Good for her.

The science is actually irrefutable, being gay is not genetic. I actually have peer reviewed papers to back me up on that statement all you have is empty rhetoric and a false belief that you understand science. Feel free to look read through my posts and find the link.

Never mind, I know you don't actually care about the facts, so I will provide the link for you.

If you will note the paper actually contradicts my position that you are not born gay, so you can't accuse me of posting biased links.



> Male and female homosexuality have substantial prevalence in humans.  Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has substantial  heritability in both sexes, yet concordance between identical twins is  low and molecular studies have failed to find associated DNA markers.  This paradoxical pattern calls for an explanation. We use published data  on fetal androgen signaling and gene regulation via nongenetic changes  in DNA packaging (epigenetics) to develop a new model for homosexuality.



Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you actually properly understand the begging the question fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> I am prettygood with logic.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I wasn't assuming things, so pointing it out doesn't really change my argument. You asked for an explanation of why some people insist they are born that way if they actually made a choice, I provided the only one that makes sense to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't seem able to support it with facts, but if this isjust your opinionI don't believe it is necessary.
> 
> Factsthat prove it's a choice? Whatis the post number?
> 
> 
> 
> no need to apologize, I tend to take a very different position on thisthanmost people. And often times people automatically assume that I hold the position that is the opposite of theirs.
> 
> I didn't misuse the term, you admit that you were mistaken.
> 
> 
> I didn't.I didn't misuse it. Youmisrepresented my position and thus my argument whether you were mistaken or not isn't really relevant.
> 
> It isn't a tactic, I used the term properly. You misunderstood my  position then made one up, and than argued against it. I understand why  you made the error, and it isn't your fault (completely) but it is apt.
Click to expand...


Except I never actually misrepresented your position, I just asked a few questions that need to be answered. Asking questions is not a straw man. If you were actually good as you think you are at logic you would know that. If you want, I can provide you numerous examples of straw man arguments so that you understand the difference. Your insistence that it was a straw man after I admitted I made a mistake is the simplest proof that you do not understand the term. In order for it to be a straw man argument I have to intentionally set up a false argument, and then refute it, and then claim the fact that I refuted an argument you did not make is proof that I am right.



Inevitable said:


> The fact that they are inconclusive supports my position completely.



What position is that?



Inevitable said:


> You arecorrect I did assume that and I apologize for that assumption. I do have to tip my hat to you for being open minded.



See, we both made a mistake in this discussion.



Inevitable said:


> That dexterity, barring loss of function of limbs, is learned.



There isn't any, just like there isn't any that it is inherited. 

On the other hand, if you aver watch a really good handball player they have learned to use both hands equally well while playing, even if they aren't ambidextrous.



Inevitable said:


> Have you done the research? And your evidence is inconclusive.



It is irrelevant to this discussion whether I did the research, but the answer is yes.

That said, why is my evidence inconclusive? Two editors of the DSM stated publicly that the editors developing the manual where intentionally ignoring evidence that contradicts the diagnostic guidelines they were setting out as the standard for the entire profession. If you think that is inconclusive evidence I would suggest that you are being dogmatic in your assumptions.



Inevitable said:


> They aren't the ones here making claims.



Have you read the thread?



Inevitable said:


> My position is completely validated by this. Claiming that no proof contrary to your position thus your position must be correct is logical fallacy.



There you go again. 

I am not claiming that thre is no evidence that is contrary to my position. In fact, I actually posted a link to a paper that contradicts my position that it is a choice.

You really need to stop projecting your arguments on other people.



Inevitable said:


> None of your facts prove your position they all prove mine.



Interesting.

How does the fact that free will exists validate your position, whatever it is? Are you just declaring victory because you refuse to actually take a position?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it does.
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would appear more intelligent if you didn't make blanket statements about things you obviously are not familiar with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fussed at me for making assumptions about your position, but I did so without libelous comments. I know it never mentioned that homosexuality was an abomination.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make GISMYS right, but it definitely makes you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...


Why? Why don't you prove your statement that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality? After all, you made the claim, and you insisted to me that making a claim place the burden on the person who made it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Seems logical to me that anyone who thinks homosexuality is a choice is someone who has to consciously choose heterosexuality (in other words, an in the closet homosexual).
> 
> I duno bout the rest of you - I don't choose to be heterosexual. I was born that way.



Anything that seems logical to you is suspect, especially when you use that logic to attack people based on their sexual preferences.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Delta4Embassy said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a 42yo who's enjoyed sex with both males and females I don't believe x-sexuality as an orientation even exists. I think instead, we're just animals and are capable of having sex with whomever we desire at that moment. x-sexuality orientation is a relatively new concept. Until they were coined, people just had sex with no special delineation between gay or straight. It was such a non-issue in fact that most everyone we read about now in history books was by today's definitions bisexual. They married opposite sexed people, but for recreative or social bonding sex had such experiences with their own sex as well. No where is this more pronounced than in ancient Greek and Roman circles.
> 
> For ease of reference, I'm bisexual. Though I prefer to think of it as simply 'sexual.' I'm not automatically attracted to every man or every woman, and sexual attraction for me requires actually knowing someone personally. If I'm simply horny I masturbate. But before I involve another person's feelings and emotions I wanna make sure we're into each other beyond simply mutual desire to have a bit of fun. But the last thing on my mind is what sex they happen to be. Both are fun for different reasons, and in point of fact a lot of cross-over fun as well.
> 
> But we are unfortunately a label-obsessed society. I'm not sure why, but we distance ourselves throughout our experience into this or that labels. Liberal/conservative, black/white, gay/straight, rich/poor are some of the big ones. But as animals, I think in objective reality we're just human beings and what to most is a label difference between two people, is to me simply natural variation seen throughout nature. If people wanna break other people down into camps with labels that's their problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mostly agree with you on your understanding of sexuality, though I tend to think of it as  more of a spectrum. Some people keep to one side or the other and naturally do so. Few peopleexist in the middle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well sexual behaviours may well occur on a spectrum, but that doesn't then mean those behaviours EXIST on that spectrum. Merely they OCCUR on it. Objective reality is like things we observe among other animals. We are merely another species of primate this planet has given a shot at evolution (or conversely, even if you thump your Bible, another animal God created.) But be definition, anything other animals do is natural behaviour. Same-sex sexual behaviour in particular. Some 1500 other animals have been observed engaging in same-sex sexual behaviours but are those 'homosexual' animals? Probably not. Instead they're simply animals doing what animals do. So why should we be any different?
> 
> All the hetereo/homo/bisexual labels suggest we're special, but I don't beleive we are. We're just another primate blessed (or cursed) with advanced brains enabling us to complicate simple things.
Click to expand...


Damn, I completely agree with you right now. Never thought I would see the day I pos repped you for an actual thoughtful post.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Delta4Embassy said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> God's word condemns  Homosexuality AS AN ABOMINATION!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY where, in your bible, does god say "homosexuality is an abomination"?
> 
> EXACTLY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...Word 'homosexuality' didn't exist when the Torah was written. Thus, no Bible should say 'homosexuality' is...Anything.
> 
> Levticus 18:22 says 'men who lie with men, as men lie with women is an abomination.' In English anyway. Of course, more importantly is asking why if you don't identify as Jewish you're using a Jewish religious text? If you claim to be Christian, but are using the BIble to read about Godly things form, you're not a very good Christian since the first Christians didn't use what became the Bible centuries later. Instead they used single Gospels in circulation at the time, but entire OT+NT Bibles wouldn't exist for at least a thousand years.
Click to expand...


Are you seriously going to base your argument on the fact that English didn't exist when the Bible was written?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Luddly Neddite said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mostly agree with you on your understanding of sexuality, though I tend to think of it as  more of a spectrum. Some people keep to one side or the other and naturally do so. Few peopleexist in the middle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well sexual behaviours may well occur on a spectrum, but that doesn't then mean those behaviours EXIST on that spectrum. Merely they OCCUR on it. Objective reality is like things we observe among other animals. We are merely another species of primate this planet has given a shot at evolution (or conversely, even if you thump your Bible, another animal God created.) But be definition, anything other animals do is natural behaviour. Same-sex sexual behaviour in particular. Some 1500 other animals have been observed engaging in same-sex sexual behaviours but are those 'homosexual' animals? Probably not. Instead they're simply animals doing what animals do. So why should we be any different?
> 
> All the hetereo/homo/bisexual labels suggest we're special, but I don't beleive we are. We're just another primate blessed (or cursed) with advanced brains enabling us to complicate simple things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one does believe in a god, a magical super being created us, then he/she also created homosexuals.
> 
> Is that god so imperfect that he/she screwed up on such a large minority? I mean, he/she screwed up the male human so badly that we have to chop off part of his penis to fix god's mistake.
Click to expand...


What point do you think you are making here?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> *The OP is not about Bible Study.  If you wish to start your own OP in Religion have at it.  Keep the religious arguments out of this one.*



Amen.


----------



## Katzndogz

Luddly Neddite said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how any straight person gets around the paradox unless they're either gay or bisexual.
> 
> There is no way I can "choose" who my "sex organ" rises up for. It's a natural occurrence. I cannot change it merely by choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> If its true that homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality.
Click to expand...


Homosexuality is not a choice.  Acting on homosexual urges is a choice just as acting on heterosexual urges is a choice.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Zmrzlina said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> IS THIS SCRIPTURE HARD FOR ANYONE HERE TO UNDERSTAND????? Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite easy to understand, I just don't believe it.
Click to expand...


Yep, you nailed it.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Inevitable said:


> So sad all that drek and only one sentence with some mild argument value, extremely mild.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays make a consious choice based on subconsious factors
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> See I told you it was mild.
> 
> I guess you can't really come up with valid points when you are so busy attempting to insult me.
Click to expand...


Ya think?

That line made me chuckle. 

Its called mental masturbation.


----------



## emilynghiem

Katzndogz said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how any straight person gets around the paradox unless they're either gay or bisexual.
> 
> There is no way I can "choose" who my "sex organ" rises up for. It's a natural occurrence. I cannot change it merely by choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> If its true that homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not a choice.  Acting on homosexual urges is a choice just as acting on heterosexual urges is a choice.
Click to expand...


So is Choosing to ask and receive help with forgiveness and healing,
so any unnatural conditions can change. This causes no harm if things are natural.
So there is nothing to fear. It's a matter of choosing and agreeing to forgive
any differences, misunderstanding or fears we had from the past.


----------



## GreenBean

emilynghiem said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> If its true that homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not a choice.  Acting on homosexual urges is a choice just as acting on heterosexual urges is a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is Choosing to ask and receive help with forgiveness and healing,
> so any unnatural conditions can change. This causes no harm if things are natural.
> So there is nothing to fear. It's a matter of choosing and agreeing to forgive
> any differences, misunderstanding or fears we had from the past.
Click to expand...




> It's a matter of choosing and agreeing to forgive
> any differences, misunderstanding or *fears we had from the past.*



The first step is in understanding where where the fears of the past are derived from , in the case of many homosexuals the fear from the past is *childhood trauma * which set into motion an extremely complex chain of events within their developing psyche that lead to their current state of dementia .


----------



## Luddly Neddite

westwall said:


> *The OP is not about Bible Study.  If you wish to start your own OP in Religion have at it.  Keep the religious arguments out of this one.*



Thanks.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> So sad all that drek and only one sentence with some mild argument value, extremely mild.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays make a consious choice based on subconsious factors
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> See I told you it was mild.
> 
> I guess you can't really come up with valid points when you are so busy attempting to insult me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well unfortunately I do not have a degree in elementary Education, so trying to explain grown up topics to the Milk and cookie crowd is not my field of expertiise .  Perhaps if you can't understand grown up conversations then you might consider sitting back , playing with your joy stick, and blowing monsters and zombies up on your screen. Be sure to clean the mess up when you're done - you might piss off your mommy.
Click to expand...




You could learn a lot from Inevitable.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

GreenBean said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not a choice.  Acting on homosexual urges is a choice just as acting on heterosexual urges is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is Choosing to ask and receive help with forgiveness and healing,
> so any unnatural conditions can change. This causes no harm if things are natural.
> So there is nothing to fear. It's a matter of choosing and agreeing to forgive
> any differences, misunderstanding or fears we had from the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a matter of choosing and agreeing to forgive
> any differences, misunderstanding or *fears we had from the past.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first step is in understanding where where the fears of the past are derived from , in the case of many homosexuals the fear from the past is *childhood trauma * which set into motion an extremely complex chain of events within their developing psyche that lead to their current state of dementia .
Click to expand...


Its not just that your posts are full of really low down and nasty insults, they are also just plain ignorant.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

GISMYS said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite easy to understand, I just don't believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you nailed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THEN YOUR SINS GROW AS NOW YOUR OWN POSTS SAY YOU DENY THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD WHICH IS ONE OF THE GREATEST SINS!!! Beware!!!
Click to expand...


Please refer to this post (#166). Thank you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-something-simply-inherent-5.html#post9313833


----------



## Luddly Neddite

GreenBean said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first step is in understanding where where the fears of the past are derived from , in the case of many homosexuals the fear from the past is *childhood trauma * which set into motion an extremely complex chain of events within their developing psyche that lead to their current state of dementia .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not just that your posts are full of really low down and nasty insults, they are also just plain ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I like dishing out low down and nasty insults,* they sometimes snap people out of their stupors and from time to time - perhaps they'll even take a moment to  reflect on their own demented little worlds.  Please feel free to hurl some back at me - I dish it out and I take it in  [Don't get no funny ideas about "taking it in - Capice ?!  ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are also just plain ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you mean ignorant as in mean and nasty - that was covered above . If you mean ignorant as in uninformed  - try refuting one of my assertions - go ahead I dare you - *I double dog dare you* :>
Click to expand...


This is called the Clean Debate Zone for a reason. 

More than that however is that words have consequences. Saying homosexuals are mentally ill, demented, damaged goods is the kind of thing that drives very young homosexuals to suicide. Its one thing to disagree or have a strong opinion but  won't you please take into consideration that there may well be people reading this who are struggling with their identity. 

Don't we have some degree of responsibility to those people? How would we feel if we knew our words caused a young homosexual to kill him or herself?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Luddly Neddite said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not just that your posts are full of really low down and nasty insults, they are also just plain ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I like dishing out low down and nasty insults,* they sometimes snap people out of their stupors and from time to time - perhaps they'll even take a moment to  reflect on their own demented little worlds.  Please feel free to hurl some back at me - I dish it out and I take it in  [Don't get no funny ideas about "taking it in - Capice ?!  ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are also just plain ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you mean ignorant as in mean and nasty - that was covered above . If you mean ignorant as in uninformed  - try refuting one of my assertions - go ahead I dare you - *I double dog dare you* :>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is called the Clean Debate Zone for a reason.
> 
> More than that however is that words have consequences. Saying homosexuals are mentally ill, demented, damaged goods is the kind of thing that drives very young homosexuals to suicide. Its one thing to disagree or have a strong opinion but  won't you please take into consideration that there may well be people reading this who are struggling with their identity.
> 
> Don't we have some degree of responsibility to those people? How would we feel if we knew our words caused a young homosexual to kill him or herself?
Click to expand...


Are you a Jewish mother? Do you really think a guilt trip will stop people from saying stupid things?


----------



## westwall

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the one thing anyone who pays attention knows it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My sister is lesbian.  We knew she was lesbian by the time she was 10 years old.  She is a man in every respect save her genitalia and has ALWAYS been so.  She was the toughest kid in her school and regularly took on the bullies who were tormenting her friends.
> 
> She has been in a committed relationship with her wife for over 15 years.  There is no doubt that she is lesbian and has always been one.
> 
> Likewise my daughters godmother.  She too has always been a lesbian.  She tried real hard to be "normal".  She comes from a devout Catholic family and dated guys up into college.  It was never comfortable for her.  Never.  She then was introduced to a lesbian from another college student and instantaneously she knew that it was the right thing for her.
> 
> I am sorry but you and those who think like you are simply wrong.  You allow your religious training and upbringing to bias your thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for her.
> 
> The science is actually irrefutable, being gay is not genetic. I actually have peer reviewed papers to back me up on that statement all you have is empty rhetoric and a false belief that you understand science. Feel free to look read through my posts and find the link.
> 
> Never mind, I know you don't actually care about the facts, so I will provide the link for you.
> 
> If you will note the paper actually contradicts my position that you are not born gay, so you can't accuse me of posting biased links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Male and female homosexuality have substantial prevalence in humans.  Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has substantial  heritability in both sexes, yet concordance between identical twins is  low and molecular studies have failed to find associated DNA markers.  This paradoxical pattern calls for an explanation. We use published data  on fetal androgen signaling and gene regulation via nongenetic changes  in DNA packaging (epigenetics) to develop a new model for homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development
Click to expand...






One study does not a "truth" make.  It is a fact only.  Interestingly enough in the Abstract (which you kindly provided was this statement of fact...

"Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has *substantial heritability in both sexes*


What exactly does that mean?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> My sister is lesbian.  We knew she was lesbian by the time she was 10 years old.  She is a man in every respect save her genitalia and has ALWAYS been so.  She was the toughest kid in her school and regularly took on the bullies who were tormenting her friends.
> 
> She has been in a committed relationship with her wife for over 15 years.  There is no doubt that she is lesbian and has always been one.
> 
> Likewise my daughters godmother.  She too has always been a lesbian.  She tried real hard to be "normal".  She comes from a devout Catholic family and dated guys up into college.  It was never comfortable for her.  Never.  She then was introduced to a lesbian from another college student and instantaneously she knew that it was the right thing for her.
> 
> I am sorry but you and those who think like you are simply wrong.  You allow your religious training and upbringing to bias your thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for her.
> 
> The science is actually irrefutable, being gay is not genetic. I actually have peer reviewed papers to back me up on that statement all you have is empty rhetoric and a false belief that you understand science. Feel free to look read through my posts and find the link.
> 
> Never mind, I know you don't actually care about the facts, so I will provide the link for you.
> 
> If you will note the paper actually contradicts my position that you are not born gay, so you can't accuse me of posting biased links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Male and female homosexuality have substantial prevalence in humans.  Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has substantial  heritability in both sexes, yet concordance between identical twins is  low and molecular studies have failed to find associated DNA markers.  This paradoxical pattern calls for an explanation. We use published data  on fetal androgen signaling and gene regulation via nongenetic changes  in DNA packaging (epigenetics) to develop a new model for homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One study does not a "truth" make.  It is a fact only.  Interestingly enough in the Abstract (which you kindly provided was this statement of fact...
> 
> "Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has *substantial heritability in both sexes*
> 
> 
> What exactly does that mean?
Click to expand...


- that heteros give birth to homos.

?


----------



## alan1

Luddly Neddite said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't give a rat's ass.
> 
> Let's examine two possible media headlines.
> 
> 1. *Insert Celebrity Name* announces that they are homosexual.
> 2. *Insert Celebrity Name* announces that they are heterosexual.
> 
> Guess which headline you never see?
> Why does the media think one of those headlines is more important than the other?
> If homosexuals think keeping the government out of their bedroom is so important (and I agree with that), then why do they keep publicizing what is going on in their bedroom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the face of it, I agree but they should have the same right I do and that's what they're demanding.
> 
> I support that completely.
Click to expand...


If a brother and sister demand the same rights, are you fine with that?
The assumption being that the brother sister wont procreate just like the homosexuals wont procreate.
Just curious.


----------



## alan1

Inevitable said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't give a rat's ass.
> 
> Let's examine two possible media headlines.
> 
> 1. *Insert Celebrity Name* announces that they are homosexual.
> 2. *Insert Celebrity Name* announces that they are heterosexual.
> 
> Guess which headline you never see?
> Why does the media think one of those headlines is more important than the other?
> If homosexuals think keeping the government out of their bedroom is so important (and I agree with that), then why do they keep publicizing what is going on in their bedroom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think it's the homosexuals, It's the celebrity worship "news" that thinks drivel like so and so's sexuality is worth talking about. I would think homosexual people would be perturbed by that. Basically the celebrity chasing media is saying that the fact that a ball player or a dancer's sexual orientation is important. It really isn't.
Click to expand...


But then, the media can't do that unless the person makes it known.
In a way, that may be a bit of a sticky wicket, since the media hounds the heck out of famous people, they will (in all likelihood) eventually discover said persons sexual preference.  On the flip-side, most homosexual celebrities really do appear to make it a press event.  Not unlike how most heterosexual celebrities make their new partner a media event also.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> My sister is lesbian.  We knew she was lesbian by the time she was 10 years old.  She is a man in every respect save her genitalia and has ALWAYS been so.  She was the toughest kid in her school and regularly took on the bullies who were tormenting her friends.
> 
> She has been in a committed relationship with her wife for over 15 years.  There is no doubt that she is lesbian and has always been one.
> 
> Likewise my daughters godmother.  She too has always been a lesbian.  She tried real hard to be "normal".  She comes from a devout Catholic family and dated guys up into college.  It was never comfortable for her.  Never.  She then was introduced to a lesbian from another college student and instantaneously she knew that it was the right thing for her.
> 
> I am sorry but you and those who think like you are simply wrong.  You allow your religious training and upbringing to bias your thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for her.
> 
> The science is actually irrefutable, being gay is not genetic. I actually have peer reviewed papers to back me up on that statement all you have is empty rhetoric and a false belief that you understand science. Feel free to look read through my posts and find the link.
> 
> Never mind, I know you don't actually care about the facts, so I will provide the link for you.
> 
> If you will note the paper actually contradicts my position that you are not born gay, so you can't accuse me of posting biased links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Male and female homosexuality have substantial prevalence in humans.  Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has substantial  heritability in both sexes, yet concordance between identical twins is  low and molecular studies have failed to find associated DNA markers.  This paradoxical pattern calls for an explanation. We use published data  on fetal androgen signaling and gene regulation via nongenetic changes  in DNA packaging (epigenetics) to develop a new model for homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One study does not a "truth" make.  It is a fact only.  Interestingly enough in the Abstract (which you kindly provided was this statement of fact...
> 
> "Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has *substantial heritability in both sexes*
> 
> 
> What exactly does that mean?
Click to expand...


Like I already said, you are not interested in truth, you just want to spout your ignorant opinion and ignore the science, homosexuality is not genetic.

If you don't know what heritability means why did you declare yourself to be the board expert on science?


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> So sad all that drek and only one sentence with some mild argument value, extremely mild.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays make a consious choice based on subconsious factors
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> See I told you it was mild.
> 
> I guess you can't really come up with valid points when you are so busy attempting to insult me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scroll back - [NO SILLY NOT WITH YOUR JOY STICK !!!!]  - ONce again you are engaging in the Circle Jerk round house logic .
Click to expand...

once again you have failed to pissy anything besides garbage.


----------



## westwall

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for her.
> 
> The science is actually irrefutable, being gay is not genetic. I actually have peer reviewed papers to back me up on that statement all you have is empty rhetoric and a false belief that you understand science. Feel free to look read through my posts and find the link.
> 
> Never mind, I know you don't actually care about the facts, so I will provide the link for you.
> 
> If you will note the paper actually contradicts my position that you are not born gay, so you can't accuse me of posting biased links.
> 
> 
> Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One study does not a "truth" make.  It is a fact only.  Interestingly enough in the Abstract (which you kindly provided was this statement of fact...
> 
> "Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has *substantial heritability in both sexes*
> 
> 
> What exactly does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I already said, you are not interested in truth, you just want to spout your ignorant opinion and ignore the science, homosexuality is not genetic.
> 
> If you don't know what heritability means why did you declare yourself to be the board expert on science?
Click to expand...






How wrong you are.  I am interested in facts.  Truth is the purview of religion not science.  To that end the definition of HERITABILITY is 

1:  the quality or state of being heritable 


2:  the proportion of observed variation in a particular trait (as height) that can be attributed to inherited *genetic factors* in contrast to environmental ones. 

Heritability - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


*YOUR* link supporting what I said.  Don't you dare lecture me about science when you don't even know what the basics are.  This is a simple definition which you seem to not understand.


----------



## Inevitable

alan1 said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't give a rat's ass.
> 
> Let's examine two possible media headlines.
> 
> 1. *Insert Celebrity Name* announces that they are homosexual.
> 2. *Insert Celebrity Name* announces that they are heterosexual.
> 
> Guess which headline you never see?
> Why does the media think one of those headlines is more important than the other?
> If homosexuals think keeping the government out of their bedroom is so important (and I agree with that), then why do they keep publicizing what is going on in their bedroom?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's the homosexuals, It's the celebrity worship "news" that thinks drivel like so and so's sexuality is worth talking about. I would think homosexual people would be perturbed by that. Basically the celebrity chasing media is saying that the fact that a ball player or a dancer's sexual orientation is important. It really isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then, the media can't do that unless the person makes it known.
> In a way, that may be a bit of a sticky wicket, since the media hounds the heck out of famous people, they will (in all likelihood) eventually discover said persons sexual preference.  On the flip-side, most homosexual celebrities really do appear to make it a press event.  Not unlike how most heterosexual celebrities make their new partner a media event also.
Click to expand...

yes, they like the public to see them, that is why they are in that field


----------



## alan1

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is genetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the one thing anyone who pays attention knows it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My sister is lesbian.  We knew she was lesbian by the time she was 10 years old.  She is a man in every respect save her genitalia and has ALWAYS been so.  She was the toughest kid in her school and regularly took on the bullies who were tormenting her friends.
> 
> She has been in a committed relationship with her wife for over 15 years.  There is no doubt that she is lesbian and has always been one.
> 
> Likewise my daughters godmother.  She too has always been a lesbian.  She tried real hard to be "normal".  She comes from a devout Catholic family and dated guys up into college.  It was never comfortable for her.  Never.  She then was introduced to a lesbian from another college student and instantaneously she knew that it was the right thing for her.
> 
> I am sorry but you and those who think like you are simply wrong.  You allow your religious training and upbringing to bias your thinking.
Click to expand...

There have been some studies that have shown that the more sons there are born into a family (and especially absent of daughters), the more likely it is that one or more of those boys will be homosexual.  I have no idea if that is genetic, the law of averages, or learned behavior.  but then it really doesn't matter to me.

I find the story of your sister to be interesting, because of my youngest daughter.  My youngest daughter was very masculine in actions and behavior as she was growing up.  She didn't like dolls, she liked toy cars.  She didn't like pink, she liked fighting.  She didn't like cooking, but she liked cleaning fish when we caught them.  She didn't play with other girls, she played with boys.  My wife (eventually ex-wife) and I had conversations about her, we were pretty sure she was lesbian and we accepted that.  Then one day, during her 12th year of life, it was like somebody flipped a switch.  She went from being all tom-boy to all young lady.  All of the sudden, dressing nice, and pretty hair, and feminine behavior was important to her.  And I really do mean, it was like somebody flipped a switch, she changed overnight.  And she has been nothing but a lady ever since.  She got married to a fine young man just two weeks ago.

Hehe, 20 years ago, I never expected that the son I never had (my tom-boy daughter) would become the woman she is today and neither did my ex-wife.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> [Except I never actually misrepresented your position, I just asked a few questions that need to be answered. Asking questions is not a straw man.


Than they were loaded questions.




Quantum Windbag said:


> What position is that?


That it's origins are unknown.



Quantum Windbag said:


> There isn't any, just like there isn't any that it is inherited.


Didn't claim it was inherited.



Quantum Windbag said:


> On the other hand, if you aver watch a really good handball player they have learned to use both hands equally well while playing, even if they aren't ambidextrous.


That doesn't negate a strong hand.





Quantum Windbag said:


> It is irrelevant to this discussion whether I did the research, but the answer is yes.
> 
> That said, why is my evidence inconclusive? Two editors of the DSM stated publicly that the editors developing the manual where intentionally ignoring evidence that contradicts the diagnostic guidelines they were setting out as the standard for the entire profession. If you think that is inconclusive evidence I would suggest that you are being dogmatic in your assumptions.


It simply isn't enough to condemn the APA.





Quantum Windbag said:


> Have you read the thread?
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> My position is completely validated by this. Claiming that no proof contrary to your position thus your position must be correct is logical fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again.
> 
> I am not claiming that thre is no evidence that is contrary to my position. In fact, I actually posted a link to a paper that contradicts my position that it is a choice.
Click to expand...

You stayed that it is up to others to prove you wrong. 



Quantum Windbag said:


> Interesting.
> 
> How does the fact that free will exists validate your position, whatever it is? Are you just declaring victory because you refuse to actually take a position?



I have a position it's that we don't know the origins of homosexuality. Free will isn't really relevant.


----------



## emilynghiem

alan1 said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't give a rat's ass.
> 
> Let's examine two possible media headlines.
> 
> 1. *Insert Celebrity Name* announces that they are homosexual.
> 2. *Insert Celebrity Name* announces that they are heterosexual.
> 
> Guess which headline you never see?
> Why does the media think one of those headlines is more important than the other?
> If homosexuals think keeping the government out of their bedroom is so important (and I agree with that), then why do they keep publicizing what is going on in their bedroom?
Click to expand...


However:
1. If a person "comes out" as heterosexual, claiming to be a former homosexual,
this create a huge backlash to discredit them, arguing they never were homosexual in the first place.
Or that people who claim to change go back to their orientation anyway.

2. If a person who is bisexual "comes out" and claims it is "a choice,"
they get jumped on for that, too!

What REALLY needs to come out is the truth: Not ALL cases are the same
* Some people are "spiritually by birth" transgender or gay etc.
And this may be considered natural OR unnatural DEPENDING on the person.
* Some people may or some people may not change.
* People who have healed/recovered from unnatural sexual abuse or addictive behavior
include homosexual as well as heterosexual, so it isn't targeting just gays.

Until THAT truth gets out, anything less than the FULL INCLUSIVE
truth, including ALL CASES, causes disruption in one form or another
because of groups "taking ONE side" and assuming "It's true for ALL of them"


----------



## auditor0007

USNavyVet said:


> I don't believe it's a one size fits all issue. I believe some are born gay while others choose that lifestyle due to convenience. The convenience part is because many kids have a hard time talking to the other side and are more comfortable with their own gender and act on it. After a while they accept it because it's easier. I saw many women who were lesbians who had been married to a man but felt so screwed over that they changed sides. Very hard to believe that they were born gay. Just my 2 cents.



I do think that some people choose that lifestyle, but I think that the vast majority are just born that way or develop that way.  Either way, for most it is not a choice.  I certainly never decided to be heterosexual; I just am heterosexual.  I've known many gays in my lifetime, and honestly, I can't think of one who actually chose to be gay.


----------



## Qball

I don't really care much about why some people are gay or if it's a choice. I just think some people need to stop acting like they've never actually known any gay people when they debate this issue. It's definitely true that for some people being gay is absolutely a choice. They're not going to broadcast that, CNN isn't doing a documentary series on them, but there are women who are with women more or less because they don't want a man. There are men who are with men because they don't enjoy sex with women. I mean, for many gays, probably most gays, their sexual orientation wasn't something they ever chose...they just knew they were "different" from a young age and they just never have had the urge to be with someone of the opposite sex. But there are many gays who have histories of abuse and have a sort of passive contempt for the opposite sex.


----------



## emilynghiem

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is genetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the one thing anyone who pays attention knows it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My sister is lesbian.  We knew she was lesbian by the time she was 10 years old.  She is a man in every respect save her genitalia and has ALWAYS been so.  She was the toughest kid in her school and regularly took on the bullies who were tormenting her friends.
> 
> She has been in a committed relationship with her wife for over 15 years.  There is no doubt that she is lesbian and has always been one.
> 
> Likewise my daughters godmother.  She too has always been a lesbian.  She tried real hard to be "normal".  She comes from a devout Catholic family and dated guys up into college.  It was never comfortable for her.  Never.  She then was introduced to a lesbian from another college student and instantaneously she knew that it was the right thing for her.
> 
> I am sorry but you and those who think like you are simply wrong.  You allow your religious training and upbringing to bias your thinking.
Click to expand...


Dear Westwall:
1. is it possible for it to be "genetic or born" in one case like your sister's
but not in others? I've heard of people born with the ability to play the piano as an expert, without any training, while others have to acquire the ability by physical learning/practice.

Why do all cases have to be the same?

2. Can it be spiritually born in someone, and not be in their genetics?

Studies on identical twins show AT MOST a 50% chance of twins "raised in the same household environment" both having the same orientation (and 0% if raised in separate households).

If it is PURELY genetic, why isn't it 100% matching orientation in twins?

Source: F.MacNutt "Homosexuality Can it be Healed" where from his experience with spiritual healing and outreach in all areas of physical and mental health, he wrote this book affirming a much higher than 50/50 rate of change in people seeking therapy.

I believe it depends on the person, if they are meant to change or not. 
(I think the people seeking change because it's not natural for them
are more likely for it to apply to, so of course they will keep at it and not go back.
And the people for whom their orientation is not a problem and not "unnatural" are less likely to seek therapy to change it anyway, 
so of course the success rate will look higher if the people for whom it would fail aren't included in the pool of people who try it.)


----------



## emilynghiem

Inevitable said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION]
> What about the people who were not,
> but whose sexual behavior resulted from rape or repeated abuse?
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are born that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to believe that such cases exist.
> But to "deny the possibility" makes you lose credibility
> with people who have experienced and reported this, themselves,
> or have friends who suffered it and went through therapy to heal afterwards.
> 
> If you leave these cases out, you sound as close minded to truth
> as those who INSIST that "all cases are UNNATURAL"
> which excludes the many people who report otherwise.
> 
> Why not acknowledge "it is possible" for those other cases to exist,
> where people claim to have returned to their original orientation
> after healing from abuse that affected their behavior?
> Both homosexual and heterosexual people have benefited from
> spiritual healing and forgiveness therapy to recovery from abuse.
> 
> What is wrong with acknowledging those cases?
> 
> You can still argue that some are BORN and not caused by abuse.
> It does not hurt your argument or beliefs, but helps them by not discrediting you
> as ignorant and "deliberately excluding" other cases where people experienced unnatural abuse.
> 
> What does it hurt to be open to DIFFERENT cases as all being possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> prove they are possible.
Click to expand...

  [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]

Do you want me to go out and find actual people to post on here their experiences?
Does that count as proof?

Are you okay researching resources, or you aren't interested unless someone else does all that work?

I work two jobs and am trying to save a national historic site
AND also propose a reform to the Democratic party platform
AND prepare for meetings on the conversion therapy issue
with Gay Republicans and liberal Democrats.

I find it faster to work with people who already know that all kinds of cases
are going on, don't need to argue about proof, so that we can focus on what
to change the language in the platforms to.

If you really want sources, I can dig them up but I have these other deadlines to make to propose changes to both platforms that mention conversion therapy and caused conflicts.

Some sources I recommend, I am happy to buy copies and send them to you:
Francis MacNutt "Healing"
"Homosexuality Can it be Healed" -- this book cites the research results of only 50/50 chance of twins matching in orientation, implying that it isn't just "genetic" but other factors/conditions.
Anyone can contact his nonprofit group http://www.christianhealingmin.org and see if they have someone who can give
their testimony about going through changing orientation. He does not specialize in any one application of spiritual healing. But he can refer other groups that do focus on sexuality and healing.

If you want proof, I can go ask around for a speaker from one of these groups
to post on here and answer questions.

My friend Olivia counseled
* a lesbian who receive help to heal of sexual abuse in order to change her own behavior
* a young man who thought he was transgender, but went through healing and overcome having those thoughts and attractions to people that weren't natural for him

Inevitable, one of my friends said if "reparative therapy" was banned, then my friend wouldn't have gotten help to think through and make the personal decision about "not being bisexual by nature", coming to terms that it was a "choice", and no longer having those feelings anymore.

Do you want me to ask that friend to prove to you that really happened?
Do you want medical proof or what?

This could take time, I am happy to work on it with you, but I also have other
things to work on for people who DON'T need such proof and are ready to work on
policy changes directly, not argue about "proving people's personal experiences."

What timeframe are you looking at? For what level of proof?

Is this what you are looking for, or some medical statistics instead:
http://ex-gaytruth.com/ex-gay-news/testimony-of-ex-gay-dr-david-kyle-foster/


----------



## westwall

emilynghiem said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the one thing anyone who pays attention knows it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My sister is lesbian.  We knew she was lesbian by the time she was 10 years old.  She is a man in every respect save her genitalia and has ALWAYS been so.  She was the toughest kid in her school and regularly took on the bullies who were tormenting her friends.
> 
> She has been in a committed relationship with her wife for over 15 years.  There is no doubt that she is lesbian and has always been one.
> 
> Likewise my daughters godmother.  She too has always been a lesbian.  She tried real hard to be "normal".  She comes from a devout Catholic family and dated guys up into college.  It was never comfortable for her.  Never.  She then was introduced to a lesbian from another college student and instantaneously she knew that it was the right thing for her.
> 
> I am sorry but you and those who think like you are simply wrong.  You allow your religious training and upbringing to bias your thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Westwall:
> 1. is it possible for it to be "genetic or born" in one case like your sister's
> but not in others? I've heard of people born with the ability to play the piano as an expert, without any training, while others have to acquire the ability by physical learning/practice.
> 
> Why do all cases have to be the same?
> 
> 2. Can it be spiritually born in someone, and not be in their genetics?
> 
> Studies on identical twins show AT MOST a 50% chance of twins "raised in the same household environment" both having the same orientation (and 0% if raised in separate households).
> 
> If it is PURELY genetic, why isn't it 100% matching orientation in twins?
> 
> Source: F.MacNutt "Homosexuality Can it be Healed" where from his experience with spiritual healing and outreach in all areas of physical and mental health, he wrote this book affirming a much higher than 50/50 rate of change in people seeking therapy.
> 
> I believe it depends on the person, if they are meant to change or not.
> (I think the people seeking change because it's not natural for them
> are more likely for it to apply to, so of course they will keep at it and not go back.
> And the people for whom their orientation is not a problem and not "unnatural" are less likely to seek therapy to change it anyway,
> so of course the success rate will look higher if the people for whom it would fail aren't included in the pool of people who try it.)
Click to expand...








Yes.  It is.  To a point.  When I was in college I worked along the Strip in Hollywood on the graveyard shift and knew many young men who were engaged in the gay sex trade.  They were not gay but it was how they made their money.

They were universally unhappy about their lot in life.  I am certain that engaging in sex acts they were uncomfortable with played a part, as did the drugs they ingested, as did the generally unhealthy lifestyle that being a street person entails.

However, there are those who are simply born that way.  I was born a heterosexual and there is no amount of money that would convince me to have sex with a guy.  None.

There are likewise people who will not have sex with a person of another sex....no matter how much money you give them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> One study does not a "truth" make.  It is a fact only.  Interestingly enough in the Abstract (which you kindly provided was this statement of fact...
> 
> "Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has *substantial heritability in both sexes*
> 
> 
> What exactly does that mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I already said, you are not interested in truth, you just want to spout your ignorant opinion and ignore the science, homosexuality is not genetic.
> 
> If you don't know what heritability means why did you declare yourself to be the board expert on science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How wrong you are.  I am interested in facts.  Truth is the purview of religion not science.  To that end the definition of HERITABILITY is
> 
> 1:  the quality or state of being heritable
> 
> 
> 2:  the proportion of observed variation in a particular trait (as height) that can be attributed to inherited *genetic factors* in contrast to environmental ones.
> 
> Heritability - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> *YOUR* link supporting what I said.  Don't you dare lecture me about science when you don't even know what the basics are.  This is a simple definition which you seem to not understand.
Click to expand...


No it isn't, you said that homosexuality is genetic, That is flat out wrong, if it were all monozygotic twins would either be gay or straight. The studies show that this is not true.



> Twin studies of homosexuality  have shown that identical twins are about twice as likely to both be  gay compared to fraternal twins.  This means that being gay is partly  genetic and not simply something that a person learns or chooses to be.
> There is one important thing to note, though.  If the DNA sequence is  the only thing determining whether someone is gay or not, we would  expect that if one identical twin were gay, then the other would be too  100% of the time.
> But this is not what scientists have found &#8211; the rate is actually  closer to 50%.  So while we know that genetics is involved, it doesn&#8217;t  tell us the whole story.  This is where environment comes in.


Understanding Genetics

Did you notice that I, once again, used a link that disagrees with my position? Feel free to pretend to yourself that you are the one that is being unbiased and objective even though I have proved you wrong twice.


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
> 
> Do you want me to go out and find actual people to post on here their experiences?
> Does that count as proof?
> 
> Are you okay researching resources, or you aren't interested unless someone else does all that work?
> 
> I work two jobs and am trying to save a national historic site
> AND also propose a reform to the Democratic party platform
> AND prepare for meetings on the conversion therapy issue
> with Gay Republicans and liberal Democrats.
> 
> I find it faster to work with people who already know that all kinds of cases
> are going on, don't need to argue about proof, so that we can focus on what
> to change the language in the platforms to.
> 
> If you really want sources, I can dig them up but I have these other deadlines to make to propose changes to both platforms that mention conversion therapy and caused conflicts.
> 
> Some sources I recommend, I am happy to buy copies and send them to you:
> Francis MacNutt "Healing"
> "Homosexuality Can it be Healed" -- this book cites the research results of only 50/50 chance of twins matching in orientation, implying that it isn't just "genetic" but other factors/conditions.
> Anyone can contact his nonprofit group Home - Christian Healing Ministries and see if they have someone who can give
> their testimony about going through changing orientation. He does not specialize in any one application of spiritual healing. But he can refer other groups that do focus on sexuality and healing.
> 
> If you want proof, I can go ask around for a speaker from one of these groups
> to post on here and answer questions.
> 
> My friend Olivia counseled
> * a lesbian who receive help to heal of sexual abuse in order to change her own behavior
> * a young man who thought he was transgender, but went through healing and overcome having those thoughts and attractions to people that weren't natural for him
> 
> Inevitable, one of my friends said if "reparative therapy" was banned, then my friend wouldn't have gotten help to think through and make the personal decision about "not being bisexual by nature", coming to terms that it was a "choice", and no longer having those feelings anymore.
> 
> Do you want me to ask that friend to prove to you that really happened?
> Do you want medical proof or what?
> 
> This could take time, I am happy to work on it with you, but I also have other
> things to work on for people who DON'T need such proof and are ready to work on
> policy changes directly, not argue about "proving people's personal experiences."
> 
> What timeframe are you looking at? For what level of proof?
> 
> Is this what you are looking for, or some medical statistics instead:
> Testimony of ex-gay Dr. David Kyle Foster | Ex-gayTruth.com


No, anecdotal claims aren't valid proof.

Conversion therapy is quackery, and it has a higher suicide rate than a success rate. I don't care what your church websites say they are the wicked institutions that fabricated this garbage and fraudulently labeled it conversion therapy. There is zero provable success with so fraudulently called "conversion therapy" all you can really say is that you have beaten homosexuals into conforming to heterosexual behaviors or that you convinced bisexuals to forget about being with the same sex.

Prove the therapy isn't complete garbage, prove homosexuality is a condition in need of healing. Prove any of your claims aren't fraudulent, and please do so without using fraudulent links.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> @Inevitable
> 
> Do you want me to go out and find actual people to post on here their experiences?
> Does that count as proof?
> 
> Are you okay researching resources, or you aren't interested unless someone else does all that work?
> 
> I work two jobs and am trying to save a national historic site
> AND also propose a reform to the Democratic party platform
> AND prepare for meetings on the conversion therapy issue
> with Gay Republicans and liberal Democrats.
> 
> I find it faster to work with people who already know that all kinds of cases
> are going on, don't need to argue about proof, so that we can focus on what
> to change the language in the platforms to.
> 
> If you really want sources, I can dig them up but I have these other deadlines to make to propose changes to both platforms that mention conversion therapy and caused conflicts.
> 
> Some sources I recommend, I am happy to buy copies and send them to you:
> Francis MacNutt "Healing"
> "Homosexuality Can it be Healed" -- this book cites the research results of only 50/50 chance of twins matching in orientation, implying that it isn't just "genetic" but other factors/conditions.
> Anyone can contact his nonprofit group Home - Christian Healing Ministries and see if they have someone who can give
> their testimony about going through changing orientation. He does not specialize in any one application of spiritual healing. But he can refer other groups that do focus on sexuality and healing.
> 
> If you want proof, I can go ask around for a speaker from one of these groups
> to post on here and answer questions.
> 
> My friend Olivia counseled
> * a lesbian who receive help to heal of sexual abuse in order to change her own behavior
> * a young man who thought he was transgender, but went through healing and overcome having those thoughts and attractions to people that weren't natural for him
> 
> Inevitable, one of my friends said if "reparative therapy" was banned, then my friend wouldn't have gotten help to think through and make the personal decision about "not being bisexual by nature", coming to terms that it was a "choice", and no longer having those feelings anymore.
> 
> Do you want me to ask that friend to prove to you that really happened?
> Do you want medical proof or what?
> 
> This could take time, I am happy to work on it with you, but I also have other
> things to work on for people who DON'T need such proof and are ready to work on
> policy changes directly, not argue about "proving people's personal experiences."
> 
> What timeframe are you looking at? For what level of proof?
> 
> Is this what you are looking for, or some medical statistics instead:
> Testimony of ex-gay Dr. David Kyle Foster | Ex-gayTruth.com
> 
> 
> 
> No, anecdotal claims aren't valid proof.
> 
> Conversion therapy is quackery, and it has a higher suicide rate than a success rate. I don't care what your church websites say they are the wicked institutions that fabricated this garbage and fraudulently labeled it conversion therapy. There is zero provable success with so fraudulently called "conversion therapy" all you can really say is that you have beaten homosexuals into conforming to heterosexual behaviors or that you convinced bisexuals to forget about being with the same sex.
> 
> Prove the therapy isn't complete garbage, prove homosexuality is a condition in need of healing. Prove any of your claims aren't fraudulent, and please do so without using fraudulent links.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't that depend on the forum that the proof is offered in? For example, eyewitness testimony, AKA anecdotal evidence, is completely valid in a court of law.


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> So sad all that drek and only one sentence with some mild argument value, extremely mild.Prove it.
> 
> See I told you it was mild.
> 
> I guess you can't really come up with valid points when you are so busy attempting to insult me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scroll back - [NO SILLY NOT WITH YOUR JOY STICK !!!!]  - ONce again you are engaging in the Circle Jerk round house logic .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> once again you have failed to pissy anything besides garbage.
Click to expand...


Too much effort huh littlle fella ?


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> @Inevitable
> 
> Do you want me to go out and find actual people to post on here their experiences?
> Does that count as proof?
> 
> Are you okay researching resources, or you aren't interested unless someone else does all that work?
> 
> I work two jobs and am trying to save a national historic site
> AND also propose a reform to the Democratic party platform
> AND prepare for meetings on the conversion therapy issue
> with Gay Republicans and liberal Democrats.
> 
> I find it faster to work with people who already know that all kinds of cases
> are going on, don't need to argue about proof, so that we can focus on what
> to change the language in the platforms to.
> 
> If you really want sources, I can dig them up but I have these other deadlines to make to propose changes to both platforms that mention conversion therapy and caused conflicts.
> 
> Some sources I recommend, I am happy to buy copies and send them to you:
> Francis MacNutt "Healing"
> "Homosexuality Can it be Healed" -- this book cites the research results of only 50/50 chance of twins matching in orientation, implying that it isn't just "genetic" but other factors/conditions.
> Anyone can contact his nonprofit group Home - Christian Healing Ministries and see if they have someone who can give
> their testimony about going through changing orientation. He does not specialize in any one application of spiritual healing. But he can refer other groups that do focus on sexuality and healing.
> 
> If you want proof, I can go ask around for a speaker from one of these groups
> to post on here and answer questions.
> 
> My friend Olivia counseled
> * a lesbian who receive help to heal of sexual abuse in order to change her own behavior
> * a young man who thought he was transgender, but went through healing and overcome having those thoughts and attractions to people that weren't natural for him
> 
> Inevitable, one of my friends said if "reparative therapy" was banned, then my friend wouldn't have gotten help to think through and make the personal decision about "not being bisexual by nature", coming to terms that it was a "choice", and no longer having those feelings anymore.
> 
> Do you want me to ask that friend to prove to you that really happened?
> Do you want medical proof or what?
> 
> This could take time, I am happy to work on it with you, but I also have other
> things to work on for people who DON'T need such proof and are ready to work on
> policy changes directly, not argue about "proving people's personal experiences."
> 
> What timeframe are you looking at? For what level of proof?
> 
> Is this what you are looking for, or some medical statistics instead:
> Testimony of ex-gay Dr. David Kyle Foster | Ex-gayTruth.com
> 
> 
> 
> No, anecdotal claims aren't valid proof.
> 
> Conversion therapy is quackery, and it has a higher suicide rate than a success rate. I don't care what your church websites say they are the wicked institutions that fabricated this garbage and fraudulently labeled it conversion therapy. There is zero provable success with so fraudulently called "conversion therapy" all you can really say is that you have beaten homosexuals into conforming to heterosexual behaviors or that you convinced bisexuals to forget about being with the same sex.
> 
> Prove the therapy isn't complete garbage, prove homosexuality is a condition in need of healing. Prove any of your claims aren't fraudulent, and please do so without using fraudulent links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that depend on the forum that the proof is offered in? For example, eyewitness testimony, AKA anecdotal evidence, is completely valid in a court of law.
Click to expand...

it isn't valid in the forum of science. And if you intend on administering therapy, you better have some damn good science.

First, do no harm. This is one of the principles of bioethics. If you haven't proven that there is an effective therapy to convert homosexuals to heterosexual you are bumbling around in thedark and likely causing far more harm than good.  

If this so called "conversion therapy" is valid, why is it invalidated by every reputable behavioral sciences group? Why aren't the "therapists" that administer such "therapy" licensed, educated, or even cognizant of the principles of bioethics?

Where are their studies, where is their measurable success?


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scroll back - [NO SILLY NOT WITH YOUR JOY STICK !!!!]  - ONce again you are engaging in the Circle Jerk round house logic .
> 
> 
> 
> once again you have failed to pissy anything besides garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too much effort huh littlle fella?
Click to expand...

I guess it is for you, you can't produce an argument so you keep projecting your fantasies onto me.


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> Inevitable, one of my friends said if "reparative therapy" was banned, then my friend wouldn't have gotten help to think through and make the personal decision about "not being bisexual by nature", coming to terms that it was a "choice", and no longer having those feelings anymore.
> 
> Do you want me to ask that friend to prove to you that really happened?
> Do you want medical proof or what?


[MENTION=38085]emilnghiem[/MENTION]

No, tell me what principles were used, explain  from where they were derived, how was this person's bisexuality categorized, was it properly categorized? What method was used to essentially "cure" the perceived psychosis? Can you "cure" psychosis?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

alan1 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't give a rat's ass.
> 
> Let's examine two possible media headlines.
> 
> 1. *Insert Celebrity Name* announces that they are homosexual.
> 2. *Insert Celebrity Name* announces that they are heterosexual.
> 
> Guess which headline you never see?
> Why does the media think one of those headlines is more important than the other?
> If homosexuals think keeping the government out of their bedroom is so important (and I agree with that), then why do they keep publicizing what is going on in their bedroom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the face of it, I agree but they should have the same right I do and that's what they're demanding.
> 
> I support that completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a brother and sister demand the same rights, are you fine with that?
> The assumption being that the brother sister wont procreate just like the homosexuals wont procreate.
> Just curious.
Click to expand...


HUH??

Sorry but last I looked, this thread concerned homosexuality. If you would like to start a thread about incest, by all means do.  In the meantime, I'll just say that the two are not the same and, pardon the pun, not related.


----------



## GreenBean

Luddly Neddite said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not just that your posts are full of really low down and nasty insults, they are also just plain ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I like dishing out low down and nasty insults,* they sometimes snap people out of their stupors and from time to time - perhaps they'll even take a moment to  reflect on their own demented little worlds.  Please feel free to hurl some back at me - I dish it out and I take it in  [Don't get no funny ideas about "taking it in - Capice ?!  ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are also just plain ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you mean ignorant as in mean and nasty - that was covered above . If you mean ignorant as in uninformed  - try refuting one of my assertions - go ahead I dare you - *I double dog dare you* :>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is called the Clean Debate Zone for a reason.
> 
> More than that however is that words have consequences. Saying homosexuals are mentally ill, demented, damaged goods is the kind of thing that drives very young homosexuals to suicide. Its one thing to disagree or have a strong opinion but  won't you please take into consideration that there may well be people reading this who are struggling with their identity.
> 
> Don't we have some degree of responsibility to those people? How would we feel if we knew our words caused a young homosexual to kill him or herself?
Click to expand...




> This is called the Clean Debate Zone for a reason.
> 
> More than that however is that words have consequences. Saying homosexuals are mentally ill, demented, damaged goods is *the kind of thing that drives very young homosexuals to suicide.*



Or it drives them to come  to the realization that they need help.  Which Gay activists are trying to deny them the right to recieve .  



> Its one thing to disagree or have a strong opinion but  won't you please take into consideration that there may well be people reading this who are struggling with their identity.



*Oh trust me , i am fully aware of that *, I worked in the Mental Health field for many years - I do not have a doctorate - by my superiors did -I've seen what happens to these people . I knew one young man who blew his brains out - not because he was Gay or oppressed  -he was bisexual and infected his wife with the bug.   There are many other horror stories -* but I never heard of anybody committinmg suicide for the reasons you state *. 

In a society, advanced as we seem to think we are in our sciences - Reperative Therapy - which is fairly new - has a relatively high success rate - comparable to Drug Rehab - sometimes they relapse - but overall - if you can make the patient/victim aware that they are sick / not healthy you can enable them to seek the first steps toward a normal, healthy life.   I've seen the dark side of homosexuality and how it effects people - the dark side  is not  pretty , but it is pretty much all there really is .  *Gay is not Okay *


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Katzndogz said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how any straight person gets around the paradox unless they're either gay or bisexual.
> 
> There is no way I can "choose" who my "sex organ" rises up for. It's a natural occurrence. I cannot change it merely by choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> If its true that homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not a choice.  Acting on homosexual urges is a choice just as acting on heterosexual urges is a choice.
Click to expand...


 [MENTION=33658]Katzndogz[/MENTION]

One is not related to the other. 

1. Nature or nurture.
2. Acting on nature or nurture.

See the difference?


----------



## GreenBean

Luddly Neddite said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the face of it, I agree but they should have the same right I do and that's what they're demanding.
> 
> I support that completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a brother and sister demand the same rights, are you fine with that?
> The assumption being that the brother sister wont procreate just like the homosexuals wont procreate.
> Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HUH??
> 
> Sorry but last I looked, this thread concerned homosexuality. If you would like to start a thread about incest, by all means do.  In the meantime, I'll just say that the two are not the same and, pardon the pun, not related.
Click to expand...


He was trying to draw a paralell bewenn sexual taboos in linking homosexuality to incest - while I agree the two are not the same - his point would have been better served had he used pedophilia or beastiality as an example.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for her.
> 
> The science is actually irrefutable, being gay is not genetic. I actually have peer reviewed papers to back me up on that statement all you have is empty rhetoric and a false belief that you understand science. Feel free to look read through my posts and find the link.
> 
> Never mind, I know you don't actually care about the facts, so I will provide the link for you.
> 
> If you will note the paper actually contradicts my position that you are not born gay, so you can't accuse me of posting biased links.
> 
> 
> Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One study does not a "truth" make.  It is a fact only.  Interestingly enough in the Abstract (which you kindly provided was this statement of fact...
> 
> "Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has *substantial heritability in both sexes*
> 
> 
> What exactly does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I already said, you are not interested in truth, you just want to spout your ignorant opinion and ignore the science, *homosexuality is not genetic.*
> 
> If you don't know what heritability means why did you declare yourself to be the board expert on science?
Click to expand...


Science says it is.


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a brother and sister demand the same rights, are you fine with that?
> The assumption being that the brother sister wont procreate just like the homosexuals wont procreate.
> Just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH??
> 
> Sorry but last I looked, this thread concerned homosexuality. If you would like to start a thread about incest, by all means do.  In the meantime, I'll just say that the two are not the same and, pardon the pun, not related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was trying to draw a paralell bewenn sexual taboos in linking homosexuality to incest - while I agree the two are not the same - his point would have been better served had he used pedophilia or beastiality as an example.
Click to expand...

Neither would have been apt. This threadisn't about taboos, it's about the origins of homosexuality. Pedophilia, incest, and bestiality as well as other paraphilias aren't really relevant.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, anecdotal claims aren't valid proof.
> 
> Conversion therapy is quackery, and it has a higher suicide rate than a success rate. I don't care what your church websites say they are the wicked institutions that fabricated this garbage and fraudulently labeled it conversion therapy. There is zero provable success with so fraudulently called "conversion therapy" all you can really say is that you have beaten homosexuals into conforming to heterosexual behaviors or that you convinced bisexuals to forget about being with the same sex.
> 
> Prove the therapy isn't complete garbage, prove homosexuality is a condition in need of healing. Prove any of your claims aren't fraudulent, and please do so without using fraudulent links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that depend on the forum that the proof is offered in? For example, eyewitness testimony, AKA anecdotal evidence, is completely valid in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't valid in the forum of science. And if you intend on administering therapy, you better have some damn good science.
> 
> First, do no harm. This is one of the principles of bioethics. If you haven't proven that there is an effective therapy to convert homosexuals to heterosexual you are bumbling around in thedark and likely causing far more harm than good.
> 
> If this so called "conversion therapy" is valid, why is it invalidated by every reputable behavioral sciences group? Why aren't the "therapists" that administer such "therapy" licensed, educated, or even cognizant of the principles of bioethics?
> 
> Where are their studies, where is their measurable success?
Click to expand...


Where did I say it was valid? In fact, I am on record here saying that all psychotherapy is equally worthless, so I see no need to defend something I do not agree with. But feel free to ask stupid questions based on the assumption that I am suddenly in support of the APA despite saying that it is not a scientific organization.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Luddly Neddite said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> One study does not a "truth" make.  It is a fact only.  Interestingly enough in the Abstract (which you kindly provided was this statement of fact...
> 
> "Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has *substantial heritability in both sexes*
> 
> 
> What exactly does that mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I already said, you are not interested in truth, you just want to spout your ignorant opinion and ignore the science, *homosexuality is not genetic.*
> 
> If you don't know what heritability means why did you declare yourself to be the board expert on science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science says it is.
Click to expand...


Except that is the one thing science says it isn't, but feel free to dig up bogus studies from psychologists and social scientists that claim otherwise.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

GreenBean said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I like dishing out low down and nasty insults,* they sometimes snap people out of their stupors and from time to time - perhaps they'll even take a moment to  reflect on their own demented little worlds.  Please feel free to hurl some back at me - I dish it out and I take it in  [Don't get no funny ideas about "taking it in - Capice ?!  ]
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean ignorant as in mean and nasty - that was covered above . If you mean ignorant as in uninformed  - try refuting one of my assertions - go ahead I dare you - *I double dog dare you* :>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is called the Clean Debate Zone for a reason.
> 
> More than that however is that words have consequences. Saying homosexuals are mentally ill, demented, damaged goods is the kind of thing that drives very young homosexuals to suicide. Its one thing to disagree or have a strong opinion but  won't you please take into consideration that there may well be people reading this who are struggling with their identity.
> 
> Don't we have some degree of responsibility to those people? How would we feel if we knew our words caused a young homosexual to kill him or herself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is called the Clean Debate Zone for a reason.
> 
> More than that however is that words have consequences. Saying homosexuals are mentally ill, demented, damaged goods is *the kind of thing that drives very young homosexuals to suicide.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or it drives them to come  to the realization that they need help.  Which Gay activists are trying to deny them the right to recieve .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its one thing to disagree or have a strong opinion but  won't you please take into consideration that there may well be people reading this who are struggling with their identity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Oh trust me , i am fully aware of that *, I worked in the Mental Health field for many years - I do not have a doctorate - by my superiors did -I've seen what happens to these people . I knew one young man who blew his brains out - not because he was Gay or oppressed  -he was bisexual and infected his wife with the bug.   There are many other horror stories -* but I never heard of anybody committinmg suicide for the reasons you state *.
> 
> In a society, advanced as we seem to think we are in our sciences - Reperative Therapy - which is fairly new - has a relatively high success rate - comparable to Drug Rehab - sometimes they relapse - but overall - if you can make the patient/victim aware that they are sick / not healthy you can enable them to seek the first steps toward a normal, healthy life.   I've seen the dark side of homosexuality and how it effects people - the dark side  is not  pretty , but it is pretty much all there really is .  *Gay is not Okay *
Click to expand...


ALL of that is your opinion and that's exactly what its worth. 

Its not fact and its not up to you to tell gays (or anyone else) what is "okay". Its not your business and the science does not agree with you. 

You have been wrong throughout this thread. You're ignorant and closed minded. Knowing someone who has an education does not mean that education rubs off on you. It is accepted science that one's sexuality is genetically hardwired.  You're free to hold some other opinion but don't pretend its fact. 

 You've been snotty and rude and condescending to another poster who has treated you with respect and civility you do not deserve. I admire and respect Inevitable for his calm, clean, adult manners. If it had been me, I would have taken your head off. 

Its judgmental people like you who do the harm in this world. Stop posting the hate and the venom and toxic insults, and just accept that not everyone is like you. That's just the way it is and if we all embraced our differences, life would be a lot easier for all.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I already said, you are not interested in truth, you just want to spout your ignorant opinion and ignore the science, *homosexuality is not genetic.*
> 
> If you don't know what heritability means why did you declare yourself to be the board expert on science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science says it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that is the one thing science says it isn't, but feel free to dig up bogus studies from psychologists and social scientists that claim otherwise.
Click to expand...


You're wrong but even if you were correct, it doesn't really matter because what other consenting adults do in their own bedrooms simply is none of your business. 

Why can't people get that through their heads?

Is YOUR sexuality MY business? Is what you do with other consenting adult(s) MY business?

What's the difference between "them" and "us"?

Stop the Peeping Tom and MYOB.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Luddly Neddite said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science says it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that is the one thing science says it isn't, but feel free to dig up bogus studies from psychologists and social scientists that claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong but even if you were correct, it doesn't really matter because what other consenting adults do in their own bedrooms simply is none of your business.
> 
> Why can't people get that through their heads?
> 
> Is YOUR sexuality MY business? Is what you do with other consenting adult(s) MY business?
> 
> What's the difference between "them" and "us"?
> 
> Stop the Peeping Tom and MYOB.
Click to expand...


Excuse me, genius, but I have repeatedly that any relationship between consenting adults is thier business, and no one else's. In fact, I am pretty sure that you would lose if we went head to head with the things I think the government should keep it's nose out of when it comes to what people do. You should stop demonstrating your bigotry so openly.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that depend on the forum that the proof is offered in? For example, eyewitness testimony, AKA anecdotal evidence, is completely valid in a court of law.
> 
> 
> 
> it isn't valid in the forum of science. And if you intend on administering therapy, you better have some damn good science.
> 
> First, do no harm. This is one of the principles of bioethics. If you haven't proven that there is an effective therapy to convert homosexuals to heterosexual you are bumbling around in thedark and likely causing far more harm than good.
> 
> If this so called "conversion therapy" is valid, why is it invalidated by every reputable behavioral sciences group? Why aren't the "therapists" that administer such "therapy" licensed, educated, or even cognizant of the principles of bioethics?
> 
> Where are their studies, where is their measurable success?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say it was valid? In fact, I am on record here saying that all psychotherapy is equally worthless, so I see no need to defend something I do not agree with. But feel free to ask stupid questions based on the assumption that I am suddenly in support of the APA despite saying that it is not a scientific organization.
Click to expand...


You butted into a conversation between Emily and I. If you don't want to discuss it than why reply?


----------



## Inevitable

Luddly Neddite said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science says it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that is the one thing science says it isn't, but feel free to dig up bogus studies from psychologists and social scientists that claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong but even if you were correct, it doesn't really matter because what other consenting adults do in their own bedrooms simply is none of your business.
> 
> Why can't people get that through their heads?
> 
> Is YOUR sexuality MY business? Is what you do with other consenting adult(s) MY business?
> 
> What's the difference between "them" and "us"?
> 
> Stop the Peeping Tom and MYOB.
Click to expand...


he first think behavioral science is science.


----------



## westwall

alan1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the one thing anyone who pays attention knows it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My sister is lesbian.  We knew she was lesbian by the time she was 10 years old.  She is a man in every respect save her genitalia and has ALWAYS been so.  She was the toughest kid in her school and regularly took on the bullies who were tormenting her friends.
> 
> She has been in a committed relationship with her wife for over 15 years.  There is no doubt that she is lesbian and has always been one.
> 
> Likewise my daughters godmother.  She too has always been a lesbian.  She tried real hard to be "normal".  She comes from a devout Catholic family and dated guys up into college.  It was never comfortable for her.  Never.  She then was introduced to a lesbian from another college student and instantaneously she knew that it was the right thing for her.
> 
> I am sorry but you and those who think like you are simply wrong.  You allow your religious training and upbringing to bias your thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There have been some studies that have shown that the more sons there are born into a family (and especially absent of daughters), the more likely it is that one or more of those boys will be homosexual.  I have no idea if that is genetic, the law of averages, or learned behavior.  but then it really doesn't matter to me.
> 
> I find the story of your sister to be interesting, because of my youngest daughter.  My youngest daughter was very masculine in actions and behavior as she was growing up.  She didn't like dolls, she liked toy cars.  She didn't like pink, she liked fighting.  She didn't like cooking, but she liked cleaning fish when we caught them.  She didn't play with other girls, she played with boys.  My wife (eventually ex-wife) and I had conversations about her, we were pretty sure she was lesbian and we accepted that.  Then one day, during her 12th year of life, it was like somebody flipped a switch.  She went from being all tom-boy to all young lady.  All of the sudden, dressing nice, and pretty hair, and feminine behavior was important to her.  And I really do mean, it was like somebody flipped a switch, she changed overnight.  And she has been nothing but a lady ever since.  She got married to a fine young man just two weeks ago.
> 
> Hehe, 20 years ago, I never expected that the son I never had (my tom-boy daughter) would become the woman she is today and neither did my ex-wife.
Click to expand...







Yeah, it happens like that too.  My sister though, never wanted to have anything to do with boys.  My dad encouraged her to be "normal" (it took him a long time to accept that she was lesbian and up till the day he died I don't think he ever truly did...he just didn't want to fight about it any more) but she was already  normal.....for her.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that is the one thing science says it isn't, but feel free to dig up bogus studies from psychologists and social scientists that claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong but even if you were correct, it doesn't really matter because what other consenting adults do in their own bedrooms simply is none of your business.
> 
> Why can't people get that through their heads?
> 
> Is YOUR sexuality MY business? Is what you do with other consenting adult(s) MY business?
> 
> What's the difference between "them" and "us"?
> 
> Stop the Peeping Tom and MYOB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me, genius, but I have repeatedly that any relationship between consenting adults is thier business, and no one else's. In fact, I am pretty sure that you would lose if we went head to head with the things I think the government should keep it's nose out of when it comes to what people do. You should stop demonstrating your bigotry so openly.
Click to expand...


You're all over the place but you often says things like this as though others should know what you think. Just as you said, 





> I am on record here saying ...



Where is that record?


----------



## westwall

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I already said, you are not interested in truth, you just want to spout your ignorant opinion and ignore the science, homosexuality is not genetic.
> 
> If you don't know what heritability means why did you declare yourself to be the board expert on science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How wrong you are.  I am interested in facts.  Truth is the purview of religion not science.  To that end the definition of HERITABILITY is
> 
> 1:  the quality or state of being heritable
> 
> 
> 2:  the proportion of observed variation in a particular trait (as height) that can be attributed to inherited *genetic factors* in contrast to environmental ones.
> 
> Heritability - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> *YOUR* link supporting what I said.  Don't you dare lecture me about science when you don't even know what the basics are.  This is a simple definition which you seem to not understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't, you said that homosexuality is genetic, That is flat out wrong, if it were all monozygotic twins would either be gay or straight. The studies show that this is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twin studies of homosexuality  have shown that identical twins are about twice as likely to both be  gay compared to fraternal twins.  This means that being gay is partly  genetic and not simply something that a person learns or chooses to be.
> There is one important thing to note, though.  If the DNA sequence is  the only thing determining whether someone is gay or not, we would  expect that if one identical twin were gay, then the other would be too  100% of the time.
> But this is not what scientists have found  the rate is actually  closer to 50%.  So while we know that genetics is involved, it doesnt  tell us the whole story.  This is where environment comes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Understanding Genetics
> 
> Did you notice that I, once again, used a link that disagrees with my position? Feel free to pretend to yourself that you are the one that is being unbiased and objective even though I have proved you wrong twice.
Click to expand...






Gene's are traits that are passed on.  In twins (or any family descent) one can get the gay gene while the other doesn't.  Just like in heart disease.  Two identical twins can be born and one inherits the gene that leads to coronary artery disease while the other doesn't.

Your argument is ridiculous.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> it isn't valid in the forum of science. And if you intend on administering therapy, you better have some damn good science.
> 
> First, do no harm. This is one of the principles of bioethics. If you haven't proven that there is an effective therapy to convert homosexuals to heterosexual you are bumbling around in thedark and likely causing far more harm than good.
> 
> If this so called "conversion therapy" is valid, why is it invalidated by every reputable behavioral sciences group? Why aren't the "therapists" that administer such "therapy" licensed, educated, or even cognizant of the principles of bioethics?
> 
> Where are their studies, where is their measurable success?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say it was valid? In fact, I am on record here saying that all psychotherapy is equally worthless, so I see no need to defend something I do not agree with. But feel free to ask stupid questions based on the assumption that I am suddenly in support of the APA despite saying that it is not a scientific organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You butted into a conversation between Emily and I. If you don't want to discuss it than why reply?
Click to expand...


I did discuss it, and you accused me of supporting something I don't. I could point out that you took so much exception to me mistaking your position that you repeatedly accused me of a straw man fallacy when I simply misread a post. What does that say about you when you do the exact same thing?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that is the one thing science says it isn't, but feel free to dig up bogus studies from psychologists and social scientists that claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong but even if you were correct, it doesn't really matter because what other consenting adults do in their own bedrooms simply is none of your business.
> 
> Why can't people get that through their heads?
> 
> Is YOUR sexuality MY business? Is what you do with other consenting adult(s) MY business?
> 
> What's the difference between "them" and "us"?
> 
> Stop the Peeping Tom and MYOB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he first think behavioral science is science.
Click to expand...


Does that actually make sense to you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Luddly Neddite said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong but even if you were correct, it doesn't really matter because what other consenting adults do in their own bedrooms simply is none of your business.
> 
> Why can't people get that through their heads?
> 
> Is YOUR sexuality MY business? Is what you do with other consenting adult(s) MY business?
> 
> What's the difference between "them" and "us"?
> 
> Stop the Peeping Tom and MYOB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, genius, but I have repeatedly that any relationship between consenting adults is thier business, and no one else's. In fact, I am pretty sure that you would lose if we went head to head with the things I think the government should keep it's nose out of when it comes to what people do. You should stop demonstrating your bigotry so openly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're all over the place but you often says things like this as though others should know what you think. Just as you said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am on record here saying ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is that record?
Click to expand...


Feel free to use the search function.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

westwall said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> My sister is lesbian.  We knew she was lesbian by the time she was 10 years old.  She is a man in every respect save her genitalia and has ALWAYS been so.  She was the toughest kid in her school and regularly took on the bullies who were tormenting her friends.
> 
> She has been in a committed relationship with her wife for over 15 years.  There is no doubt that she is lesbian and has always been one.
> 
> Likewise my daughters godmother.  She too has always been a lesbian.  She tried real hard to be "normal".  She comes from a devout Catholic family and dated guys up into college.  It was never comfortable for her.  Never.  She then was introduced to a lesbian from another college student and instantaneously she knew that it was the right thing for her.
> 
> I am sorry but you and those who think like you are simply wrong.  You allow your religious training and upbringing to bias your thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> There have been some studies that have shown that the more sons there are born into a family (and especially absent of daughters), the more likely it is that one or more of those boys will be homosexual.  I have no idea if that is genetic, the law of averages, or learned behavior.  but then it really doesn't matter to me.
> 
> I find the story of your sister to be interesting, because of my youngest daughter.  My youngest daughter was very masculine in actions and behavior as she was growing up.  She didn't like dolls, she liked toy cars.  She didn't like pink, she liked fighting.  She didn't like cooking, but she liked cleaning fish when we caught them.  She didn't play with other girls, she played with boys.  My wife (eventually ex-wife) and I had conversations about her, we were pretty sure she was lesbian and we accepted that.  Then one day, during her 12th year of life, it was like somebody flipped a switch.  She went from being all tom-boy to all young lady.  All of the sudden, dressing nice, and pretty hair, and feminine behavior was important to her.  And I really do mean, it was like somebody flipped a switch, she changed overnight.  And she has been nothing but a lady ever since.  She got married to a fine young man just two weeks ago.
> 
> Hehe, 20 years ago, I never expected that the son I never had (my tom-boy daughter) would become the woman she is today and neither did my ex-wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it happens like that too.  My sister though, never wanted to have anything to do with boys.  My dad encouraged her to be "normal" (it took him a long time to accept that she was lesbian and up till the day he died I don't think he ever truly did...he just didn't want to fight about it any more) but she was already  normal.....for her.
Click to expand...


I hope he was able to accept her and love her as she is instead of what he thought she should be. 

I can't think of anything sadder than families who disown their gay members. Pretty crappy family to start with if they do that but it causes so much pain. 

A while back, Howey posted about non-related family, friends who were so close that they were like family. He posted about xmas and Thanksgiving, birthdays spent together. 

Those are the kind of people who are real family. Not the judgmental ones who disown their own for their sexuality.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say it was valid? In fact, I am on record here saying that all psychotherapy is equally worthless, so I see no need to defend something I do not agree with. But feel free to ask stupid questions based on the assumption that I am suddenly in support of the APA despite saying that it is not a scientific organization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You butted into a conversation between Emily and I. If you don't want to discuss it than why reply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did discuss it, and you accused me of supporting something I don't. I could point out that you took so much exception to me mistaking your position that you repeatedly accused me of a straw man fallacy when I simply misread a post. What does that say about you when you do the exact same thing?
Click to expand...

It doesn't really say anything about me.

You brought up some unrelated nonsense about court room evidence.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How wrong you are.  I am interested in facts.  Truth is the purview of religion not science.  To that end the definition of HERITABILITY is
> 
> 1:  the quality or state of being heritable
> 
> 
> 2:  the proportion of observed variation in a particular trait (as height) that can be attributed to inherited *genetic factors* in contrast to environmental ones.
> 
> Heritability - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> *YOUR* link supporting what I said.  Don't you dare lecture me about science when you don't even know what the basics are.  This is a simple definition which you seem to not understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't, you said that homosexuality is genetic, That is flat out wrong, if it were all monozygotic twins would either be gay or straight. The studies show that this is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twin studies of homosexuality  have shown that identical twins are about twice as likely to both be  gay compared to fraternal twins.  This means that being gay is partly  genetic and not simply something that a person learns or chooses to be.
> There is one important thing to note, though.  If the DNA sequence is  the only thing determining whether someone is gay or not, we would  expect that if one identical twin were gay, then the other would be too  100% of the time.
> But this is not what scientists have found &#8211; the rate is actually  closer to 50%.  So while we know that genetics is involved, it doesn&#8217;t  tell us the whole story.  This is where environment comes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Understanding Genetics
> 
> Did you notice that I, once again, used a link that disagrees with my position? Feel free to pretend to yourself that you are the one that is being unbiased and objective even though I have proved you wrong twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gene's are traits that are passed on.  In twins (or any family descent) one can get the gay gene while the other doesn't.  Just like in heart disease.  Two identical twins can be born and one inherits the gene that leads to coronary artery disease while the other doesn't.
> 
> Your argument is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


How do monozygotic twins, which nave identical DNA, get different genes? Or did you not even read the blurb from the link I posted?

Keep telling me how smart and open minded you are, it amuses me.


----------



## itfitzme

Inevitable said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that is the one thing science says it isn't, but feel free to dig up bogus studies from psychologists and social scientists that claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong but even if you were correct, it doesn't really matter because what other consenting adults do in their own bedrooms simply is none of your business.
> 
> Why can't people get that through their heads?
> 
> Is YOUR sexuality MY business? Is what you do with other consenting adult(s) MY business?
> 
> What's the difference between "them" and "us"?
> 
> Stop the Peeping Tom and MYOB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he first think behavioral science is science.
Click to expand...


Try editing that so it is a complete sentence.  Your point got lost in the typo.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong but even if you were correct, it doesn't really matter because what other consenting adults do in their own bedrooms simply is none of your business.
> 
> Why can't people get that through their heads?
> 
> Is YOUR sexuality MY business? Is what you do with other consenting adult(s) MY business?
> 
> What's the difference between "them" and "us"?
> 
> Stop the Peeping Tom and MYOB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he first think behavioral science is science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that actually make sense to you?
Click to expand...


No, but you said it.


----------



## Inevitable

itfitzme said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong but even if you were correct, it doesn't really matter because what other consenting adults do in their own bedrooms simply is none of your business.
> 
> Why can't people get that through their heads?
> 
> Is YOUR sexuality MY business? Is what you do with other consenting adult(s) MY business?
> 
> What's the difference between "them" and "us"?
> 
> Stop the Peeping Tom and MYOB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he first think behavioral science is science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try editing that so it is a complete sentence.  Your point got lost in the typo.
Click to expand...


thanks didn't notice that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> You butted into a conversation between Emily and I. If you don't want to discuss it than why reply?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did discuss it, and you accused me of supporting something I don't. I could point out that you took so much exception to me mistaking your position that you repeatedly accused me of a straw man fallacy when I simply misread a post. What does that say about you when you do the exact same thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't really say anything about me.
> 
> You brought up some unrelated nonsense about court room evidence.
Click to expand...


I did so to make a point, one you missed. I guess I shouldn't assume that a person who everyone who agrees with him describes as intelligent is actually able to think.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong but even if you were correct, it doesn't really matter because what other consenting adults do in their own bedrooms simply is none of your business.
> 
> Why can't people get that through their heads?
> 
> Is YOUR sexuality MY business? Is what you do with other consenting adult(s) MY business?
> 
> What's the difference between "them" and "us"?
> 
> Stop the Peeping Tom and MYOB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he first think behavioral science is science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that actually make sense to you?
Click to expand...


Excuse me, that was a typo.

I meant to say he doesn't think behavioral science is science


----------



## westwall

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't, you said that homosexuality is genetic, That is flat out wrong, if it were all monozygotic twins would either be gay or straight. The studies show that this is not true.
> 
> Understanding Genetics
> 
> Did you notice that I, once again, used a link that disagrees with my position? Feel free to pretend to yourself that you are the one that is being unbiased and objective even though I have proved you wrong twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gene's are traits that are passed on.  In twins (or any family descent) one can get the gay gene while the other doesn't.  Just like in heart disease.  Two identical twins can be born and one inherits the gene that leads to coronary artery disease while the other doesn't.
> 
> Your argument is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do monozygotic twins, which nave identical DNA, get different genes? Or did you not know that monozygotic twins are commonly known as identical twins?
> 
> Keep telling me how smart you are at science, it amuses me.
Click to expand...







Epigenetic factors are known to alter the genetic structure of monozygotic twins as they age or is that beyond your knowledge base?

"Epigenetics involves genetic control by factors other than an individual's DNA sequence. Epigenetic changes can switch genes on or off and determine which proteins are transcribed."



http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Epigenetic-Influences-and-Disease-895


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> he first think behavioral science is science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that actually make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but you said it.
Click to expand...


I would never say anything as incoherent as what you said to Luddly. It is not even a sentence fragment, I have no idea what you were even trying to say.


----------



## Qball

Luddly Neddite said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science says it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that is the one thing science says it isn't, but feel free to dig up bogus studies from psychologists and social scientists that claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong but even if you were correct, it doesn't really matter because what other consenting adults do in their own bedrooms simply is none of your business.
> 
> Why can't people get that through their heads?
> 
> Is YOUR sexuality MY business? Is what you do with other consenting adult(s) MY business?
> 
> What's the difference between "them" and "us"?
> 
> Stop the Peeping Tom and MYOB.
Click to expand...


I don't think you can define your social identity by who you have sex with and then insist society mind their business when it comes to your sexuality. I don't know that society has ever really cared that much about gay and straight. I think the interest some people have in other people's sexuality usually exists contemporaneously with people's desire to make their sexual preferences publicly known.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did discuss it, and you accused me of supporting something I don't. I could point out that you took so much exception to me mistaking your position that you repeatedly accused me of a straw man fallacy when I simply misread a post. What does that say about you when you do the exact same thing?
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't really say anything about me.
> 
> You brought up some unrelated nonsense about court room evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did so to make a point, one you missed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I shouldn't assume that a person who everyone who agrees with him describes as intelligent is actually able to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> perhaps you ought to think things through before you post them.
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> he first think behavioral science is science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that actually make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me, that was a typo.
> 
> I meant to say he doesn't think behavioral science is science
Click to expand...


Except I never said that, did I? What I said is that the APA is not a scientific organization, and that all psychotherapy is equally useless. 

Are you putting words in my mouth because I am making points that you are having trouble refuting?


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that actually make sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would never say anything as incoherent as what you said to Luddly. It is not even a sentence fragment, I have no idea what you were even trying to say.
Click to expand...


I apologize for my typo.

You don't believe behavioral science is science. You did say so yourself.


----------



## GreenBean

Luddly Neddite said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is called the Clean Debate Zone for a reason.
> 
> More than that however is that words have consequences. Saying homosexuals are mentally ill, demented, damaged goods is the kind of thing that drives very young homosexuals to suicide. Its one thing to disagree or have a strong opinion but  won't you please take into consideration that there may well be people reading this who are struggling with their identity.
> 
> Don't we have some degree of responsibility to those people? How would we feel if we knew our words caused a young homosexual to kill him or herself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or it drives them to come  to the realization that they need help.  Which Gay activists are trying to deny them the right to recieve .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its one thing to disagree or have a strong opinion but  won't you please take into consideration that there may well be people reading this who are struggling with their identity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Oh trust me , i am fully aware of that *, I worked in the Mental Health field for many years - I do not have a doctorate - by my superiors did -I've seen what happens to these people . I knew one young man who blew his brains out - not because he was Gay or oppressed  -he was bisexual and infected his wife with the bug.   There are many other horror stories -* but I never heard of anybody committinmg suicide for the reasons you state *.
> 
> In a society, advanced as we seem to think we are in our sciences - Reperative Therapy - which is fairly new - has a relatively high success rate - comparable to Drug Rehab - sometimes they relapse - but overall - if you can make the patient/victim aware that they are sick / not healthy you can enable them to seek the first steps toward a normal, healthy life.   I've seen the dark side of homosexuality and how it effects people - the dark side  is not  pretty , but it is pretty much all there really is .  *Gay is not Okay *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALL of that is your opinion and that's exactly what its worth.
> 
> Its not fact and its not up to you to tell gays (or anyone else) what is "okay". Its not your business and the science does not agree with you.
> 
> You have been wrong throughout this thread. You're ignorant and closed minded. Knowing someone who has an education does not mean that education rubs off on you. It is accepted science that one's sexuality is genetically hardwired.  You're free to hold some other opinion but don't pretend its fact.
> 
> You've been snotty and rude and condescending to another poster who has treated you with respect and civility you do not deserve. I admire and respect Inevitable for his calm, clean, adult manners. If it had been me, I would have taken your head off.
> 
> Its judgmental people like you who do the harm in this world. Stop posting the hate and the venom and toxic insults, and just accept that not everyone is like you. That's just the way it is and if we all embraced our differences, life would be a lot easier for all.
Click to expand...




> Its not fact and its not up to you to tell gays (or anyone else) what is "okay".



I'm making it my business - does that bother you ? 



> Its not your business and the science does not agree with you.


Au Contraire pierre  - Science does agree with me - but I sincerely doubt you are in any way shape or form qualified to be a judge of that.  If you care to give it a shot please feel free to dig up one of my assertions and try to refute it - I'll be eagerly anticipating your reply. 



> You've been snotty and rude and condescending to another poster



Yes - I have - and will continue to be so - don't like it ? --- C'est la vie



> who has treated you with respect and civility you do not deserve.



You're dead wrong on that one Pal - you obviouslly don't know the History , *no disrespect intended* , but you simply have no clue as to what you're saying - do you ?



> Its judgmental people like you who do the harm in this world.



Dead wrong again my friend - it's *simple minded and naive people *who cause all the harm in this world.  Translated: *Liberals and other useful idiots. *



> Stop posting the hate and the venom and toxic insults, and just accept that not everyone is like you.



My Hate and Venom  =   "Tough Love"  are you familiar with the concept ?



> That's just the way it is and if we all embraced our differences, life would be a lot easier for all.



And everything would culminate with Tinkerbell swooping down to sprinkle fairy dust on your castle and we'd all live *happily ever after* - Right ?


Ya know Luddy - *I'm starting to take a liking to you* - because you seem to have a good heart -I mean you really do care about your fellow man - but what you don't realize is that sometimes - your way of showing that and trying to help , well unfortunately my friend -  it actually causes more harm than good .  Regards and have a nice day


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gene's are traits that are passed on.  In twins (or any family descent) one can get the gay gene while the other doesn't.  Just like in heart disease.  Two identical twins can be born and one inherits the gene that leads to coronary artery disease while the other doesn't.
> 
> Your argument is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do monozygotic twins, which nave identical DNA, get different genes? Or did you not know that monozygotic twins are commonly known as identical twins?
> 
> Keep telling me how smart you are at science, it amuses me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Epigenetic factors are known to alter the genetic structure of monozygotic twins as they age or is that beyond your knowledge base?
> 
> "Epigenetics involves genetic control by factors other than an individual's DNA sequence. Epigenetic changes can switch genes on or off and determine which proteins are transcribed."
> 
> 
> 
> Epigenetic Influences and Disease | Learn Science at Scitable
Click to expand...


Why are you pointing out something I already posted? What does it have to do with the fact that monozygotic twins have identical DNA, and your claim that they can still get different genes? You do understand that epigenetics, if valid, is about how the same genes develop differently, don't you? 

In other words, you are wrong, just admit you made a stupid mistake and move on.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that actually make sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, that was a typo.
> 
> I meant to say he doesn't think behavioral science is science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except I never said that, did I? What I said is that the APA is not a scientific organization, and that all psychotherapy is equally useless.
Click to expand...

so than you don't think applied behavioral science is a science. 



> Are you putting words in my mouth because I am making points that you are having trouble refuting?


Don't accuse me of anything because you fail to make coherent points.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you said it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would never say anything as incoherent as what you said to Luddly. It is not even a sentence fragment, I have no idea what you were even trying to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize for my typo.
> 
> You don't believe behavioral science is science. You did say so yourself.
Click to expand...


No I didn't.


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that is the one thing science says it isn't, but feel free to dig up bogus studies from psychologists and social scientists that claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong but even if you were correct, it doesn't really matter because what other consenting adults do in their own bedrooms simply is none of your business.
> 
> Why can't people get that through their heads?
> 
> Is YOUR sexuality MY business? Is what you do with other consenting adult(s) MY business?
> 
> What's the difference between "them" and "us"?
> 
> Stop the Peeping Tom and MYOB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he first think behavioral science is science.
Click to expand...


*HUH ? * 

Yes Behavioral Science is a Science -  I hope you're not an English major - *Typo ?*


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, that was a typo.
> 
> I meant to say he doesn't think behavioral science is science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except I never said that, did I? What I said is that the APA is not a scientific organization, and that all psychotherapy is equally useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so than you don't think applied behavioral science is a science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you putting words in my mouth because I am making points that you are having trouble refuting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't accuse me of anything because you fail to make coherent points.
Click to expand...


I never said that behavioral science is not valid.


----------



## westwall

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do monozygotic twins, which nave identical DNA, get different genes? Or did you not know that monozygotic twins are commonly known as identical twins?
> 
> Keep telling me how smart you are at science, it amuses me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Epigenetic factors are known to alter the genetic structure of monozygotic twins as they age or is that beyond your knowledge base?
> 
> "Epigenetics involves genetic control by factors other than an individual's DNA sequence. Epigenetic changes can switch genes on or off and determine which proteins are transcribed."
> 
> 
> 
> Epigenetic Influences and Disease | Learn Science at Scitable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you pointing out something I already posted? What does it have to do with the fact that monozygotic twins have identical DNA, and your claim that they can still get different genes? You do understand that epigenetics, if valid, is about how the same genes develop differently, don't you?
> 
> In other words, you are wrong, just admit you made a stupid mistake and move on.
Click to expand...







I have heard others claim you were being intentionally obtuse but had never seen it till now.  I said that homosexuality is genetic.  You said it's not and posted a study in support of what you said that actually supported me.  Then you bring up the twins issue and once again I post a study that shows how epigenetic factors CAN TURN GENES ON AND OFF AFTER BIRTH and that sails right over your head.

Like I said.  You don't understand even the basics so until you learn something you're merely wasting mine and everyone else's time.  It's YOU who refuses to learn something new QW.  Not me, and not anyone else who has posted here except for the religious nutters.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Epigenetic factors are known to alter the genetic structure of monozygotic twins as they age or is that beyond your knowledge base?
> 
> "Epigenetics involves genetic control by factors other than an individual's DNA sequence. Epigenetic changes can switch genes on or off and determine which proteins are transcribed."
> 
> 
> 
> Epigenetic Influences and Disease | Learn Science at Scitable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you pointing out something I already posted? What does it have to do with the fact that monozygotic twins have identical DNA, and your claim that they can still get different genes? You do understand that epigenetics, if valid, is about how the same genes develop differently, don't you?
> 
> In other words, you are wrong, just admit you made a stupid mistake and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard others claim you were being intentionally obtuse but had never seen it till now.  I said that homosexuality is genetic.  You said it's not and posted a study in support of what you said that actually supported me.  Then you bring up the twins issue and once again I post a study that shows how epigenetic factors CAN TURN GENES ON AND OFF AFTER BIRTH and that sails right over your head.
> 
> Like I said.  You don't understand even the basics so until you learn something you're merely wasting mine and everyone else's time.  It's YOU who refuses to learn something new QW.  Not me, and not anyone else who has posted here except for the religious nutters.
Click to expand...


One more time, if sexual preference were genetic identical twins would always have the same sexual preference, they don't.

In other words, you are still wrong.


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong but even if you were correct, it doesn't really matter because what other consenting adults do in their own bedrooms simply is none of your business.
> 
> Why can't people get that through their heads?
> 
> Is YOUR sexuality MY business? Is what you do with other consenting adult(s) MY business?
> 
> What's the difference between "them" and "us"?
> 
> Stop the Peeping Tom and MYOB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he first think behavioral science is science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *HUH ? *
> 
> Yes Behavioral Science is a Science -  I hope you're not an English major - *Typo ?*
Click to expand...


it's a typo they happen. If I was an English major I don't think a typo is that big of a deal.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except I never said that, did I? What I said is that the APA is not a scientific organization, and that all psychotherapy is equally useless.
> 
> 
> 
> so than you don't think applied behavioral science is a science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you putting words in my mouth because I am making points that you are having trouble refuting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't accuse me of anything because you fail to make coherent points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that behavioral science is not valid.
Click to expand...

When did I say you did?


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> he first think behavioral science is science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HUH ? *
> 
> Yes Behavioral Science is a Science -  I hope you're not an English major - *Typo ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's a typo they happen. If I was an English major I don't think a typo is that big of a deal.
Click to expand...


Right -saw your other post re: typo after I posted that - no biggie - Just thought you were drunk texting


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> *HUH ? *
> 
> Yes Behavioral Science is a Science -  I hope you're not an English major - *Typo ?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's a typo they happen. If I was an English major I don't think a typo is that big of a deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right -saw your other post re: typo after I posted that - no biggie - Just thought you were drunk texting
Click to expand...


No, just a typo.


----------



## westwall

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you pointing out something I already posted? What does it have to do with the fact that monozygotic twins have identical DNA, and your claim that they can still get different genes? You do understand that epigenetics, if valid, is about how the same genes develop differently, don't you?
> 
> In other words, you are wrong, just admit you made a stupid mistake and move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard others claim you were being intentionally obtuse but had never seen it till now.  I said that homosexuality is genetic.  You said it's not and posted a study in support of what you said that actually supported me.  Then you bring up the twins issue and once again I post a study that shows how epigenetic factors CAN TURN GENES ON AND OFF AFTER BIRTH and that sails right over your head.
> 
> Like I said.  You don't understand even the basics so until you learn something you're merely wasting mine and everyone else's time.  It's YOU who refuses to learn something new QW.  Not me, and not anyone else who has posted here except for the religious nutters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more time, if sexual preference were genetic identical twins would always have the same sexual preference. the don't.
> 
> In other words, you are still wrong.
Click to expand...






And you are being intellectually dishonest which is the worst thing I can call anyone.  You have descended to the level of rderp and truthiness.....and that's hard to do.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> so than you don't think applied behavioral science is a science.
> 
> Don't accuse me of anything because you fail to make coherent points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that behavioral science is not valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did I say you did?
Click to expand...


Seriously? I actually quoted the post where you said I said it, even if you delete it I still have the evidence. You have to do better than that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard others claim you were being intentionally obtuse but had never seen it till now.  I said that homosexuality is genetic.  You said it's not and posted a study in support of what you said that actually supported me.  Then you bring up the twins issue and once again I post a study that shows how epigenetic factors CAN TURN GENES ON AND OFF AFTER BIRTH and that sails right over your head.
> 
> Like I said.  You don't understand even the basics so until you learn something you're merely wasting mine and everyone else's time.  It's YOU who refuses to learn something new QW.  Not me, and not anyone else who has posted here except for the religious nutters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One more time, if sexual preference were genetic identical twins would always have the same sexual preference. the don't.
> 
> In other words, you are still wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being intellectually dishonest which is the worst thing I can call anyone.  You have descended to the level of rderp and truthiness.....and that's hard to do.
Click to expand...


Really? Scientist are the people that tell me that what I just said is true. I even posted a link to the study that explains it, and you still insist that you are right. Are all of them intellectually dishonest, or are you just a close minded bigot?


----------



## westwall

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time, if sexual preference were genetic identical twins would always have the same sexual preference. the don't.
> 
> In other words, you are still wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being intellectually dishonest which is the worst thing I can call anyone.  You have descended to the level of rderp and truthiness.....and that's hard to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Scientist are the people that tell me that what I just said is true. I even posted a link to the study that explains it, and you still insist that you are right. Are all of them intellectually dishonest, or are you just a close minded bigot?
Click to expand...







Here is what the study says...

 However, despite numerous studies over the last decade searching for polymorphisms associated with homosexuality, *no convincing molecular genetic evidence has been found despite the fact that pedigree and twin studies clearly show that homosexuality is familial (reviewed in Ngun et al. 2011)*. Homosexuality has also been hypothesized to be caused by nongenetic factors such as maternal antibodies against male-specific antigens (reviewed in Bogaert and Skorska 2011). This hypothesis may indeed explain some cases of homosexuality, but cannot account for most cases in men and none in women (Cantor et al. 2002). The poor correspondence between current models and data calls for a new conceptual framework to understand the evolution of homosexuality.


What that states is we have FAMILIAL evidence that shows it is genetic but our MODELS can't reproduce that.

You have fallen for the same silliness that global warming nutters have where they pay more attention to their models than the FACTS which inconveniently screw up their models.

Here's a clue...."familial" equals genetic...

"Substantial* Heritability"* equals genetic....

"Models" equal fiction....


----------



## GISMYS

CHOICE NOT GENES!!!!Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too. But we know that only about 38% of the time is the identical twin brother homosexual. Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average, they do not force people into homosexuality... NW.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being intellectually dishonest which is the worst thing I can call anyone.  You have descended to the level of rderp and truthiness.....and that's hard to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Scientist are the people that tell me that what I just said is true. I even posted a link to the study that explains it, and you still insist that you are right. Are all of them intellectually dishonest, or are you just a close minded bigot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what the study says...
> 
> However, despite numerous studies over the last decade searching for polymorphisms associated with homosexuality, *no convincing molecular genetic evidence has been found despite the fact that pedigree and twin studies clearly show that homosexuality is familial (reviewed in Ngun et al. 2011)*. Homosexuality has also been hypothesized to be caused by nongenetic factors such as maternal antibodies against male-specific antigens (reviewed in Bogaert and Skorska 2011). This hypothesis may indeed explain some cases of homosexuality, but cannot account for most cases in men and none in women (Cantor et al. 2002). The poor correspondence between current models and data calls for a new conceptual framework to understand the evolution of homosexuality.
> 
> 
> What that states is we have FAMILIAL evidence that shows it is genetic but our MODELS can't reproduce that.
> 
> You have fallen for the same silliness that global warming nutters have where they pay more attention to their models than the FACTS which inconveniently screw up their models.
> 
> Here's a clue...."familial" equals genetic...
> 
> "Substantial* Heritability"* equals genetic....
> 
> "Models" equal fiction....
Click to expand...


I get it now, you don't understand the language that scientists use, let me translate that for you. The part you highlighted in blue clearly states that there is no evidence that sexual preference is caused by genes. The other part says that there is a correlation among families that indicates that it is familial. You do understand that correlation does not equal causation, don't you?

As for heritability, it has nothing to do with individuals. I will use Wikipedia so you don't get confused when I make my point.



> The heritability of a trait is the square of the coefficient of G in a linear approximation to the surface GxE to trait. Factors including genetics, environment and random chance can all contribute to the variation between individuals in their observable characteristics (in their "phenotypes"). *Heritability thus analyzes the relative contributions of differences in genetic and non-genetic factors to the total phenotypic variance in a population.* For instance, some humans in a population are taller than others; heritability attempts to identify how much genetics play a role in part of the population being extra tall.


Heritability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, heritability is not about individuals, it is about the entire population. 

Anything else you don't understand?


----------



## emilynghiem

Inevitable said:


> No, anecdotal claims aren't valid proof.
> 
> Conversion therapy is quackery, and it has a higher suicide rate than a success rate. I don't care what your church websites say they are the wicked institutions that fabricated this garbage and fraudulently labeled it conversion therapy. There is zero provable success with so fraudulently called "conversion therapy" all you can really say is that you have beaten homosexuals into conforming to heterosexual behaviors or that you convinced bisexuals to forget about being with the same sex.
> 
> Prove the therapy isn't complete garbage, prove homosexuality is a condition in need of healing. Prove any of your claims aren't fraudulent, and please do so without using fraudulent links.



Hi Inevitable
No -- conversion therapy that is fraudulent abusive and coercive malpractice is 
NOT the same and has NOTHING to do with real spiritual healing that is the opposite.
We are clearly talking about two different things.

Drs. Francis and Judith MacNutt are long experienced, recognized teachers, trainers in spiritual healing which is harmless and works by free participation like other therapy.
It works by FORGIVENESS so nothing can be coerced or faked: forgiveness only works when it is only the person's free and true choice and not any other reason or it fails.
(The 5 stages of grief and recovery and the 12 steps to overcoming addiction are similar, working by forgiving each stage so people are free from the past, heal and move forward. Same process.)

She is a licensed pscyhotherapist and has saved lives from suicide, such as a rape patient 
she mentioned and added to the latest edition of the book on "HEALING" which has been a standard textbook in seminaries. The 1999 editions or later also mention a medical study on rheumatoid arthritis where effects of spiritual healing were documented by professional team of doctors. 

You can check out the resources online, look into the MacNutt's nonprofit, outreach and ministry and find ZERO cases of complaints by anyone, no arguments of fraud or abuse, because they only practice and teach *natural healing* that works alongside science and medicine. 

Dr. Phillip Goldfedder is another healing practitioner, who used to work as a professional neurosurgeon until he found the process of spiritual healing to be more effective in helping more people. He did not believe this was science, until he saw  proof for himself.

Dr. Scott Peck (deceased) also did not believe that "demon voices" were real and could be cured by applying the same "deliverance/exorcism" methods of spiritual healing that priests used. So he tried this himself, as a psychiatrist giving therapy to two patients, and found that the process worked. He wrote up his observations in two books "People of the Lie" and "Glimpses of the Devil"

Unlike Drs. Francis and Judith MacNutt, you will find complaints online about Peck having sexual affairs or other questionable conduct that hurt his credibility.

However, you will not find any such negative reports or complaints about the
Christian Healing Ministry by Dr. MacNutt and his team of nonprofit volunteers.
(Their worst conflict was separating from the Catholic church, I am guessing over
their policy that only ordained and authorized priests can do the healing instead
of anybody with this calling, but that was done civilly so there is no "backlash" there.)

  [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
I have a friend in Houston Olivia Reiner who has a long term relationship with MD Anderson Cancer Center and helping with volunteer outreach to anyone who asks for healing prayer.
She gave me permission to post her number online for anyone to call.
it is posted at http://www.spiritual-healing.us.com and at the top of the page at http://www.houstonprogressive.org = 713 829 0899

She has over 35 years of testimony of spiritual healing that helped people,
without causing harm, and has healed sickness ranging from cancer, diabetes, multiple
personalities involving demon voices, and drug addictions and sexual abuse.

We are working to get these medical testimonies documented to post online.
Because she volunteers for free, we do not have fancy resources like people who run a church which she refused long ago because of the problems with money and fraud.

Like Dr. MacNutt, they keep their spiritual healing outreach free 
so there is NO CONFUSION with false faith healing for money and fraud.

Elizabeth Collins is another volunteer with Olivia's nonprofit that has been pushing for medical research and formal studies to document this.

Many people already have their cases documented medically.

If you want formal medical proof, so do I.

If people only want to debunk it, they won't spend the money on research because they already believe it is false.

Peck seems to be the rare exception, who went through the steps to observe the process himself, PLANNING to debunk it as "mental delusion and false" but found the opposite.

Most people find it easier to debunk the source as "not credible," and won't look further.

So if that is the path you take, that is the most common.

It is too much work to try to do all the research it would take to change your own mind
if you already think you are right, and don't think you need to see any proof.

Dr. Goldfedder also researched it himself to see proof that it was real.
And it changed his mind and his entire practice. He gave up his more profitable
neurosurgery practice because spiritual healing addressed the root cause
instead of the symptoms.

I am happy to keep you updated
as I push for medical research to be replicated so this knowledge and process
can be made accessible to the public.

If you want to wait until other people prove it to believe it, that's fine.
Most people are like that.

I found out it was true before it became public knowledge.
So out of social responsibility and ethics to prevent people from suffering and dying,
of course I am going to promote a free solution that would save lives.

So I am pushing for medical proof, so that this is no longer an issue.

Spiritual healing is real, natural and effective,
works with science and medicine
does not impose any risk or harm (such as denying or neglecting
medical care or denying the fact that some things may not change or heal
and cannot be forced and other forms of false practice or fraud that causes harm)

If you don't believe this without proof, I don't blame you.
Dr. Peck didn't either until he saw enough proof to write a book
urging the medical and psychiatric profession to follow up with
formal scientific study, research and development of this natural therapy.

Dr. Goldfedder saw proof how it worked, tried it himself,
and gave up his surgical practice to focus on this therapy.  

All I ask or suggest is that you keep an open mind.

To me it is dangerous to assume that all other reports to the contrary are false.

There is a method behind spiritual healing that can be explained and demonstated scientifically. Each person's process is unique to them, but the patterns are the same.

So that part can be proven to be effective,
by repeat application on different kinds of conditions
and show the statistical correlation between
* forgiveness and healing
* unforgiveness and not healing
* changing from unforgiveness to forgiveness
to show the change from not healing to healing

Sorry for the long response. This is a critical field and reform in medicine and mental health treatment, so I tend to go on and on about because I find it so important
to recognize it.

I do not think we can sustain society if we do not start practicing this therapy
on a regular basis to cure all cases that are possible (not all can be cured or changed).

The application to cancer, to mental illness, and especially to criminal illness
will effect a huge impact on our health systems, and govt and prison systems.

So this is a big deal.
It is like Nobel Prize material to prove through science and medicine
that spiritual healing is natural and can cure a wide variety of diseases.
And in the process bridge a huge gap between science and religion, reason and faith.


----------



## Howey

"Spiritual healing" is just another way to say "brainwashing", which coincidentally is another way to say "conversion therapy".


----------



## Howey

My So-Called Ex-Gay Life


----------



## emilynghiem

Inevitable said:


> No, anecdotal claims aren't valid proof.
> 
> Conversion therapy is quackery, and it has a higher suicide rate than a success rate. I don't care what your church websites say they are the wicked institutions that fabricated this garbage and fraudulently labeled it conversion therapy. There is zero provable success with so fraudulently called "conversion therapy" all you can really say is that you have beaten homosexuals into conforming to heterosexual behaviors or that you convinced bisexuals to forget about being with the same sex.
> 
> Prove the therapy isn't complete garbage, prove homosexuality is a condition in need of healing. Prove any of your claims aren't fraudulent, and please do so without using fraudulent links.



P.S. [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
1. No, I did NOT say that homosexuality needed healing?
I said that it depends on the person.

If their sexual behavior (whether heterosexual OR homosexual) was unnaturally
caused by abuse, then if you heal the abuse, then their behavior CAN also healed.
That is not the same thing. Clearly it cannot be healed if it is natural for them!!!

2. Why is it okay to use anecdotes to show that people are "naturally
homosexual" I trust they are if they say that it is natural for them, based on their
anecdotes. Why isn't this okay for people who say that it wasn't their natural orientation, and that they changed it?

I use the same standard for both -- if people say it is natural or unnatural for them,
I believe that person.

3. Where did YOU prove that the links or references were fraudulent quacks?

 [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] can you find ANY fraudulent reports on
* Dr. Francis MacNutt
* HEALING 1999 edition mentions medical studies on Rheumatoid Arthritis
* Christian Healing Ministries Home - Christian Healing Ministries

4. I am okay with setting up medical  proof that spiritual healing is effective and safe
and NOT the same thing as any fraudulent "forced conversion" or "false faith healing"

this CAN be proven MEDICALLY

You can PROVE that false methods do  NOT involve "forgiveness"
but maybe fear and guilt based conditions and expectations

You can PROVE through statistics that people who report "forgiveness"
are successful in their recovery therapy (from any number of conditions)
while people who don't go through forgiveness can get stuck and not finish the process

The key to natural healing 
is "forgiveness" and there are many versions of this kind of therapy
and many successful stories out there -- all based on the same or similar process.


----------



## emilynghiem

Howey said:


> "Spiritual healing" is just another way to say "brainwashing", which coincidentally is another way to say "conversion therapy".



No, brainwashing or "placebo's" never cured anyone of demonic voices.
There are more applications of spiritual healing to curing cancer (which is a more common condition that people seek help for) and to mental conditions like schizophrenia.

I don't know anyone who can "brainwash" anyone
out of hearing schizophrenic voices. People have been cured of this through 
spiritual therapy and prayer to get into their subconscious levels.

Why would you want to discourage exploration of a field
of science that could save more people's lives and minds and health?

Are you THAT selfish that you would rather FIGHT the risk of being wrong in changing your mind, rather than CONSIDER methods that have SAVED LIVES and could save many more?


----------



## emilynghiem

Howey said:


> My So-Called Ex-Gay Life



1. Note: Spiritual healing doesn't "blame" anyone for any conditions.
It is not based on guilt, fear, judgment, trying to force anyone or anyting to change or
IT DOES NOT WORK.

What spiritual healing does is identify the unforgiven or unresolved conflicts, issues or memories in someone's past, and introduces prayer to help FORGIVE and LET GO of these blockages that PREVENT NATURAL HEALING.

so it is about unblocking any obstructions, by guilt fear rage unforgiveness etc.

And letting the natural healing process HAPPEN
and NOT DICTATE what happens, what changes or not,
but just to receive forgiveness and healing and let NATURE take its course.

2. Sure,  [MENTION=42946]Howey[/MENTION] you can point to failed alcoholic cases and show the high relapse rate and say the process fails. Many people defy debunk and denounce AA as false because it failed for them.

I have a friend who it didn't work for UNTIL he added Buddhist meditation to identify sources of guilt, and then it worked and he's been sober since then.

I met a woman who did past life regression to address a phobia,
and the therapist applied Christian healing prayer IN ADDITION to the regression therapy
and it worked. The phobia went away because the woman FORGAVE and LET GO.

So you can either look at the cases that SUCCEED 
and see what all they had to FORGIVE in order to be successful

or you can focus on the cases this didn't work for

3. in cases of changing one's orientation, gender or even religion
you CANNOT convert to something that isn't natural or right for you
after going through healing. Once you remove all the guilt fear and unforgiveness,
people restore their NATURAL state that has NO fear-based conditions.
that is what is being healed the false conditions

so they return to their natural state of mind and body
whatever that is - true healing is UNCONDITIONAL
(NOT this false forced fraudulent conversion that is the opposite of healing)

So if you are not going to change orientation, this will not change it.
You can still heal of anything that prevented you from being at peace,
but you will restore your original nature whatever that is right for you.

Sorry I think we are talking about two totally different things.
My apologies for the confusion, it is as different as opposite and day.

Free healing with unconditional acceptance and loving forgiveness
is totally the opposite of
"forced abuse out of guilt judgment and fraud"

These have nothing to do with each other!


----------



## Marie888

I believe 100% that it is a choice, because one can "live without it" or rather that it is not a bare necessity at all,  (food, shelter, etc) therefore it is a choice coming from the mind.  I believe a person may "struggle" with it as I also believe it is a form a lust and lust is definitely a choice also which can also become a temptation, just as there are many "lust/fleshly" choices including fornication. (sex before holy matrimony)

Please know that my reply is not to put down or attack any homosexuals personally, as the Good Lord knows I've struggled and struggle with my own things I've done wrong or sinned.  Daily I ask Him for forgiveness even in my mind, as we all fall short.

But overall, I believe it's a choice and goes directly along with these verses in The Bible and that it is a sin against God/how He created us to be and He wants to restore us from things like this:



> Romans 1
> 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
> 
> 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
> 
> 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
> 
> 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
> 
> 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
> 
> 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
> 
> 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.



When one reads all these verses very carefully, even asking God for help to read them if needed, it becomes clear that it's a "lust" which is a "choice".



.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi Marie: Some people seem to understand and let go better
if we make a distinction between "natural and unnatural" cases of homosexuality.
See Matthew 19:12 that some eunuchs are born and some are made by man;
so it is possible also in these cases some are by birth and some by conditions.
I think it is more spiritual than genetic, which research shows does not apply.

I do have one friend who changed after he decided it WAS a choice and not born.

So this approach DOES help those people like him, who accepted medical research that there was nothing in genetics causing this.
(he also accepted the idea that there could be different types of cases, some can and cannot change, and not all the same way)
With others, when they have a CHOICE to change, they are free to decide and this helps them to think more clearly. 

With too many people, to impose the judgment they are "making a wrong choice" somewhere, does NOT help but causes worse problems.

I find it universal to focus on "spiritual healing" in general, so no matter what needs to be forgiven, no matter what can or cannot change, this promotes forgiveness not fear.



Marie888 said:


> I believe 100% that it is a choice, because one can "live without it" or rather that it is not a bare necessity at all,  (food, shelter, etc) therefore it is a choice coming from the mind.  I believe a person may "struggle" with it as I also believe it is a form a lust and lust is definitely a choice also which can also become a temptation, just as there are many "lust/fleshly" choices including fornication. (sex before holy matrimony)
> 
> Please know that my reply is not to put down or attack any homosexuals personally, as the Good Lord knows I've struggled and struggle with my own things I've done wrong or sinned.  Daily I ask Him for forgiveness even in my mind, as we all fall short.
> 
> But overall, I believe it's a choice and goes directly along with these verses in The Bible and that it is a sin against God/how He created us to be and He wants to restore us from things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 1
> 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
> 
> 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
> 
> 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
> 
> 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
> 
> 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
> 
> 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
> 
> 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When one reads all these verses very carefully, even asking God for help to read them if needed, it becomes clear that it's a "lust" which is a "choice".
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I have no problem with that angle as long as the "lust as a choice" applies to ALL people in ALL situations and forms of Lusting and is not discriminating and targeting only one group.

I still would make a distinction between unnatural lust and natural desire and connection.
And leave it to God which is which, as nobody can be right % in our judgments, especially concerning other people who don't know or understand perfectly as God knows.


----------



## kaz

Inevitable said:


> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?



People are born that way.  They chose to be gay no more than I chose to be straight.


----------



## emilynghiem

REVISED sorry



kaz said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are born that way.  They chose to be gay no more than I chose to be straight.
Click to expand...


  [MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION] What about people who were raped and 
their sexual behavior (either homosexual or heterosexual) was caused by rape or abuse:

Were they BORN to be raped and abused?

I believe in spiritual karma, but we do not choose some of this karma that affects
what happens in life. We learn to deal with the karma.
Some believe our karma is decided before we are born.
Do you believe in that level?
I know someone who believes that rape victims had that in their karma.
Do you?


----------



## fanger

kaz said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are born that way.  They chose to be gay no more than I chose to be straight.
Click to expand...


To have sex is a choice


----------



## kaz

emilynghiem said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are born that way.  They chose to be gay no more than I chose to be straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION] did people who were raped and
> their sexual behavior (either homosexual or heterosexual) was caused by rape or abuse,
> CHOOSE to be raped?
> 
> Were they BORN to be raped and abused?
> 
> I believe in spiritual karma, but we do not choose some of this karma that affects
> what happens in life. We learn to deal with the karma.
> Some believe our karma is decided before we are born.
> Do you believe in that level?
> I know someone who believes that rape victims had that in their karma.
> Do you?
Click to expand...


I'm waiving my hand over my head.  I have no idea what you are talking about.  I said that gay people don't chose to be gay just like I didn't chose to be straight.  I just am.  What does what I said have to do with rape?  You completely lost me, please clarify what you are talking about related to what I said.


----------



## kaz

fanger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are born that way.  They chose to be gay no more than I chose to be straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To have sex is a choice
Click to expand...


and...


----------



## Howey

GISMYS said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> My So-Called Ex-Gay Life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Note: Spiritual healing doesn't "blame" anyone for any conditions.
> It is not based on guilt, fear, judgment, trying to force anyone or anyting to change or
> IT DOES NOT WORK.
> 
> What spiritual healing does is identify the unforgiven or unresolved conflicts, issues or memories in someone's past, and introduces prayer to help FORGIVE and LET GO of these blockages that PREVENT NATURAL HEALING.
> 
> so it is about unblocking any obstructions, by guilt fear rage unforgiveness etc.
> 
> And letting the natural healing process HAPPEN
> and NOT DICTATE what happens, what changes or not,
> but just to receive forgiveness and healing and let NATURE take its course.
> 
> 2. Sure,  [MENTION=42946]Howey[/MENTION] you can point to failed alcoholic cases and show the high relapse rate and say the process fails. Many people defy debunk and denounce AA as false because it failed for them.
> 
> I have a friend who it didn't work for UNTIL he added Buddhist meditation to identify sources of guilt, and then it worked and he's been sober since then.
> 
> I met a woman who did past life regression to address a phobia,
> and the therapist applied Christian healing prayer IN ADDITION to the regression therapy
> and it worked. The phobia went away because the woman FORGAVE and LET GO.
> 
> So you can either look at the cases that SUCCEED
> and see what all they had to FORGIVE in order to be successful
> 
> or you can focus on the cases this didn't work for
> 
> 3. in cases of changing one's orientation, gender or even religion
> you CANNOT convert to something that isn't natural or right for you
> after going through healing. Once you remove all the guilt fear and unforgiveness,
> people restore their NATURAL state that has NO fear-based conditions.
> that is what is being healed the false conditions
> 
> so they return to their natural state of mind and body
> whatever that is - true healing is UNCONDITIONAL
> (NOT this false forced fraudulent conversion that is the opposite of healing)
> 
> So if you are not going to change orientation, this will not change it.
> You can still heal of anything that prevented you from being at peace,
> but you will restore your original nature whatever that is right for you.
> 
> Sorry I think we are talking about two totally different things.
> My apologies for the confusion, it is as different as opposite and day.
> 
> Free healing with unconditional acceptance and loving forgiveness
> is totally the opposite of
> "forced abuse out of guilt judgment and fraud"
> 
> These have nothing to do with each other!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALL THOSE THAT HAVE CHOSE TO LIVE IN SIN CAN STILL CONFESS AND REPENT OF SIN,BELIEVE IN JESUS AS THEIR LORD AND SAVIOR AND HE WILL FORGIVE AND ""WASH YOU AND MAKE YOU CLEAN""!!! Your choice!
Click to expand...


Reported.


----------



## Rambunctious

For most it is a choice...but for some it's not. It's ridiculous to think that every homosexual act is because of genetics.


----------



## emilynghiem

kaz said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are born that way.  They chose to be gay no more than I chose to be straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION] did people who were raped and
> their sexual behavior (either homosexual or heterosexual) was caused by rape or abuse,
> CHOOSE to be raped?
> 
> Were they BORN to be raped and abused?
> 
> I believe in spiritual karma, but we do not choose some of this karma that affects
> what happens in life. We learn to deal with the karma.
> Some believe our karma is decided before we are born.
> Do you believe in that level?
> I know someone who believes that rape victims had that in their karma.
> Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm waiving my hand over my head.  I have no idea what you are talking about.  I said that gay people don't chose to be gay just like I didn't chose to be straight.  I just am.  What does what I said have to do with rape?  You completely lost me, please clarify what you are talking about related to what I said.
Click to expand...


Sorry  [MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION] I was referring to people whose behavior was not born with them
but related to them being raped or abused.

How can someone be BORN gay, in cases where their behavior came from rape,
how does that apply? They could not have been born to be raped and become gay?

I was just trying to point out
that not all cases are the same.

Some people change who were not that way by birth,
so it was not their natural orientation.

Not all cases are natural by birth. Sorry I messed up that reply!


----------



## emilynghiem

Quantum Windbag said:


> One more time, if sexual preference were genetic *identical twins would always have the same sexual preference. they don't.*
> 
> In other words, you are still wrong.



This is mentioned in Dr. Francis MacNutt's book
"Homosexuality Can It Be Healed"
identical twins raised in the same household had AT MOST 50% match in orientation


Many people interpret this as showing a TENDENCY (where some studies show > 50%)
But since it isn't 100% then most people interpret it as "other factors involved"

Another friend of mine got over his bisexual feelings, thoughts and "tendencies" after
his doctor told him that he did all the research, and NOTHING confirmed there was anything "genetically" causing this. It was a choice or other factors involved. My friend did the research, agreed, and this helped him let go when he no longer felt he had no choice.

I have heard that "transgender" personality DO show the brain patterns
as the gender of their personality not their birth. I think it's the hypothalamus
that is different in size.

Doctors can look at the BRAINS of a person and tell the difference.

So there is something physical going on in such cases.

I believe that not all cases are the same: if someone is meant to be
a certain orientation in life, in order to have certain relations with certain people;
and if they are meant to change or not, that is part of their spiritual path and process
that is "unique to them" and may not be true for someone else. It's almost an exercise
in realizing that there is an exception to every rule, just when you think you've heard it all,
here comes someone else with a different experience that doesn't fit other paradigms!


----------



## kaz

emilynghiem said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION] did people who were raped and
> their sexual behavior (either homosexual or heterosexual) was caused by rape or abuse,
> CHOOSE to be raped?
> 
> Were they BORN to be raped and abused?
> 
> I believe in spiritual karma, but we do not choose some of this karma that affects
> what happens in life. We learn to deal with the karma.
> Some believe our karma is decided before we are born.
> Do you believe in that level?
> I know someone who believes that rape victims had that in their karma.
> Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiving my hand over my head.  I have no idea what you are talking about.  I said that gay people don't chose to be gay just like I didn't chose to be straight.  I just am.  What does what I said have to do with rape?  You completely lost me, please clarify what you are talking about related to what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry  [MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION] I was referring to people whose behavior was not born with them
> but related to them being raped or abused.
> 
> How can someone be BORN gay, in cases where their behavior came from rape,
> how does that apply? They could not have been born to be raped and become gay?
> 
> I was just trying to point out
> that not all cases are the same.
> 
> Some people change who were not that way by birth,
> so it was not their natural orientation.
> 
> Not all cases are natural by birth. Sorry I messed up that reply!
Click to expand...


Rape is an action with a victim.  Gay is an orientation.  If a gay has gay sex with a willing gay partner, there is no victim.  I don't see how they are comparable.  I still don't see what you are trying to get at.


----------



## Katzndogz

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is genetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the one thing anyone who pays attention knows it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My sister is lesbian.  We knew she was lesbian by the time she was 10 years old.  She is a man in every respect save her genitalia and has ALWAYS been so.  She was the toughest kid in her school and regularly took on the bullies who were tormenting her friends.
> 
> She has been in a committed relationship with her wife for over 15 years.  There is no doubt that she is lesbian and has always been one.
> 
> Likewise my daughters godmother.  She too has always been a lesbian.  She tried real hard to be "normal".  She comes from a devout Catholic family and dated guys up into college.  It was never comfortable for her.  Never.  She then was introduced to a lesbian from another college student and instantaneously she knew that it was the right thing for her.
> 
> I am sorry but you and those who think like you are simply wrong.  You allow your religious training and upbringing to bias your thinking.
Click to expand...


How long have you known this godmothrr?  Has she molested your sister?   Is early molestation by a close family friend the reason your sister is a lesbian?

Your sister sounds like a typical tomboy.  Much like myself when I was a child.   Many lesbians are attracted to such girls.


----------



## Asclepias

fanger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are born that way.  They chose to be gay no more than I chose to be straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To have sex is a choice
Click to expand...


That has nothing to do with your orientation.


----------



## westwall

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Scientist are the people that tell me that what I just said is true. I even posted a link to the study that explains it, and you still insist that you are right. Are all of them intellectually dishonest, or are you just a close minded bigot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what the study says...
> 
> However, despite numerous studies over the last decade searching for polymorphisms associated with homosexuality, *no convincing molecular genetic evidence has been found despite the fact that pedigree and twin studies clearly show that homosexuality is familial (reviewed in Ngun et al. 2011)*. Homosexuality has also been hypothesized to be caused by nongenetic factors such as maternal antibodies against male-specific antigens (reviewed in Bogaert and Skorska 2011). This hypothesis may indeed explain some cases of homosexuality, but cannot account for most cases in men and none in women (Cantor et al. 2002). The poor correspondence between current models and data calls for a new conceptual framework to understand the evolution of homosexuality.
> 
> 
> What that states is we have FAMILIAL evidence that shows it is genetic but our MODELS can't reproduce that.
> 
> You have fallen for the same silliness that global warming nutters have where they pay more attention to their models than the FACTS which inconveniently screw up their models.
> 
> Here's a clue...."familial" equals genetic...
> 
> "Substantial* Heritability"* equals genetic....
> 
> "Models" equal fiction....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it now, you don't understand the language that scientists use, let me translate that for you. The part you highlighted in blue clearly states that there is no evidence that sexual preference is caused by genes. The other part says that there is a correlation among families that indicates that it is familial. You do understand that correlation does not equal causation, don't you?
> 
> As for heritability, it has nothing to do with individuals. I will use Wikipedia so you don't get confused when I make my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The heritability of a trait is the square of the coefficient of G in a linear approximation to the surface GxE to trait. Factors including genetics, environment and random chance can all contribute to the variation between individuals in their observable characteristics (in their "phenotypes"). *Heritability thus analyzes the relative contributions of differences in genetic and non-genetic factors to the total phenotypic variance in a population.* For instance, some humans in a population are taller than others; heritability attempts to identify how much genetics play a role in part of the population being extra tall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heritability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In other words, heritability is not about individuals, it is about the entire population.
> 
> Anything else you don't understand?
Click to expand...






Then why does it run in families?


----------



## Asclepias

emilynghiem said:


> REVISED sorry
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are born that way.  They chose to be gay no more than I chose to be straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION] What about people who were raped and
> their sexual behavior (either homosexual or heterosexual) was caused by rape or abuse:
> 
> Were they BORN to be raped and abused?
> 
> I believe in spiritual karma, but we do not choose some of this karma that affects
> what happens in life. We learn to deal with the karma.
> Some believe our karma is decided before we are born.
> Do you believe in that level?
> I know someone who believes that rape victims had that in their karma.
> Do you?
Click to expand...


What does being raped and your sexual orientation have to do with each other?


----------



## Nyvin

emilynghiem said:


> Sorry  [MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION] I was referring to people whose behavior was not born with them
> but related to them being raped or abused.
> 
> How can someone be BORN gay, in cases where their behavior came from rape,
> how does that apply? They could not have been born to be raped and become gay?
> 
> I was just trying to point out
> that not all cases are the same.
> 
> Some people change who were not that way by birth,
> so it was not their natural orientation.
> 
> Not all cases are natural by birth. Sorry I messed up that reply!



I have never once in my life heard or read about someone turning gay as a result of being raped....wtf are you talking about???


----------



## Asclepias

Rambunctious said:


> For most it is a choice...but for some it's not. It's ridiculous to think that every homosexual act is because of genetics.



Being born gay is not a choice. Sexual acts have nothing to do with that.


----------



## Howey

Asclepias said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> REVISED sorry
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are born that way.  They chose to be gay no more than I chose to be straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION] What about people who were raped and
> their sexual behavior (either homosexual or heterosexual) was caused by rape or abuse:
> 
> Were they BORN to be raped and abused?
> 
> I believe in spiritual karma, but we do not choose some of this karma that affects
> what happens in life. We learn to deal with the karma.
> Some believe our karma is decided before we are born.
> Do you believe in that level?
> I know someone who believes that rape victims had that in their karma.
> Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does being raped and your sexual orientation have to do with each other?
Click to expand...


I was wondering that too, but Emily apparently is a misguided soul ala' GIZMO.


----------



## emilynghiem

Asclepias said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> REVISED sorry
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are born that way.  They chose to be gay no more than I chose to be straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION] What about people who were raped and
> their sexual behavior (either homosexual or heterosexual) was caused by rape or abuse:
> 
> Were they BORN to be raped and abused?
> 
> I believe in spiritual karma, but we do not choose some of this karma that affects
> what happens in life. We learn to deal with the karma.
> Some believe our karma is decided before we are born.
> Do you believe in that level?
> I know someone who believes that rape victims had that in their karma.
> Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does being raped and your sexual orientation have to do with each other?
Click to expand...


Hi A I was referring to SOME cases where orientation is not from birth.
In SOME cases the homosexual behavior was not natural for the person
but was a reaction to abuse or child rape, molestation, etc.

A friend of mine recently counseling a lesbian who was working through issues of being abused herself.

When she healed of this abuse, the desire for homosexual sexual relations also went away.
so in SOME CASES the PERSON attributes their homosexuality to abuse.

It is not for others to determine that, or say "all cases are like that."

I believe it when a person says that it applied to THEM.

So I have heard of enough of these cases to know that SOME ARE like this.
SOME people were not naturally oriented that way, but after unnatural abuse.
And SOME people have healed of that and changed orientation to restore their natural state.

Of friends I have known or talked to personally:
one friend let go of feelings he had a transgender personality after he received healing
another friend came out as transgender female after going through forgiveness healing
another friend dropped his bisexual thoughts and feelings after counseling

I can only guess the common pattern is that people return to their natural
orientation after they forgive heal and remove whatever conditions caused otherwise.

My friend Olivia is the one who counseled a young woman who had been raped by incest over her childhood; and after she healed of that, she no longer had lesbian orientation. In such  cases, I believe it can only make sense if they were naturally heterosexual to begin with. If they were acting unnaturally for what they normally are, then that could change.

It depends on the person. Most people I know are not happy until they make peace with how they are naturally. The point of therapy is to resolve any conflicts causing problems.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what the study says...
> 
> However, despite numerous studies over the last decade searching for polymorphisms associated with homosexuality, *no convincing molecular genetic evidence has been found despite the fact that pedigree and twin studies clearly show that homosexuality is familial (reviewed in Ngun et al. 2011)*. Homosexuality has also been hypothesized to be caused by nongenetic factors such as maternal antibodies against male-specific antigens (reviewed in Bogaert and Skorska 2011). This hypothesis may indeed explain some cases of homosexuality, but cannot account for most cases in men and none in women (Cantor et al. 2002). The poor correspondence between current models and data calls for a new conceptual framework to understand the evolution of homosexuality.
> 
> 
> What that states is we have FAMILIAL evidence that shows it is genetic but our MODELS can't reproduce that.
> 
> You have fallen for the same silliness that global warming nutters have where they pay more attention to their models than the FACTS which inconveniently screw up their models.
> 
> Here's a clue...."familial" equals genetic...
> 
> "Substantial* Heritability"* equals genetic....
> 
> "Models" equal fiction....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get it now, you don't understand the language that scientists use, let me translate that for you. The part you highlighted in blue clearly states that there is no evidence that sexual preference is caused by genes. The other part says that there is a correlation among families that indicates that it is familial. You do understand that correlation does not equal causation, don't you?
> 
> As for heritability, it has nothing to do with individuals. I will use Wikipedia so you don't get confused when I make my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The heritability of a trait is the square of the coefficient of G in a linear approximation to the surface GxE to trait. Factors including genetics, environment and random chance can all contribute to the variation between individuals in their observable characteristics (in their "phenotypes"). *Heritability thus analyzes the relative contributions of differences in genetic and non-genetic factors to the total phenotypic variance in a population.* For instance, some humans in a population are taller than others; heritability attempts to identify how much genetics play a role in part of the population being extra tall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heritability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In other words, heritability is not about individuals, it is about the entire population.
> 
> Anything else you don't understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does it run in families?
Click to expand...


That is a good question, and where honest people admit that there really isn't an answer.


----------



## emilynghiem

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get it now, you don't understand the language that scientists use, let me translate that for you. The part you highlighted in blue clearly states that there is no evidence that sexual preference is caused by genes. The other part says that there is a correlation among families that indicates that it is familial. You do understand that correlation does not equal causation, don't you?
> 
> As for heritability, it has nothing to do with individuals. I will use Wikipedia so you don't get confused when I make my point.
> 
> Heritability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In other words, heritability is not about individuals, it is about the entire population.
> 
> Anything else you don't understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does it run in families?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a good question, and where honest people admit that there really isn't an answer.
Click to expand...


1. That's one area where the argument can be made that it is spiritually determined.

People who believe and study the laws of karma have reported spiritual connections between people "reborn" in future relationship between "husband and wife" or family members. So if homosexuality is correlated with certain karma, that could be born into certain families also so those members experience certain relations with each other.

2. I found something about the twin study still interpreted as being "partially" genetic:
Biological basis of sexual orientation

Note the last section:

*Finally, there is some evidence that the brains of homosexuals may be different from those of heterosexual men and women. The differences have been found in the hypothalamus, which controls eating, drinking, temperature regulation and sexual behavior. Studies done in the Netherlands and in Southern California have found such differences in several areas within the hypothalamus. One region, the midsagittal area of the anterior commissure, is larger in females than in males, but also appears to be larger in homosexual males. Another area, the suprachiasmatic nucleus, which controls circadian rhythm, is larger in heterosexual males and females than it is in homosexuals.*

Another reason I go with "spiritually determined" is this would explain both genetic and environmental factors, and cover ALL cases of either one, since the spiritual realm of laws of karma or cause and effect would essentially influence both the manifestation in the genetics and the social and environment factors, including whom we interact with in life.

That is the one approach I found that covers ALL cases, whether natural or unnatural, born or caused, genetic or environmental -- if there are spiritual reasons and patterns that influence how things happen and whether or not things change.


----------



## BobPlumb

If heard of cases of people that have dissociated personality syndrome (multiple personalities) in which some of the personilities are gay and some are not.  Just thought I'd throw that bone into the discussion.

Interviewing a Person with Multiple Personalities


----------



## Quantum Windbag

BobPlumb said:


> If heard of cases of people that have dissociated personality syndrome (multiple personalities) in which some of the personilities are gay and some are not.  Just thought I'd throw that bone into the discussion.
> 
> Interviewing a Person with Multiple Personalities



I had forgotten about MPD. I read a book once that got inside the head of a man with MPD who was convicted of rape. The personality that actually raped the women turned out to be a female that was lesbian. Kind of bts the whole debate into a differnt realm when we look at the extremes of the human psyche.


----------



## Asclepias

BobPlumb said:


> If heard of cases of people that have dissociated personality syndrome (multiple personalities) in which some of the personilities are gay and some are not.  Just thought I'd throw that bone into the discussion.
> 
> Interviewing a Person with Multiple Personalities



Wouldnt that be as a result of learned behavior?  From what I understand MPD is a result of coping with stress. You could inherently be hetero but invent a homo personality.


----------



## westwall

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get it now, you don't understand the language that scientists use, let me translate that for you. The part you highlighted in blue clearly states that there is no evidence that sexual preference is caused by genes. The other part says that there is a correlation among families that indicates that it is familial. You do understand that correlation does not equal causation, don't you?
> 
> As for heritability, it has nothing to do with individuals. I will use Wikipedia so you don't get confused when I make my point.
> 
> Heritability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In other words, heritability is not about individuals, it is about the entire population.
> 
> Anything else you don't understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does it run in families?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a good question, and where honest people admit that there really isn't an answer.
Click to expand...






What would Occams Razor have to say about it?


----------



## GISMYS

BOTTOMLINE=TO LIVE IN HOMOSEXUALITY IS  CHOICE NOT GENES!!!!Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too. But we know that only about 38% of the time is the identical twin brother homosexual. Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average, they do not force people into homosexuality... NW.


----------



## westwall

GISMYS said:


> BOTTOMLINE=TO LIVE IN HOMOSEXUALITY IS  CHOICE NOT GENES!!!!Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too. But we know that only about 38% of the time is the identical twin brother homosexual. Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average, they do not force people into homosexuality... NW.









Perfectly explainable by epigenetics which are triggers that turn genes either on or off post birth.  Or, put another way, why would anyone _CHOOSE_ a lifestyle that gets them killed in most places of the world?


----------



## GISMYS

westwall said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> BOTTOMLINE=TO LIVE IN HOMOSEXUALITY IS  CHOICE NOT GENES!!!!Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too. But we know that only about 38% of the time is the identical twin brother homosexual. Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average, they do not force people into homosexuality... NW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly explainable by epigenetics which are triggers that turn genes either on or off post birth.  Or, put another way, why would anyone _CHOOSE_ a lifestyle that gets them killed in most places of the world?
Click to expand...

LOL!!! NO! WHAT TURNS YOUR HOMOSEXUAL GENE ON IS YOUR CHOICE TO PLAY WITH PERVERSION AND BURN WITH PERVERTED LUST!! counr the cost!!!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does it run in families?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a good question, and where honest people admit that there really isn't an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would Occams Razor have to say about it?
Click to expand...


Occam's razor doesn't apply because it is only a problem in the mind of fanatics.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> BOTTOMLINE=TO LIVE IN HOMOSEXUALITY IS  CHOICE NOT GENES!!!!Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too. But we know that only about 38% of the time is the identical twin brother homosexual. Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average, they do not force people into homosexuality... NW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly explainable by epigenetics which are triggers that turn genes either on or off post birth.  Or, put another way, why would anyone _CHOOSE_ a lifestyle that gets them killed in most places of the world?
Click to expand...


Are you claiming that a person's religion isn't actually a choice? Or did you forget that some people actually choose a religion that could get them killed in some parts of the world?


----------



## BobPlumb

Perhaps Gillete would be a better razor than Occams!


----------



## westwall

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a good question, and where honest people admit that there really isn't an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would Occams Razor have to say about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Occam's razor doesn't apply because it is only a problem in the mind of fanatics.
Click to expand...








Occam applies to ALL scientific questions.  Religious nutters ignore science and the scientific method.  I don't.


----------



## westwall

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> BOTTOMLINE=TO LIVE IN HOMOSEXUALITY IS  CHOICE NOT GENES!!!!Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too. But we know that only about 38% of the time is the identical twin brother homosexual. Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average, they do not force people into homosexuality... NW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly explainable by epigenetics which are triggers that turn genes either on or off post birth.  Or, put another way, why would anyone _CHOOSE_ a lifestyle that gets them killed in most places of the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that a person's religion isn't actually a choice? Or did you forget that some people actually choose a religion that could get them killed in some parts of the world?
Click to expand...








No, I'm not.  And that is a good point, however the areas where that is true is fairly small and they can leave.  Gays are prey no matter where in the world they live, even here in the good 'ole USA.


----------



## GISMYS

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would Occams Razor have to say about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occam's razor doesn't apply because it is only a problem in the mind of fanatics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occam applies to ALL scientific questions.  Religious nutters ignore science and the scientific method.  I don't.
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO!!! SCIENCE THEORY CHANGES ALMOST DAY TO DAY!  BIG BANG NOW DEBUNKED!!! LIFE BEGAN IN PONDSCUM BUT TODAY THE THEORY IS LIFE CAME TO EARTH ON SPACE ROCKS!!LOL!! WITHOUT EVEN A IDEA AS TO WHERE AND HOW  THE LIFE ON SPACE ROCKS BEGAN!! ROFLMAO!! Come on!!!


----------



## emilynghiem

Asclepias said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> If heard of cases of people that have dissociated personality syndrome (multiple personalities) in which some of the personilities are gay and some are not.  Just thought I'd throw that bone into the discussion.
> 
> Interviewing a Person with Multiple Personalities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldnt that be as a result of learned behavior?  From what I understand MPD is a result of coping with stress. You could inherently be hetero but invent a homo personality.
Click to expand...


I think we can learn more about the conditions
by studying cases of curing them.

The friend of mine who does the same spiritual healing therapy as published in books I've recommended, HAS cured a woman of multiple personalities that in HER case were demonic voices that had invaded her space spiritually like parasites.

So when the deliverance/exorcism removed the demonic infestations,
then the woman no longer had those multiple personalities or voices.

With one book I read about a real case, some of the personalities were split off from each other. The woman in that case had to heal and progress to get them to be the same ages
where she had become stunted and stayed back in time.
After the personalities were the same level, they could be merged.
So I think that is some kind of dissociation of the same personality
and not separate ones manifesting through a person that isn't coming from them.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> ROFLMAO!!! SCIENCE THEORY CHANGES ALMOST DAY TO DAY!  BIG BANG NOW DEBUNKED!!! LIFE BEGAN IN PONDSCUM BUT TODAY THE THEORY IS LIFE CAME TO EARTH ON SPACE ROCKS!!LOL!! WITHOUT EVEN A IDEA AS TO WHERE AND HOW  THE LIFE ON SPACE ROCKS BEGAN!! ROFLMAO!! Come on!!!


  [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] What about science being used to prove how spiritual healing works,
specifically prayers in Christ Jesus used to get rid of demonic obsessions and voices?

Wouldn't that be something to celebrate
when science is used to explain how a spiritual process works, as natural energy.

Of all things taught in religious practices, the one area I believe
can be proven and with the maximum impact on humanity and society is
Spiritual Healing and the effects of
Forgiveness on the mind and body and human/social relations and health.

The patterns and process can be shown to repeat by statistics.
And the results in people can be quantified and measured/recorded:
* unforgiveness correlating with failure to reconcile conflicts and to heal of conditions and relations
* forgiveness correlating with success in reconciling conflicts and healing mental/physical conditions
* CHANGES and corrections, from unforgiveness to forgiveness, correlating with CHANGES in results and relationships


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would Occams Razor have to say about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occam's razor doesn't apply because it is only a problem in the mind of fanatics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occam applies to ALL scientific questions.  Religious nutters ignore science and the scientific method.  I don't.
Click to expand...


Sigh.

Occam's Razor  is simply a method of reaching a conclusion when there isn't any actual evidence to support multiple hypotheses. Simply stated, the position with the fewest assumptions is the one most likely to be right. Funny thing, sometimes the one with the most assumptions turns out to be right when you find actual evidence, which is where science comes in.

But, please keep declaring your superiority over me based on your delusional belief that I don't understand science, even though I actually proved that you were wrong about heritability, it helps me appreciate life.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly explainable by epigenetics which are triggers that turn genes either on or off post birth.  Or, put another way, why would anyone _CHOOSE_ a lifestyle that gets them killed in most places of the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that a person's religion isn't actually a choice? Or did you forget that some people actually choose a religion that could get them killed in some parts of the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.  And that is a good point, however the areas where that is true is fairly small and they can leave.  Gays are prey no matter where in the world they live, even here in the good 'ole USA.
Click to expand...


China is small? And people can easily leave? Damn, I need to contact the mapmakers of the world and tell them they draw China too large.


----------



## MaryL

I strongly believe that Homosexuality is a mental illness. It may even be genetic, and inherent. But what disturbs me is the new mindset and politics of  mass conformity that has glommed on to this particular group of humanity  as if they are a newly discovered, never heard of before species  of humans  that is having  their civil rights  endangered by evil heterosexuals. It comes off sounding that preposterous. But, that's just my humble old elderly opinion.


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, anecdotal claims aren't valid proof.
> 
> Conversion therapy is quackery, and it has a higher suicide rate than a success rate. I don't care what your church websites say they are the wicked institutions that fabricated this garbage and fraudulently labeled it conversion therapy. There is zero provable success with so fraudulently called "conversion therapy" all you can really say is that you have beaten homosexuals into conforming to heterosexual behaviors or that you convinced bisexuals to forget about being with the same sex.
> 
> Prove the therapy isn't complete garbage, prove homosexuality is a condition in need of healing. Prove any of your claims aren't fraudulent, and please do so without using fraudulent links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Inevitable
> No -- conversion therapy that is fraudulent abusive and coercive malpractice is
> NOT the same and has NOTHING to do with real spiritual healing that is the opposite.
> We are clearly talking about two different things.
> 
> Drs. Francis and Judith MacNutt are long experienced, recognized teachers, trainers in spiritual healing which is harmless and works by free participation like other therapy.
> It works by FORGIVENESS so nothing can be coerced or faked: forgiveness only works when it is only the person's free and true choice and not any other reason or it fails.
> (The 5 stages of grief and recovery and the 12 steps to overcoming addiction are similar, working by forgiving each stage so people are free from the past, heal and move forward. Same process.)
> 
> She is a licensed pscyhotherapist and has saved lives from suicide, such as a rape patient
> she mentioned and added to the latest edition of the book on "HEALING" which has been a standard textbook in seminaries. The 1999 editions or later also mention a medical study on rheumatoid arthritis where effects of spiritual healing were documented by professional team of doctors.
> 
> You can check out the resources online, look into the MacNutt's nonprofit, outreach and ministry and find ZERO cases of complaints by anyone, no arguments of fraud or abuse, because they only practice and teach *natural healing* that works alongside science and medicine.
> 
> Dr. Phillip Goldfedder is another healing practitioner, who used to work as a professional neurosurgeon until he found the process of spiritual healing to be more effective in helping more people. He did not believe this was science, until he saw  proof for himself.
> 
> Dr. Scott Peck (deceased) also did not believe that "demon voices" were real and could be cured by applying the same "deliverance/exorcism" methods of spiritual healing that priests used. So he tried this himself, as a psychiatrist giving therapy to two patients, and found that the process worked. He wrote up his observations in two books "People of the Lie" and "Glimpses of the Devil"
> 
> Unlike Drs. Francis and Judith MacNutt, you will find complaints online about Peck having sexual affairs or other questionable conduct that hurt his credibility.
> 
> However, you will not find any such negative reports or complaints about the
> Christian Healing Ministry by Dr. MacNutt and his team of nonprofit volunteers.
> (Their worst conflict was separating from the Catholic church, I am guessing over
> their policy that only ordained and authorized priests can do the healing instead
> of anybody with this calling, but that was done civilly so there is no "backlash" there.)
> 
> [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
> I have a friend in Houston Olivia Reiner who has a long term relationship with MD Anderson Cancer Center and helping with volunteer outreach to anyone who asks for healing prayer.
> She gave me permission to post her number online for anyone to call.
> it is posted at http://www.spiritual-healing.us.com and at the top of the page at http://www.houstonprogressive.org = 713 829 0899
> 
> She has over 35 years of testimony of spiritual healing that helped people,
> without causing harm, and has healed sickness ranging from cancer, diabetes, multiple
> personalities involving demon voices, and drug addictions and sexual abuse.
> 
> We are working to get these medical testimonies documented to post online.
> Because she volunteers for free, we do not have fancy resources like people who run a church which she refused long ago because of the problems with money and fraud.
> 
> Like Dr. MacNutt, they keep their spiritual healing outreach free
> so there is NO CONFUSION with false faith healing for money and fraud.
> 
> Elizabeth Collins is another volunteer with Olivia's nonprofit that has been pushing for medical research and formal studies to document this.
> 
> Many people already have their cases documented medically.
> 
> If you want formal medical proof, so do I.
> 
> If people only want to debunk it, they won't spend the money on research because they already believe it is false.
> 
> Peck seems to be the rare exception, who went through the steps to observe the process himself, PLANNING to debunk it as "mental delusion and false" but found the opposite.
> 
> Most people find it easier to debunk the source as "not credible," and won't look further.
> 
> So if that is the path you take, that is the most common.
> 
> It is too much work to try to do all the research it would take to change your own mind
> if you already think you are right, and don't think you need to see any proof.
> 
> Dr. Goldfedder also researched it himself to see proof that it was real.
> And it changed his mind and his entire practice. He gave up his more profitable
> neurosurgery practice because spiritual healing addressed the root cause
> instead of the symptoms.
> 
> I am happy to keep you updated
> as I push for medical research to be replicated so this knowledge and process
> can be made accessible to the public.
> 
> If you want to wait until other people prove it to believe it, that's fine.
> Most people are like that.
> 
> I found out it was true before it became public knowledge.
> So out of social responsibility and ethics to prevent people from suffering and dying,
> of course I am going to promote a free solution that would save lives.
> 
> So I am pushing for medical proof, so that this is no longer an issue.
> 
> Spiritual healing is real, natural and effective,
> works with science and medicine
> does not impose any risk or harm (such as denying or neglecting
> medical care or denying the fact that some things may not change or heal
> and cannot be forced and other forms of false practice or fraud that causes harm)
> 
> If you don't believe this without proof, I don't blame you.
> Dr. Peck didn't either until he saw enough proof to write a book
> urging the medical and psychiatric profession to follow up with
> formal scientific study, research and development of this natural therapy.
> 
> Dr. Goldfedder saw proof how it worked, tried it himself,
> and gave up his surgical practice to focus on this therapy.
> 
> All I ask or suggest is that you keep an open mind.
> 
> To me it is dangerous to assume that all other reports to the contrary are false.
> 
> There is a method behind spiritual healing that can be explained and demonstated scientifically. Each person's process is unique to them, but the patterns are the same.
> 
> So that part can be proven to be effective,
> by repeat application on different kinds of conditions
> and show the statistical correlation between
> * forgiveness and healing
> * unforgiveness and not healing
> * changing from unforgiveness to forgiveness
> to show the change from not healing to healing
> 
> Sorry for the long response. This is a critical field and reform in medicine and mental health treatment, so I tend to go on and on about because I find it so important
> to recognize it.
> 
> I do not think we can sustain society if we do not start practicing this therapy
> on a regular basis to cure all cases that are possible (not all can be cured or changed).
> 
> The application to cancer, to mental illness, and especially to criminal illness
> will effect a huge impact on our health systems, and govt and prison systems.
> 
> So this is a big deal.
> It is like Nobel Prize material to prove through science and medicine
> that spiritual healing is natural and can cure a wide variety of diseases.
> And in the process bridge a huge gap between science and religion, reason and faith.
Click to expand...

 [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]
My lord all that incessant babbling and carrying on and you didn't even touch the topic once.

proves that somebody who is homosexual needs healing specially or otherwise.


----------



## Inevitable

MaryL said:


> I strongly believe that Homosexuality is a mental illness. It may even be genetic, and inherent. But what disturbs me is the new mindset and politics of  mass conformity that has glommed on to this particular group of humanity  as if they are a newly discovered, never heard of before species  of humans  that is having  their civil rights  endangered by evil heterosexuals. It comes off sounding that preposterous. But, that's just my humble old elderly opinion.


 [MENTION=34685]MaryL[/MENTION]
I would agree with you it does sound preposterous because it is. There is no mass mindset that believes this is a newly discovered species, why would you even suggest something so incredibly absurd? 

And the nonsense about evil heterosexuals blah blah blah.. Made me laughout loud. .


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, anecdotal claims aren't valid proof.
> 
> Conversion therapy is quackery, and it has a higher suicide rate than a success rate. I don't care what your church websites say they are the wicked institutions that fabricated this garbage and fraudulently labeled it conversion therapy. There is zero provable success with so fraudulently called "conversion therapy" all you can really say is that you have beaten homosexuals into conforming to heterosexual behaviors or that you convinced bisexuals to forget about being with the same sex.
> 
> Prove the therapy isn't complete garbage, prove homosexuality is a condition in need of healing. Prove any of your claims aren't fraudulent, and please do so without using fraudulent links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
> 1. No, I did NOT say that homosexuality needed healing?
> I said that it depends on the person.
> 
> If their sexual behavior (whether heterosexual OR homosexual) was unnaturally
> caused by abuse, then if you heal the abuse, then their behavior CAN also healed.
> That is not the same thing. Clearly it cannot be healed if it is natural for them!!!
> 
> 2. Why is it okay to use anecdotes to show that people are "naturally
> homosexual" I trust they are if they say that it is natural for them, based on their
> anecdotes. Why isn't this okay for people who say that it wasn't their natural orientation, and that they changed it?
> 
> I use the same standard for both -- if people say it is natural or unnatural for them,
> I believe that person.
> 
> 3. Where did YOU prove that the links or references were fraudulent quacks?
> 
> [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] can you find ANY fraudulent reports on
> * Dr. Francis MacNutt
> * HEALING 1999 edition mentions medical studies on Rheumatoid Arthritis
> * Christian Healing Ministries Home - Christian Healing Ministries
> 
> 4. I am okay with setting up medical  proof that spiritual healing is effective and safe
> and NOT the same thing as any fraudulent "forced conversion" or "false faith healing"
> 
> this CAN be proven MEDICALLY
> 
> You can PROVE that false methods do  NOT involve "forgiveness"
> but maybe fear and guilt based conditions and expectations
> 
> You can PROVE through statistics that people who report "forgiveness"
> are successful in their recovery therapy (from any number of conditions)
> while people who don't go through forgiveness can get stuck and not finish the process
> 
> The key to natural healing
> is "forgiveness" and there are many versions of this kind of therapy
> and many successful stories out there -- all based on the same or similar process.
Click to expand...

 [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]You are carrying on about sexual abuse. That is not what this thread is about. Why do you bring this up in every single post? This isn't the topic it isn't even in the right forum. Ifyouwant to talk about faith healing start a thread in health and lifestyle.


----------



## gtarguy921

I just have one question for everyone who argues  homosexuality is a choice:

When did you decide what turns you on?

Everyone has something (or multiple somethings) that flip their switch, but if there are folks who arrived at their passions through conscious decision, they are few and far between.

We all know what turns us on. Few if any of us know why, and homosexuals are no different from anyone else in that regard.


----------



## Inevitable

It looks like I am going to have to start editing out all the irrelevant huey from your posts.





emilynghiem said:


> Hi A I was referring to SOME cases where orientation is not from birth.
> In SOME cases the homosexual behavior was not natural for the person
> but was a reaction to abuse or child rape, molestation, etc.


 [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]
The cause of homosexuality. is unknown, so assuming rape and/or sexual abuse or any abuse has anything to do with it is really not sound.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gtarguy921 said:


> I just have one question for everyone who argues  homosexuality is a choice:
> 
> When did you decide what turns you on?
> 
> Everyone has something (or multiple somethings) that flip their switch, but if there are folks who arrived at their passions through conscious decision, they are few and far between.
> 
> We all know what turns us on. Few if any of us know why, and homosexuals are no different from anyone else in that regard.



I know exactly what turns me on, and I remember when I figured it out.


----------



## Inevitable

Marie888 said:


> I believe 100% that it is a choice, because one can "live without it" or rather that it is not a bare necessity at all,  (food, shelter, etc) therefore it is a choice coming from the mind.  I believe a person may "struggle" with it as I also believe it is a form a lust and lust is definitely a choice also which can also become a temptation, just as there are many "lust/fleshly" choices including fornication. (sex before holy matrimony)
> 
> Please know that my reply is not to put down or attack any homosexuals personally, as the Good Lord knows I've struggled and struggle with my own things I've done wrong or sinned.  Daily I ask Him for forgiveness even in my mind, as we all fall short.
> 
> But overall, I believe it's a choice and goes directly along with these verses in The Bible and that it is a sin against God/how He created us to be and He wants to restore us from things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 1
> 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
> 
> 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
> 
> 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
> 
> 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
> 
> 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
> 
> 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
> 
> 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When one reads all these verses very carefully, even asking God for help to read them if needed, it becomes clear that it's a "lust" which is a "choice".
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

 [MENTION=25198]Marie888[/MENTION]
What makes homosexuality lust?


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> gtarguy921 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just have one question for everyone who argues  homosexuality is a choice:
> 
> When did you decide what turns you on?
> 
> Everyone has something (or multiple somethings) that flip their switch, but if there are folks who arrived at their passions through conscious decision, they are few and far between.
> 
> We all know what turns us on. Few if any of us know why, and homosexuals are no different from anyone else in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what turns me on, and I remember when I figured it out.
Click to expand...

 [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]
But when did you decide that the "thing that turns you on" would be the "thing that turned you on?


----------



## Inevitable

fanger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are born that way.  They chose to be gay no more than I chose to be straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To have sex is a choice
Click to expand...


Sexuality isn't determined by having sex.

Did you know you wanted to have sex before ever having sex? If yes, than your sexuality was understood.


----------



## Inevitable

Rambunctious said:


> For most it is a choice...but for some it's not. It's ridiculous to think that every homosexual act is because of genetics.



Homosexuality isn't an act.


----------



## Inevitable

Howey said:


> "Spiritual healing" is just another way to say "brainwashing", which coincidentally is another way to say "conversion therapy".


Pretty much.


----------



## Inevitable

Howey said:


> My So-Called Ex-Gay Life


 [MENTION=42946]Howey[/MENTION]
But but but it um... Works for people that were raped into being gay.


----------



## gtarguy921

Quantum Windbag said:


> gtarguy921 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just have one question for everyone who argues  homosexuality is a choice:
> 
> When did you decide what turns you on?
> 
> Everyone has something (or multiple somethings) that flip their switch, but if there are folks who arrived at their passions through conscious decision, they are few and far between.
> 
> We all know what turns us on. Few if any of us know why, and homosexuals are no different from anyone else in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what turns me on, and I remember when I figured it out.
Click to expand...


Me too.  First time I ran across it, I knew exactly what turned me on. What I didn't do is say "Hey ... think I'll choose THAT to get my motor running."


----------



## Asclepias

gtarguy921 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtarguy921 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just have one question for everyone who argues  homosexuality is a choice:
> 
> When did you decide what turns you on?
> 
> Everyone has something (or multiple somethings) that flip their switch, but if there are folks who arrived at their passions through conscious decision, they are few and far between.
> 
> We all know what turns us on. Few if any of us know why, and homosexuals are no different from anyone else in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what turns me on, and I remember when I figured it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too.  First time I ran across it, I knew exactly what turned me on. What I didn't do is say "Hey ... think I'll choose THAT to get my motor running."
Click to expand...


It boggles my mind people think its a choice.  Its 2014 for cryin out loud.  I didnt even know what turned on was but I knew I wanted to get next to the cute little girl in my class.


----------



## westwall

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occam's razor doesn't apply because it is only a problem in the mind of fanatics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occam applies to ALL scientific questions.  Religious nutters ignore science and the scientific method.  I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Occam's Razor  is simply a method of reaching a conclusion when there isn't any actual evidence to support multiple hypotheses. Simply stated, the position with the fewest assumptions is the one most likely to be right. Funny thing, sometimes the one with the most assumptions turns out to be right when you find actual evidence, which is where science comes in.
> 
> But, please keep declaring your superiority over me based on your delusional belief that I don't understand science, even though I actually proved that you were wrong about heritability, it helps me appreciate life.
Click to expand...






You have proven nothing other than you don't understand definitions.
You're the only one I have ever seen who claims heritability has nothing to do with genetics.  I don't claim to be better than you, I do claim to understand the definitions of what is being discussed.


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> For most it is a choice...but for some it's not. It's ridiculous to think that every homosexual act is because of genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't an act.
Click to expand...


Sodomy is an act - You are an actor and homosexuality is am umdesirable acquired trait.


----------



## Katzndogz

Homosexuality doesn't have to be a choice.  It could be a form of OCD.


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> For most it is a choice...but for some it's not. It's ridiculous to think that every homosexual act is because of genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't an act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sodomy is an act - You are an actor and homosexuality is am umdesirable acquired trait.
Click to expand...

to you perhaps, but what relevanceis your opinion?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

inevitable said:


> quantum windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtarguy921 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i just have one question for everyone who argues  homosexuality is a choice:
> 
> When did you decide what turns you on?
> 
> Everyone has something (or multiple somethings) that flip their switch, but if there are folks who arrived at their passions through conscious decision, they are few and far between.
> 
> We all know what turns us on. Few if any of us know why, and homosexuals are no different from anyone else in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i know exactly what turns me on, and i remember when i figured it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> @quantum windbag
> but when did you decide that the "thing that turns you on" would be the "thing that turned you on?
Click to expand...


1972


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quantum windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> i know exactly what turns me on, and i remember when i figured it out.
> 
> 
> 
> @quantum windbag
> but when did you decide that the "thing that turns you on" would be the "thing that turned you on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1972
Click to expand...

Why did you pick it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are born that way.  They chose to be gay no more than I chose to be straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To have sex is a choice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sexuality isn't determined by having sex.
> 
> Did you know you wanted to have sex before ever having sex? If yes, than your sexuality was understood.
Click to expand...


Everyone wants to have sex before they have sex.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gtarguy921 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtarguy921 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just have one question for everyone who argues  homosexuality is a choice:
> 
> When did you decide what turns you on?
> 
> Everyone has something (or multiple somethings) that flip their switch, but if there are folks who arrived at their passions through conscious decision, they are few and far between.
> 
> We all know what turns us on. Few if any of us know why, and homosexuals are no different from anyone else in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what turns me on, and I remember when I figured it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too.  First time I ran across it, I knew exactly what turned me on. What I didn't do is say "Hey ... think I'll choose THAT to get my motor running."
Click to expand...


Maybe you should have paid more attention.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> gtarguy921 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what turns me on, and I remember when I figured it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me too.  First time I ran across it, I knew exactly what turned me on. What I didn't do is say "Hey ... think I'll choose THAT to get my motor running."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It boggles my mind people think its a choice.  Its 2014 for cryin out loud.  I didnt even know what turned on was but I knew I wanted to get next to the cute little girl in my class.
Click to expand...


Why is everyone who knows they made a choice lying? Is there some sort of conspiracy? Are they delusional? Are you so close minded you cannot admit that you might not know everything?


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> To have sex is a choice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sexuality isn't determined by having sex.
> 
> Did you know you wanted to have sex before ever having sex? If yes, than your sexuality was understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone wants to have sex before they have sex.
Click to expand...

Precisely why sexuality doesn't really have to do with who you have sex with.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtarguy921 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me too.  First time I ran across it, I knew exactly what turned me on. What I didn't do is say "Hey ... think I'll choose THAT to get my motor running."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It boggles my mind people think its a choice.  Its 2014 for cryin out loud.  I didnt even know what turned on was but I knew I wanted to get next to the cute little girl in my class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is everyone who knows they made a choice lying? Is there some sort of conspiracy? Are they delusional? Are you so close minded you cannot admit that you might not know everything?
Click to expand...

Why would you think there is a conspiracy to cover up a choice that may not actually take place. Why do you insist that it's a choice and everybody else is wrong? Are you so closed minded you cannot admit you don't know everything? How can you accuse somebody else of something you are guilty of?


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> gtarguy921 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what turns me on, and I remember when I figured it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me too.  First time I ran across it, I knew exactly what turned me on. What I didn't do is say "Hey ... think I'll choose THAT to get my motor running."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should have paid more attention.
Click to expand...

or maybe it wasn't a choice.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occam applies to ALL scientific questions.  Religious nutters ignore science and the scientific method.  I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Occam's Razor  is simply a method of reaching a conclusion when there isn't any actual evidence to support multiple hypotheses. Simply stated, the position with the fewest assumptions is the one most likely to be right. Funny thing, sometimes the one with the most assumptions turns out to be right when you find actual evidence, which is where science comes in.
> 
> But, please keep declaring your superiority over me based on your delusional belief that I don't understand science, even though I actually proved that you were wrong about heritability, it helps me appreciate life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have proven nothing other than you don't understand definitions.
> You're the only one I have ever seen who claims heritability has nothing to do with genetics.  I don't claim to be better than you, I do claim to understand the definitions of what is being discussed.
Click to expand...


This from the guy  that tried to tell me that monozygotic twins can have different genes? Have you come up with an explanation of how twins that come from the same fertilized egg have different genes? Does an extra sperm cell sneak in after the egg splits?

Keep telling yourself, and everyone else, that you actually understand words that you clearly do not. I hope everyone else gets a big a laugh from your posts as I do.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> @quantum windbag
> but when did you decide that the "thing that turns you on" would be the "thing that turned you on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1972
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did you pick it?
Click to expand...


Why did you pick the shirt you wore today?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sexuality isn't determined by having sex.
> 
> Did you know you wanted to have sex before ever having sex? If yes, than your sexuality was understood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone wants to have sex before they have sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Precisely why sexuality doesn't really have to do with who you have sex with.
Click to expand...


Does that mean you actually believe that everyone understands their sexuality? Or did I just catch you in another slip of the keyboard where you said something you didn't think about first?


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1972
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you pick it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you pick the shirt you wore today?
Click to expand...

You don't want to have a discussion?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> It boggles my mind people think its a choice.  Its 2014 for cryin out loud.  I didnt even know what turned on was but I knew I wanted to get next to the cute little girl in my class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is everyone who knows they made a choice lying? Is there some sort of conspiracy? Are they delusional? Are you so close minded you cannot admit that you might not know everything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you think there is a conspiracy to cover up a choice that may not actually take place. Why do you insist that it's a choice and everybody else is wrong? Are you so closed minded you cannot admit you don't know everything? How can you accuse somebody else of something you are guilty of?
Click to expand...


I am asking a person that just told me that no one has a choice to explain the fact that there are people out there that have said they have a choice. If you have a problem with the premise take it up with the guy that stated it, not me. Or are you taking my posts personally for some reason?


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone wants to have sex before they have sex.
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely why sexuality doesn't really have to do with who you have sex with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean you actually believe that everyone understands their sexuality? Or did I just catch you in another slip of the keyboard where you said something you didn't think about first?
Click to expand...

Please stop talking in riddles. I said nothing of the sort.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you pick it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you pick the shirt you wore today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't want to have a discussion?
Click to expand...


Not unless you stop attacking me for things that other people say.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely why sexuality doesn't really have to do with who you have sex with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean you actually believe that everyone understands their sexuality? Or did I just catch you in another slip of the keyboard where you said something you didn't think about first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please stop talking in riddles. I said nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...


You didn't post this?



Inevitable said:


> Sexuality isn't determined by having sex.
> 
> Did you know you wanted to have sex before ever having sex? If yes, than your sexuality was understood.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is everyone who knows they made a choice lying? Is there some sort of conspiracy? Are they delusional? Are you so close minded you cannot admit that you might not know everything?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you think there is a conspiracy to cover up a choice that may not actually take place. Why do you insist that it's a choice and everybody else is wrong? Are you so closed minded you cannot admit you don't know everything? How can you accuse somebody else of something you are guilty of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking a person that just told me that no one has a choice to explain the fact that there are people out there that have said they have a choice.
Click to expand...

Drop dead simple to explain. Some people may be bisexual. 



> If you have a problem with the premise take it up with the guy that stated it, not me. Or are you taking my posts personally for some reason?


I was pointing out your hypocrisy.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean you actually believe that everyone understands their sexuality? Or did I just catch you in another slip of the keyboard where you said something you didn't think about first?
> 
> 
> 
> Please stop talking in riddles. I said nothing of the sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't post this?
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sexuality isn't determined by having sex.
> 
> Did you know you wanted to have sex before ever having sex? If yes, than your sexuality was understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I did say that but only Jesus knows why you inferred what you did from it, I certainly didn't imply anything of the sort.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you pick the shirt you wore today?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to have a discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not unless you stop attacking me for things that other people say.
Click to expand...


I did no such thing.
I don't attack people on discussion boards.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you think there is a conspiracy to cover up a choice that may not actually take place. Why do you insist that it's a choice and everybody else is wrong? Are you so closed minded you cannot admit you don't know everything? How can you accuse somebody else of something you are guilty of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking a person that just told me that no one has a choice to explain the fact that there are people out there that have said they have a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drop dead simple to explain. Some people may be bisexual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a problem with the premise take it up with the guy that stated it, not me. Or are you taking my posts personally for some reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was pointing out your hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


My hypocrisy? 

In case you don't understand the word, hypocrisy is claiming to have a moral standard to which my behavior does not conform. Since you have never met me, and I have never stated a moral position on sexual preference anywhere that you have seen, you cannot possibly accuse me of hypocrisy.

Want to try again at what telling me what you think you were pointing out?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please stop talking in riddles. I said nothing of the sort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't post this?
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sexuality isn't determined by having sex.
> 
> Did you know you wanted to have sex before ever having sex? If yes, than your sexuality was understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did say that but only Jesus knows why you inferred what you did from it, I certainly didn't imply anything of the sort.
Click to expand...


What did it mean then? If sexuality is understood because people want to have sex, who understands it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to have a discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not unless you stop attacking me for things that other people say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did no such thing.
> I don't attack people on discussion boards.
Click to expand...


You just accused me of being a hypocrite because I asked someone questions that pertain to their position. If that isn't an attack, what is it?


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking a person that just told me that no one has a choice to explain the fact that there are people out there that have said they have a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> Drop dead simple to explain. Some people may be bisexual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a problem with the premise take it up with the guy that stated it, not me. Or are you taking my posts personally for some reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was pointing out your hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My hypocrisy?
> 
> In case you don't understand the word, hypocrisy is claiming to have a moral standard to which my behavior does not conform. Since you have never met me, and I have never stated a moral position on sexual preference anywhere that you have seen, you cannot possibly accuse me of hypocrisy.
> 
> Want to try again at what telling me what you think you were pointing out?
Click to expand...

No, I am no longer interested in playing mind games with you.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not unless you stop attacking me for things that other people say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did no such thing.
> I don't attack people on discussion boards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just accused me of being a hypocrite because I asked someone questions that pertain to their position. If that isn't an attack, what is it?
Click to expand...

It wasn't an attack, but I will dropit because this circular garbage is rather pointless.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drop dead simple to explain. Some people may be bisexual.
> 
> I was pointing out your hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My hypocrisy?
> 
> In case you don't understand the word, hypocrisy is claiming to have a moral standard to which my behavior does not conform. Since you have never met me, and I have never stated a moral position on sexual preference anywhere that you have seen, you cannot possibly accuse me of hypocrisy.
> 
> Want to try again at what telling me what you think you were pointing out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I am no longer interested in playing mind games with you.
Click to expand...


Interesting.

You would come off as more mature if you just admitted your mistakes instead of trying to pretend the other guy is playing games.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't post this?
> 
> 
> 
> I did say that but only Jesus knows why you inferred what you did from it, I certainly didn't imply anything of the sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did it mean then?
Click to expand...

 What are you having trouble understanding?



> If sexuality is understood because people want to have sex, who understands it?


I don't answer loaded questions.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> My hypocrisy?
> 
> In case you don't understand the word, hypocrisy is claiming to have a moral standard to which my behavior does not conform. Since you have never met me, and I have never stated a moral position on sexual preference anywhere that you have seen, you cannot possibly accuse me of hypocrisy.
> 
> Want to try again at what telling me what you think you were pointing out?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am no longer interested in playing mind games with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> You would come off as more mature if you just admitted your mistakes instead of trying to pretend the other guy is playing games.
Click to expand...


what mistake? I would admit to them if I knew I what in God's name you were talking about.


----------



## gtarguy921

*Maybe you should have paid more attention.*

If I'd paid any more attention, my eyes would have popped out of their sockets. 

More likely your criteria for defining a conscious decision are considerably more flexible than mine. 

No biggee.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtarguy921 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me too.  First time I ran across it, I knew exactly what turned me on. What I didn't do is say "Hey ... think I'll choose THAT to get my motor running."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It boggles my mind people think its a choice.  Its 2014 for cryin out loud.  I didnt even know what turned on was but I knew I wanted to get next to the cute little girl in my class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is everyone who knows they made a choice lying? Is there some sort of conspiracy? Are they delusional? Are you so close minded you cannot admit that you might not know everything?
Click to expand...


Who said everyone that made a choice is lying? I said its not a choice when you are born what sex you are attracted to. You can make a choice later on but your initial sexual orientation is not determined by choice. You can convince yourself of pretty much anything but you cant change what you came out with. Dont you know anything about the human mind?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1972
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you pick it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you pick the shirt you wore today?
Click to expand...


Shirts arent natural. You have to make a choice because its not something that comes as part of you.


----------



## Asclepias

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did no such thing.
> I don't attack people on discussion boards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just accused me of being a hypocrite because I asked someone questions that pertain to their position. If that isn't an attack, what is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't an attack, but I will dropit because this circular garbage is rather pointless.
Click to expand...


You havent seen anything yet. Quantum is a master at deflecting when caught in a lie. 

He honestly wants people to believe he made a decision to be gay and was born without a sexual orientation.


----------



## AntiParty

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am no longer interested in playing mind games with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> You would come off as more mature if you just admitted your mistakes instead of trying to pretend the other guy is playing games.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what mistake? I would admit to them if I knew I what in God's name you were talking about.
Click to expand...


Some scriptures in some versions of the old testament state that we should stone gays. But "versions of bibles" is a question even beyond versions of the old test. 

Murder in the Bible

^The bible isn't evil. but people should know their talking points.


----------



## Inevitable

Asclepias said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just accused me of being a hypocrite because I asked someone questions that pertain to their position. If that isn't an attack, what is it?
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't an attack, but I will dropit because this circular garbage is rather pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You havent seen anything yet. Quantum is a master at deflecting when caught in a lie.
> 
> He honestly wants people to believe he made a decision to be gay and was born without a sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

I noticed that.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't, you said that homosexuality is genetic, That is flat out wrong, if it were all monozygotic twins would either be gay or straight. The studies show that this is not true.
> 
> Understanding Genetics
> 
> Did you notice that I, once again, used a link that disagrees with my position? Feel free to pretend to yourself that you are the one that is being unbiased and objective even though I have proved you wrong twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gene's are traits that are passed on.  In twins (or any family descent) one can get the gay gene while the other doesn't.  Just like in heart disease.  Two identical twins can be born and one inherits the gene that leads to coronary artery disease while the other doesn't.
> 
> Your argument is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do monozygotic twins, which nave identical DNA, get different genes? Or did you not even read the blurb from the link I posted?
> 
> Keep telling me how smart and open minded you are, it amuses me.
Click to expand...


I think westwall is referring to the difference between genotype and phenotype.


----------



## Inevitable

AntiParty said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> You would come off as more mature if you just admitted your mistakes instead of trying to pretend the other guy is playing games.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what mistake? I would admit to them if I knew I what in God's name you were talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some scriptures in some versions of the old testament state that we should stone gays. But "versions of bibles" is a question even beyond versions of the old test.
> 
> Murder in the Bible
> 
> ^The bible isn't evil. but people should know their talking points.
Click to expand...

Agreed, religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than God


----------



## westwall

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1972
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you pick it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you pick the shirt you wore today?
Click to expand...






Because it was the one on the top of the pile.....


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't an act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sodomy is an act - You are an actor and homosexuality is am umdesirable acquired trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to you perhaps, but what relevanceis your opinion?
Click to expand...


Apparently more qualified than a juvenile with no zero life experience and limited life expectancy because he engages in un-healthy and un-natural acts of degenerate depravity. 

Of course you realize that I am not referring to you by that statement - but I wouldn't want to walk a mile in that juveniles shoes - however - in your case case - if the shoe fits .........


----------



## GreenBean

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I already said, you are not interested in truth, you just want to spout your ignorant opinion and ignore the science, homosexuality is not genetic.
> 
> If you don't know what heritability means why did you declare yourself to be the board expert on science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How wrong you are.  I am interested in facts.  Truth is the purview of religion not science.  To that end the definition of HERITABILITY is
> 
> 1:  the quality or state of being heritable
> 
> 
> 2:  the proportion of observed variation in a particular trait (as height) that can be attributed to inherited *genetic factors* in contrast to environmental ones.
> 
> Heritability - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> *YOUR* link supporting what I said.  Don't you dare lecture me about science when you don't even know what the basics are.  This is a simple definition which you seem to not understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't, you said that homosexuality is genetic, That is flat out wrong, if it were all monozygotic twins would either be gay or straight. The studies show that this is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twin studies of homosexuality  have shown that identical twins are about twice as likely to both be  gay compared to fraternal twins.  This means that being gay is partly  genetic and not simply something that a person learns or chooses to be.
> There is one important thing to note, though.  If the DNA sequence is  the only thing determining whether someone is gay or not, we would  expect that if one identical twin were gay, then the other would be too  100% of the time.
> But this is not what scientists have found &#8211; the rate is actually  closer to 50%.  So while we know that genetics is involved, it doesn&#8217;t  tell us the whole story.  This is where environment comes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Understanding Genetics
> 
> Did you notice that I, once again, used a link that disagrees with my position? Feel free to pretend to yourself that you are the one that is being unbiased and objective even though I have proved you wrong twice.
Click to expand...




> Twin studies of homosexuality have shown that identical twins are about twice as likely to both be gay compared to fraternal twins. This means that being gay is partly genetic and not simply something that a person learns or chooses to be.
> There is one important thing to note, though. If the DNA sequence is the only thing determining whether someone is gay or not, we would expect that if one identical twin were gay, then the other would be too 100% of the time.
> But this is not what scientists have found &#8211; the rate is actually closer to 50%. So while we know that genetics is involved, it doesn&#8217;t tell us the whole story. This is where environment comes in.



Boiled down , there appears there *might be* an inheritable factor / trait that *increases the chances* of of acquiring homosexual tendencies- but does not guarantee it.  So they can theorize that *]in some cases* there could conceivably be genetic factors that alter the odds of *acquiring*  sexual dysphoric orientation , Ego-dystonic sexual orientation and related psychosis that equate to being Gay. .

That - in of itself does not prove that anyone is born gay - it simply proves that some people have a greater chance of becoming Gay. due to environmental factors , enhanced by genetic defect.


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sodomy is an act - You are an actor and homosexuality is am umdesirable acquired trait.
> 
> 
> 
> to you perhaps, but what relevanceis your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently more qualified than a juvenile with no zero life experience and limited life expectancy because he engages in un-healthy and un-natural acts of degenerate depravity.
> 
> Of course you realize that I am not referring to you by that statement - but I wouldn't want to walk a mile in that juveniles shoes - however - in your case case - if the shoe fits .........
Click to expand...

If this came from anybody else it might be less hilarious.


----------



## emilynghiem

Short answer: How this applies to the topic:
The people/researchers with KNOWLEDGE of spiritual healing will arrive at different research conclusions than people/researchers who exclude this field of experience.

A. People replying on here, including OP, might even change their entire opinion/perception if they added this field of research and practice
B. the APA and other Professional/Medical sources cited as "proof" would also have to change their reports and stats if cases of spiritual healing were included in their studies

Since this field is NOT being included or even considered,
then ALL the answers on this thread will be SKEWED.

That is like basing a study on numbers by only studying the negative numbers
and leaving out the positive side of the scale. So of course your research and
answers all come out negative, because that was the ONLY pool included in the set.



Inevitable said:


> [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]You are carrying on about sexual abuse. That is not what this thread is about. Why do you bring this up in every single post? This isn't the topic it isn't even in the right forum. Ifyouwant to talk about faith healing start a thread in health and lifestyle.



Hi Inevitable Sorry
I understand people better on this subject
if I see their understanding, perception or misperception of the healing process.

If they
1. have no knowledge of this, but are open minded it COULD be true
2. if they have their minds made up and won't consider anything otherwise
3. are willing to look into it because they understand the impact it would have

The degree of resistance or rejection to the process, tells me how biased and closed someone is, or how open they are to new information and change.

For example, when you first posted very open questions, and very clear corrections.
I thought you might be more objective, one of the types who can handle all sides.

But when you immediately "assumed and accused" ANY and ALL reports of healing to be FRAUD (without proof); but then you insisted that "I show proof" but didn't require proof of your assertions, that told me you would project your judgment without proof, while expecting others to show proof. This indicates a slight bias, but not major. You seem to stay objective about corrections, so I trust you to check yourself as well against biases that could be adjusted for.

I found both sides of the natural/unnatural debate cite "personal testimony" to justify their views; yet you struck this down as not viable proof, but that is what people use, even my own boyfriend, to understand that some are that way and cannot change. How can you prove someone "can never change"? It is based
on people knowing someone that was naturally that way; I even know Christians who completely changed their minds when they met such people. So it is based on personal testimony, that people even have their opinions on here, which shapes what data we will consider and how we interpret it.

Inevitable, I applaud and agree with your approach to stick to logical terms and arguments. It makes sense that if something is not a pathology or disease/illness to be cured then how can it be healed? 

a. what I would clarify:

Unforgiveness and the conditions attached to it can be healed and it is not a disease.
Unforgiveness causes "racism" and "projection"  and "unresolved conflicts" which can be changed, and that's not a disease.
Relationships can be healed of discord and misunderstanding, and that is not a disease.

Just because something can be healed or changed does not require it to be a disease.

b. if people do not understand the depth of the forgiveness and healing process,
even what we perceive with medical studies is going to be SKEWED.

We "project" our personal biases even when interpreting scientific data.
So THAT is why researchers will not include spiritual healing that works
in their data - If they DON'T have any notion that this could be real or valid.

Like you, they just EXCLUDE it "unless it is proven already"
Well, how do you expect ANY researchers to PROVE it, if they keep waiting for
someone else to prove it?

Inevitable, I still believe you are openminded and objective about this.
Thank you for that, and sorry if I push too hard to try to get this research added in.

Because it changes the whole debate, I see it as a shortcut to resolving many issues.

Last Note: If we DON'T address this issue of personal biases and perception, we will keep running into problems with interpreting data.
For example QW keeps posting research on genetics showing there is not 100% matching orientation with identical twins.
But people will continue interpreting that data as showing genetic connection. Why? Because we keep projecting our personal understanding
that some people are born that way. So this TRUMPS the scientific stats and research. We are human and will put our personal experiences and beliefs first.

So I am saying we need to address this level first, or all the other data we discuss will still get blocked by projection and not be perfectly objective.

Sorry for the long response, and thank you for your objective approach which is sorely needed here!


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> to you perhaps, but what relevanceis your opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently more qualified than a juvenile with no zero life experience and limited life expectancy because he engages in un-healthy and un-natural acts of degenerate depravity.
> 
> Of course you realize that I am not referring to you by that statement - but I wouldn't want to walk a mile in that juveniles shoes - however - in your case case - if the shoe fits .........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If this came from anybody else it might be less hilarious.
Click to expand...


You're a funny Guy , of course you know that I mean funny as in 'ha-ha',  Not  funny as in queer.


----------



## emilynghiem

AntiParty said:


> Some scriptures in some versions of the old testament state that we should stone gays. But "versions of bibles" is a question even beyond versions of the old test.
> 
> Murder in the Bible
> 
> ^The bible isn't evil. but people should know their talking points.



This is why nothing should be taken out of context with the rest of the Bible.

Otherwise it is like taking the orders given to soldiers during warfare, to shoot to kill first and ask questions later, "out of context" with the rest of the Constitution about due process for civilians that govt cannot violate, and justify wrongful actions outside the law.

If people stay within respective contexts, and not project outside, most conflicts can be resolved. And the ones that can't are largely due to separate contexts or preferences.


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> Short answer: How this applies to the topic:
> The people/researchers with KNOWLEDGE of spiritual healing will arrive at different research conclusions than people/researchers who exclude this field of experience.
> 
> A. People replying on here, including OP, might even change their entire opinion/perception if they added this field of research and practice
> B. the APA and other Professional/Medical sources cited as "proof" would also have to change their reports and stats if cases of spiritual healing were included in their studies
> 
> Since this field is NOT being included or even considered,
> then ALL the answers on this thread will be SKEWED.
> 
> That is like basing a study on numbers by only studying the negative numbers
> and leaving out the positive side of the scale. So of course your research and
> answers all come out negative, because that was the ONLY pool included in the set.
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]You are carrying on about sexual abuse. That is not what this thread is about. Why do you bring this up in every single post? This isn't the topic it isn't even in the right forum. Ifyouwant to talk about faith healing start a thread in health and lifestyle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Inevitable Sorry
> I understand people better on this subject
> if I see their understanding, perception or misperception of the healing process.
> 
> If they
> 1. have no knowledge of this, but are open minded it COULD be true
> 2. if they have their minds made up and won't consider anything otherwise
> 3. are willing to look into it because they understand the impact it would have
> 
> The degree of resistance or rejection to the process, tells me how biased and closed someone is, or how open they are to new information and change.
> 
> For example, when you first posted very open questions, and very clear corrections.
> I thought you might be more objective, one of the types who can handle all sides.
> 
> But when you immediately "assumed and accused" ANY and ALL reports of healing to be FRAUD (without proof); but then you insisted that "I show proof" but didn't require proof of your assertions, that told me you would project your judgment without proof, while expecting others to show proof. This indicates a slight bias, but not major. You seem to stay objective about corrections, so I trust you to check yourself as well against biases that could be adjusted for.
> 
> I found both sides of the natural/unnatural debate cite "personal testimony" to justify their views; yet you struck this down as not viable proof, but that is what people use, even my own boyfriend, to understand that some are that way and cannot change. How can you prove someone "can never change"? It is based
> on people knowing someone that was naturally that way; I even know Christians who completely changed their minds when they met such people. So it is based on personal testimony, that people even have their opinions on here, which shapes what data we will consider and how we interpret it.
> 
> Inevitable, I applaud and agree with your approach to stick to logical terms and arguments. It makes sense that if something is not a pathology or disease/illness to be cured then how can it be healed?
> 
> a. what I would clarify:
> 
> Unforgiveness and the conditions attached to it can be healed and it is not a disease.
> Unforgiveness causes "racism" and "projection"  and "unresolved conflicts" which can be changed, and that's not a disease.
> Relationships can be healed of discord and misunderstanding, and that is not a disease.
> 
> Just because something can be healed or changed does not require it to be a disease.
> 
> b. if people do not understand the depth of the forgiveness and healing process,
> even what we perceive with medical studies is going to be SKEWED.
> 
> We "project" our personal biases even when interpreting scientific data.
> So THAT is why researchers will not include spiritual healing that works
> in their data - If they DON'T have any notion that this could be real or valid.
> 
> Like you, they just EXCLUDE it "unless it is proven already"
> Well, how do you expect ANY researchers to PROVE it, if they keep waiting for
> someone else to prove it?
> 
> Inevitable, I still believe you are openminded and objective about this.
> Thank you for that, and sorry if I push too hard to try to get this research added in.
> 
> Because it changes the whole debate, I see it as a shortcut to resolving many issues.
> 
> Last Note: If we DON'T address this issue of personal biases and perception, we will keep running into problems with interpreting data.
> For example QW keeps posting research on genetics showing there is not 100% matching orientation with identical twins.
> But people will continue interpreting that data as showing genetic connection. Why? Because we keep projecting our personal understanding
> that some people are born that way. So this TRUMPS the scientific stats and research. We are human and will put our personal experiences and beliefs first.
> 
> So I am saying we need to address this level first, or all the other data we discuss will still get blocked by projection and not be perfectly objective.
> 
> Sorry for the long response, and thank you for your objective approach which is sorely needed here!
Click to expand...

I am sorry you still are clearly way off topic.

I don't wish to talk about faith healing. It seems the only topic you are capable of willingto discuss. I bow to your superior knowledge and wish to discuss it no further.


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Short answer: How this applies to the topic:
> The people/researchers with KNOWLEDGE of spiritual healing will arrive at different research conclusions than people/researchers who exclude this field of experience.
> 
> A. People replying on here, including OP, might even change their entire opinion/perception if they added this field of research and practice
> B. the APA and other Professional/Medical sources cited as "proof" would also have to change their reports and stats if cases of spiritual healing were included in their studies
> 
> Since this field is NOT being included or even considered,
> then ALL the answers on this thread will be SKEWED.
> 
> That is like basing a study on numbers by only studying the negative numbers
> and leaving out the positive side of the scale. So of course your research and
> answers all come out negative, because that was the ONLY pool included in the set.
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]You are carrying on about sexual abuse. That is not what this thread is about. Why do you bring this up in every single post? This isn't the topic it isn't even in the right forum. Ifyouwant to talk about faith healing start a thread in health and lifestyle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Inevitable Sorry
> I understand people better on this subject
> if I see their understanding, perception or misperception of the healing process.
> 
> If they
> 1. have no knowledge of this, but are open minded it COULD be true
> 2. if they have their minds made up and won't consider anything otherwise
> 3. are willing to look into it because they understand the impact it would have
> 
> The degree of resistance or rejection to the process, tells me how biased and closed someone is, or how open they are to new information and change.
> 
> For example, when you first posted very open questions, and very clear corrections.
> I thought you might be more objective, one of the types who can handle all sides.
> 
> But when you immediately "assumed and accused" ANY and ALL reports of healing to be FRAUD (without proof); but then you insisted that "I show proof" but didn't require proof of your assertions, that told me you would project your judgment without proof, while expecting others to show proof. This indicates a slight bias, but not major. You seem to stay objective about corrections, so I trust you to check yourself as well against biases that could be adjusted for.
> 
> I found both sides of the natural/unnatural debate cite "personal testimony" to justify their views; yet you struck this down as not viable proof, but that is what people use, even my own boyfriend, to understand that some are that way and cannot change. How can you prove someone "can never change"? It is based
> on people knowing someone that was naturally that way; I even know Christians who completely changed their minds when they met such people. So it is based on personal testimony, that people even have their opinions on here, which shapes what data we will consider and how we interpret it.
> 
> Inevitable, I applaud and agree with your approach to stick to logical terms and arguments. It makes sense that if something is not a pathology or disease/illness to be cured then how can it be healed?
> 
> a. what I would clarify:
> 
> Unforgiveness and the conditions attached to it can be healed and it is not a disease.
> Unforgiveness causes "racism" and "projection"  and "unresolved conflicts" which can be changed, and that's not a disease.
> Relationships can be healed of discord and misunderstanding, and that is not a disease.
> 
> Just because something can be healed or changed does not require it to be a disease.
> 
> b. if people do not understand the depth of the forgiveness and healing process,
> even what we perceive with medical studies is going to be SKEWED.
> 
> We "project" our personal biases even when interpreting scientific data.
> So THAT is why researchers will not include spiritual healing that works
> in their data - If they DON'T have any notion that this could be real or valid.
> 
> Like you, they just EXCLUDE it "unless it is proven already"
> Well, how do you expect ANY researchers to PROVE it, if they keep waiting for
> someone else to prove it?
> 
> Inevitable, I still believe you are openminded and objective about this.
> Thank you for that, and sorry if I push too hard to try to get this research added in.
> 
> Because it changes the whole debate, I see it as a shortcut to resolving many issues.
> 
> Last Note: If we DON'T address this issue of personal biases and perception, we will keep running into problems with interpreting data.
> For example QW keeps posting research on genetics showing there is not 100% matching orientation with identical twins.
> But people will continue interpreting that data as showing genetic connection. Why? Because we keep projecting our personal understanding
> that some people are born that way. So this TRUMPS the scientific stats and research. We are human and will put our personal experiences and beliefs first.
> 
> So I am saying we need to address this level first, or all the other data we discuss will still get blocked by projection and not be perfectly objective.
> 
> Sorry for the long response, and thank you for your objective approach which is sorely needed here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sorry you still are clearly way off topic.
> 
> I don't wish to talk about faith healing. It seems the only topic you are capable of willingto discuss. I bow to your superior knowledge and wish to discuss it no further.
Click to expand...


TRANSLATED:  Zoom - Boing Way over your head ?

* Do you prefer to be spoken down to ?  * 
Emily was trying to treat you as an equal  - hoping you would apply the mental effort required to engage with her - you chose the lazy way out - WHY ?  Did it put a strain on your brain ?  Or did she touch a nerve?


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Short answer: How this applies to the topic:
> The people/researchers with KNOWLEDGE of spiritual healing will arrive at different research conclusions than people/researchers who exclude this field of experience.
> 
> A. People replying on here, including OP, might even change their entire opinion/perception if they added this field of research and practice
> B. the APA and other Professional/Medical sources cited as "proof" would also have to change their reports and stats if cases of spiritual healing were included in their studies
> 
> Since this field is NOT being included or even considered,
> then ALL the answers on this thread will be SKEWED.
> 
> That is like basing a study on numbers by only studying the negative numbers
> and leaving out the positive side of the scale. So of course your research and
> answers all come out negative, because that was the ONLY pool included in the set.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Inevitable Sorry
> I understand people better on this subject
> if I see their understanding, perception or misperception of the healing process.
> 
> If they
> 1. have no knowledge of this, but are open minded it COULD be true
> 2. if they have their minds made up and won't consider anything otherwise
> 3. are willing to look into it because they understand the impact it would have
> 
> The degree of resistance or rejection to the process, tells me how biased and closed someone is, or how open they are to new information and change.
> 
> For example, when you first posted very open questions, and very clear corrections.
> I thought you might be more objective, one of the types who can handle all sides.
> 
> But when you immediately "assumed and accused" ANY and ALL reports of healing to be FRAUD (without proof); but then you insisted that "I show proof" but didn't require proof of your assertions, that told me you would project your judgment without proof, while expecting others to show proof. This indicates a slight bias, but not major. You seem to stay objective about corrections, so I trust you to check yourself as well against biases that could be adjusted for.
> 
> I found both sides of the natural/unnatural debate cite "personal testimony" to justify their views; yet you struck this down as not viable proof, but that is what people use, even my own boyfriend, to understand that some are that way and cannot change. How can you prove someone "can never change"? It is based
> on people knowing someone that was naturally that way; I even know Christians who completely changed their minds when they met such people. So it is based on personal testimony, that people even have their opinions on here, which shapes what data we will consider and how we interpret it.
> 
> Inevitable, I applaud and agree with your approach to stick to logical terms and arguments. It makes sense that if something is not a pathology or disease/illness to be cured then how can it be healed?
> 
> a. what I would clarify:
> 
> Unforgiveness and the conditions attached to it can be healed and it is not a disease.
> Unforgiveness causes "racism" and "projection"  and "unresolved conflicts" which can be changed, and that's not a disease.
> Relationships can be healed of discord and misunderstanding, and that is not a disease.
> 
> Just because something can be healed or changed does not require it to be a disease.
> 
> b. if people do not understand the depth of the forgiveness and healing process,
> even what we perceive with medical studies is going to be SKEWED.
> 
> We "project" our personal biases even when interpreting scientific data.
> So THAT is why researchers will not include spiritual healing that works
> in their data - If they DON'T have any notion that this could be real or valid.
> 
> Like you, they just EXCLUDE it "unless it is proven already"
> Well, how do you expect ANY researchers to PROVE it, if they keep waiting for
> someone else to prove it?
> 
> Inevitable, I still believe you are openminded and objective about this.
> Thank you for that, and sorry if I push too hard to try to get this research added in.
> 
> Because it changes the whole debate, I see it as a shortcut to resolving many issues.
> 
> Last Note: If we DON'T address this issue of personal biases and perception, we will keep running into problems with interpreting data.
> For example QW keeps posting research on genetics showing there is not 100% matching orientation with identical twins.
> But people will continue interpreting that data as showing genetic connection. Why? Because we keep projecting our personal understanding
> that some people are born that way. So this TRUMPS the scientific stats and research. We are human and will put our personal experiences and beliefs first.
> 
> So I am saying we need to address this level first, or all the other data we discuss will still get blocked by projection and not be perfectly objective.
> 
> Sorry for the long response, and thank you for your objective approach which is sorely needed here!
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry you still are clearly way off topic.
> 
> I don't wish to talk about faith healing. It seems the only topic you are capable of willingto discuss. I bow to your superior knowledge and wish to discuss it no further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TRANSLATED:  Zoom - Boing Way over your head ?
> 
> * Do you prefer to be spoken down to ?  *
> Emily was trying to treat you as an equal  - hoping you would apply the mental effort required to engage with her - you chose the lazy way out - WHY ?  Did it put a strain on your brain ?  Or did she touch a nerve?
Click to expand...

Yes I don't study faith healing, therefore it isway over my head, furthermore I have no interest in faith healing.  It doesn't matter because it is off topic.


----------



## Slyhunter

It's a genetic defect that can someday be cured and, if parents wanted, currently aborted to prevent unwanted gay pregnancy's.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

AquaAthena said:


> _This above all: To thine own-self, be true. _
> 
> I think Shakespeare had it right.
> 
> Is this discussion turning into a Bible discussion? Is this what the OP had in mind?



Any discussion about homosexuality is going to inevitably come around to religion since religion is the only groups against it. Minus religion, no one would be against it thus no need to discuss it.


----------



## kaz

emilynghiem said:


> Hi A I was referring to SOME cases where orientation is not from birth.
> In SOME cases the homosexual behavior was not natural for the person
> but was a reaction to abuse or child rape, molestation, etc.
> 
> A friend of mine recently counseling a lesbian who was working through issues of being abused herself.
> 
> When she healed of this abuse, the desire for homosexual sexual relations also went away.
> so in SOME CASES the PERSON attributes their homosexuality to abuse.



In extreme cases of trauma, people can have all sorts of reactions to it.  I would agree with that.  I think you're talking about a pretty miniscule percent of gays though here.


----------



## kaz

Inevitable said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> what mistake? I would admit to them if I knew I what in God's name you were talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some scriptures in some versions of the old testament state that we should stone gays. But "versions of bibles" is a question even beyond versions of the old test.
> 
> Murder in the Bible
> 
> ^The bible isn't evil. but people should know their talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed, religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than God
Click to expand...


I think it's ridiculous for religious gay haters to comment on what motivates you.  You're demonstrating the reverse is also true.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Epigenetic factors are known to alter the genetic structure of monozygotic twins as they age or is that beyond your knowledge base?
> 
> "Epigenetics involves genetic control by factors other than an individual's DNA sequence. Epigenetic changes can switch genes on or off and determine which proteins are transcribed."
> 
> 
> 
> Epigenetic Influences and Disease | Learn Science at Scitable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you pointing out something I already posted? What does it have to do with the fact that monozygotic twins have identical DNA, and your claim that they can still get different genes? You do understand that epigenetics, if valid, is about how the same genes develop differently, don't you?
> 
> In other words, you are wrong, just admit you made a stupid mistake and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard others claim you were being intentionally obtuse but had never seen it till now.  I said that homosexuality is genetic.  You said it's not and posted a study in support of what you said that actually supported me.  Then you bring up the twins issue and once again I post a study that shows how epigenetic factors CAN TURN GENES ON AND OFF AFTER BIRTH and that sails right over your head.
> 
> Like I said.  You don't understand even the basics so until you learn something you're merely wasting mine and everyone else's time.  It's YOU who refuses to learn something new QW.  Not me, and not anyone else who has posted here except for the religious nutters.
Click to expand...


I'm unconvinced sexual behaviours are genetic. I htink we toor eadilt accept claims that a given inclination has a genetic source. My concern lies in that if such n such a behaviour has a genetic cause, then isn't genetic engineering away those genes inevitible? If homosexuality is genetic, aren't people going to ask for genetic engineered children minus that gene, or with it toggled 'off?' 

Who we have sexual relations with is the result of our making a choice. The attraction though is different. But given all-male/female groups like in prison, otherwise perfectly heterosexual people will have sex with members of their own sex because that their only option. They're making a deliberate choice to have sex. May not be their first choice, but their ability to have orgasm or climaxes from it reveals that at least genes aren't solely involved. Conscious will plays a big part as well. And the willingness to 'make due' is the result of conditioning, not anything biological/genetic.


----------



## Inevitable

kaz said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some scriptures in some versions of the old testament state that we should stone gays. But "versions of bibles" is a question even beyond versions of the old test.
> 
> Murder in the Bible
> 
> ^The bible isn't evil. but people should know their talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's ridiculous for religious gay haters to comment on what motivates you.  You're demonstrating the reverse is also true.
Click to expand...


Please explain further.


----------



## Inevitable

Delta4Embassy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you pointing out something I already posted? What does it have to do with the fact that monozygotic twins have identical DNA, and your claim that they can still get different genes? You do understand that epigenetics, if valid, is about how the same genes develop differently, don't you?
> 
> In other words, you are wrong, just admit you made a stupid mistake and move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard others claim you were being intentionally obtuse but had never seen it till now.  I said that homosexuality is genetic.  You said it's not and posted a study in support of what you said that actually supported me.  Then you bring up the twins issue and once again I post a study that shows how epigenetic factors CAN TURN GENES ON AND OFF AFTER BIRTH and that sails right over your head.
> 
> Like I said.  You don't understand even the basics so until you learn something you're merely wasting mine and everyone else's time.  It's YOU who refuses to learn something new QW.  Not me, and not anyone else who has posted here except for the religious nutters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm unconvinced sexual behaviours are genetic. I htink we toor eadilt accept claims that a given inclination has a genetic source. My concern lies in that if such n such a behaviour has a genetic cause, then isn't genetic engineering away those genes inevitible? If homosexuality is genetic, aren't people going to ask for genetic engineered children minus that gene, or with it toggled 'off?'
> 
> Who we have sexual relations with is the result of our making a choice. The attraction though is different. But given all-male/female groups like in prison, otherwise perfectly heterosexual people will have sex with members of their own sex because that their only option. They're making a deliberate choice to have sex. May not be their first choice, but their ability to have orgasm or climaxes from it reveals that at least genes aren't solely involved. Conscious will plays a big part as well. And the willingness to 'make due' is the result of conditioning, not anything biological/genetic.
Click to expand...

I don't know that it's genetic, I happen to thinkany number of causes are possible, perhaps combinations of causes could be the culprit. But you must understand this, bisexuals have the choice, prisoners don't, I guess you could say heterosexuals and homosexuals have a choice but it's hard to make it work if you aren't into it.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Can condition people to do anything, up to and especially including commit mass murder (ask Hitler.) By comparison, sexuality is a weekends worth of work.


----------



## Inevitable

Delta4Embassy said:


> Can condition people to do anything, up to and especially including commit mass murder (ask Hitler.) By comparison, sexuality is a weekends worth of work.


The ability to brainwash a person doesn't really fit your dialogue. If sexuality was merely a choice you wouldn't need such measures to talk you out of it.

Talking someone into doing something that it's out of their nature isn't at all like them doing something intheir nature.


----------



## Katzndogz

What causes any compulsive behavior?  It's not genetics.  There is nothing about genetics that causes a man to be turned on by watching women wearing high heel shoes stomp small animals to death, but some men are turned on by that.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

But where is that nature coming from? We're all raised by other people who're imparting their natures onto us in the process. If we were raised alone on a desert island without even animals to witness behaviours from then we could see what our true natue is (assuming that were possible which it isn't.)  So when we raise kids who eventually hit puberty and their bodies begin producing larger amounts of sexual hormones intiating desire to have sex, they've been conditioned for some years to think certain ways about sexuality. I'd think then that 5% of the ones raised to be heterosexual (as most everyone is but for a few exceptions perhaps) that identify as homosexual or at least not strictly heterosexual are overriding their conditioning by thinking independently. And maybe that's the variable. Rather than sexual behaviour having a genetic trigger, maybe raising kids to be more indepent-minded leads to some to experiment with homosexual behaviours, some realize they like it even more than hetero, and then id that way. Whereas more dependent-minded obvediant types stick to how they were taught repressing the natural curiousity for experimentation. I experimented with an out co-worker and realized both had their appeal. I was also taught to be very independent and self-reliant. So while my Mom emphasized heterosexuality, I had enough will to find out for myself.


----------



## Inevitable

Katzndogz said:


> What causes any compulsive behavior?  It's not genetics.  There is nothing about genetics that causes a man to be turned on by watching women wearing high heel shoes stomp small animals to death, but some men are turned on by that.


Fetishes are typically acquired, being that homosexuals tend to cohabitate, become involved in romantic relationships sometimes even abstaining from sexual contact until it isdeemed appropriate, it doesn't seem reasonable to equate it to merely something that you getyour jollies from. That tends to be the staple mischaracterization from people that argue against homosexuality.


----------



## G.T.

Delta4Embassy said:


> But where is that nature coming from? We're all raised by other people who're imparting their natures onto us in the process. If we were raised alone on a desert island without even animals to witness behaviours from then we could see what our true natue is (assuming that were possible which it isn't.)  So when we raise kids who eventually hit puberty and their bodies begin producing larger amounts of sexual hormones intiating desire to have sex, they've been conditioned for some years to think certain ways about sexuality. I'd think then that 5% of the ones raised to be heterosexual (as most everyone is but for a few exceptions perhaps) that identify as homosexual or at least not strictly heterosexual are overriding their conditioning by thinking independently. And maybe that's the variable. Rather than sexual behaviour having a genetic trigger, maybe raising kids to be more indepent-minded leads to some to experiment with homosexual behaviours, some realize they like it even more than hetero, and then id that way. Whereas more dependent-minded obvediant types stick to how they were taught repressing the natural curiousity for experimentation. I experimented with an out co-worker and realized both had their appeal. I was also taught to be very independent and self-reliant. So while my Mom emphasized heterosexuality, I had enough will to find out for myself.



You know how some gay persons have a different speech inflection and body language?

I've witnessed that in a child, lispy gay voice / girly seeming demeanor - - - - - straight brothers and sisters....................


who then grew up and came out as gay.

Nobody can ever convince me that it's not something *most homosexuals are *born with *since I've seen a child "act gay" before their sexuality was even present in their life, and then magically was gay when they were older.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

The 'gay accent' is a myth. I've known many Southerners with it who were hetereosexual. And Senator Lindsey Graham has it but is seemingly heterosexual too.


----------



## Inevitable

Delta4Embassy said:


> But where is that nature coming from? We're all raised by other people who're imparting their natures onto us in the process. If we were raised alone on a desert island without even animals to witness behaviours from then we could see what our true natue is (assuming that were possible which it isn't.)  So when we raise kids who eventually hit puberty and their bodies begin producing larger amounts of sexual hormones intiating desire to have sex, they've been conditioned for some years to think certain ways about sexuality. I'd think then that 5% of the ones raised to be heterosexual (as most everyone is but for a few exceptions perhaps) that identify as homosexual or at least not strictly heterosexual are overriding their conditioning by thinking independently. And maybe that's the variable. Rather than sexual behaviour having a genetic trigger, maybe raising kids to be more indepent-minded leads to some to experiment with homosexual behaviours, some realize they like it even more than hetero, and then id that way. Whereas more dependent-minded obvediant types stick to how they were taught repressing the natural curiousity for experimentation. I experimented with an out co-worker and realized both had their appeal. I was also taught to be very independent and self-reliant. So while my Mom emphasized heterosexuality, I had enough will to find out for myself.


People don't become heterosexual/homosexual because they get the opportunity to fool around. sexuality drives them to fool around. Nature is what cannot be man made itcomes from evolution, nurture isn't nature those two things I think you have confused.


----------



## G.T.

Delta4Embassy said:


> The 'gay accent' is a myth. I've known many Southerners with it who were hetereosexual. And Senator Lindsey Graham has it but is seemingly heterosexual too.



It wasn't just that, but there WAS that.

It was much more then that.


----------



## Inevitable

Delta4Embassy said:


> The 'gay accent' is a myth. I've known many Southerners with it who were hetereosexual. And Senator Lindsey Graham has it but is seemingly heterosexual too.



There is body language though it is subtle it dose not lie.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

G.T. said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But where is that nature coming from? We're all raised by other people who're imparting their natures onto us in the process. If we were raised alone on a desert island without even animals to witness behaviours from then we could see what our true natue is (assuming that were possible which it isn't.)  So when we raise kids who eventually hit puberty and their bodies begin producing larger amounts of sexual hormones intiating desire to have sex, they've been conditioned for some years to think certain ways about sexuality. I'd think then that 5% of the ones raised to be heterosexual (as most everyone is but for a few exceptions perhaps) that identify as homosexual or at least not strictly heterosexual are overriding their conditioning by thinking independently. And maybe that's the variable. Rather than sexual behaviour having a genetic trigger, maybe raising kids to be more indepent-minded leads to some to experiment with homosexual behaviours, some realize they like it even more than hetero, and then id that way. Whereas more dependent-minded obvediant types stick to how they were taught repressing the natural curiousity for experimentation. I experimented with an out co-worker and realized both had their appeal. I was also taught to be very independent and self-reliant. So while my Mom emphasized heterosexuality, I had enough will to find out for myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know how some gay persons have a different speech inflection and body language?
> 
> I've witnessed that in a child, lispy gay voice / girly seeming demeanor - - - - - straight brothers and sisters....................
> 
> 
> who then grew up and came out as gay.
> 
> Nobody can ever convince me that it's not something *most homosexuals are *born with *since I've seen a child "act gay" before their sexuality was even present in their life, and then magically was gay when they were older.
Click to expand...


Our sexuality is with us from our mothers' wombs onwards as invitro video has revealed with our masturbating. Or at least spending a lot of time fondling our genitals. The belief that a child doesn't become sexual until puberty or even later is completely wrong. I was masturbating to climax from about 6 (or whatever age I was when still wearing Batman pajammas.)


----------



## Inevitable

Delta4Embassy said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But where is that nature coming from? We're all raised by other people who're imparting their natures onto us in the process. If we were raised alone on a desert island without even animals to witness behaviours from then we could see what our true natue is (assuming that were possible which it isn't.)  So when we raise kids who eventually hit puberty and their bodies begin producing larger amounts of sexual hormones intiating desire to have sex, they've been conditioned for some years to think certain ways about sexuality. I'd think then that 5% of the ones raised to be heterosexual (as most everyone is but for a few exceptions perhaps) that identify as homosexual or at least not strictly heterosexual are overriding their conditioning by thinking independently. And maybe that's the variable. Rather than sexual behaviour having a genetic trigger, maybe raising kids to be more indepent-minded leads to some to experiment with homosexual behaviours, some realize they like it even more than hetero, and then id that way. Whereas more dependent-minded obvediant types stick to how they were taught repressing the natural curiousity for experimentation. I experimented with an out co-worker and realized both had their appeal. I was also taught to be very independent and self-reliant. So while my Mom emphasized heterosexuality, I had enough will to find out for myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know how some gay persons have a different speech inflection and body language?
> 
> I've witnessed that in a child, lispy gay voice / girly seeming demeanor - - - - - straight brothers and sisters....................
> 
> 
> who then grew up and came out as gay.
> 
> Nobody can ever convince me that it's not something *most homosexuals are *born with *since I've seen a child "act gay" before their sexuality was even present in their life, and then magically was gay when they were older.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our sexuality is with us from our mothers' wombs onwards as invitro video has revealed with our masturbating. Or at least spending a lot of time fondling our genitals. The belief that a child doesn't become sexual until puberty or even later is completely wrong. I was masturbating to climax from about 6 (or whatever age I was when still wearing Batman pajammas.)
Click to expand...


this really cuts against your previous posts where you mentioned sexuality is nurtured.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Not really. Masturbation may be considered wholly sexual, but you could reason it's no more different than scratching an itchy arm. Minus another person maybe masturbation isn't so much a sexual behaviour we're taught but simply satisfying a need we're all born with. Whereas choosing to be sexual with other people is of course a sexual behaviour, and who we choose to do those behaviours with is the result of nurture. Or to be fair, maybe I'm completely wrong.  Anyone who can't conceed they might be wrong isn't worth listening to.


----------



## Inevitable

Delta4Embassy said:


> Not really. Masturbation may be considered wholly sexual, but you could reason it's no more different than scratching an itchy arm. Minus another person maybe masturbation isn't so much a sexual behaviour we're taught but simply satisfying a need we're all born with. Whereas choosing to be sexual with other people is of course a sexual behaviour, and who we choose to do those behaviours with is the result of nurture. Or to be fair, maybe I'm completely wrong.  Anyone who can't conceed they might be wrong isn't worth listening to.


Okay, yes we choose to do those behaviors, but do we choose who we are attracted to?


----------



## G.T.

Delta4Embassy said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But where is that nature coming from? We're all raised by other people who're imparting their natures onto us in the process. If we were raised alone on a desert island without even animals to witness behaviours from then we could see what our true natue is (assuming that were possible which it isn't.)  So when we raise kids who eventually hit puberty and their bodies begin producing larger amounts of sexual hormones intiating desire to have sex, they've been conditioned for some years to think certain ways about sexuality. I'd think then that 5% of the ones raised to be heterosexual (as most everyone is but for a few exceptions perhaps) that identify as homosexual or at least not strictly heterosexual are overriding their conditioning by thinking independently. And maybe that's the variable. Rather than sexual behaviour having a genetic trigger, maybe raising kids to be more indepent-minded leads to some to experiment with homosexual behaviours, some realize they like it even more than hetero, and then id that way. Whereas more dependent-minded obvediant types stick to how they were taught repressing the natural curiousity for experimentation. I experimented with an out co-worker and realized both had their appeal. I was also taught to be very independent and self-reliant. So while my Mom emphasized heterosexuality, I had enough will to find out for myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know how some gay persons have a different speech inflection and body language?
> 
> I've witnessed that in a child, lispy gay voice / girly seeming demeanor - - - - - straight brothers and sisters....................
> 
> 
> who then grew up and came out as gay.
> 
> Nobody can ever convince me that it's not something *most homosexuals are *born with *since I've seen a child "act gay" before their sexuality was even present in their life, and then magically was gay when they were older.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our sexuality is with us from our mothers' wombs onwards as invitro video has revealed with our masturbating. Or at least spending a lot of time fondling our genitals. The belief that a child doesn't become sexual until puberty or even later is completely wrong. I was masturbating to climax from about 6 (or whatever age I was when still wearing Batman pajammas.)
Click to expand...


6 is freakish, it highly doubt it's anywhere NEAR any norm.

There is a 0% chance the person that I'm speaking about was not born gay. Anecdotal and all, but there is NO chance,

and add in myself to the anecdote - there is a 0% chance I could "choose" to get a boner for a male. It's not possible. Just like I didn't "choose" my arousal for women, it just was. My brain wasn't telling me to react consciously, it was inherent.


----------



## Inevitable

G.T. said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how some gay persons have a different speech inflection and body language?
> 
> I've witnessed that in a child, lispy gay voice / girly seeming demeanor - - - - - straight brothers and sisters....................
> 
> 
> who then grew up and came out as gay.
> 
> Nobody can ever convince me that it's not something *most homosexuals are *born with *since I've seen a child "act gay" before their sexuality was even present in their life, and then magically was gay when they were older.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our sexuality is with us from our mothers' wombs onwards as invitro video has revealed with our masturbating. Or at least spending a lot of time fondling our genitals. The belief that a child doesn't become sexual until puberty or even later is completely wrong. I was masturbating to climax from about 6 (or whatever age I was when still wearing Batman pajammas.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 6 is freakish, it highly doubt it's anywhere NEAR any norm.
> 
> There is a 0% chance the person that I'm speaking about was not born gay. Anecdotal and all, but there is NO chance,
> 
> and add in myself to the anecdote - there is a 0% chance I could "choose" to get a boner for a male. It's not possible. Just like I didn't not "choose" my arousal for women, it just was. My brain wasn't telling me to react consciously, it was inherent.
Click to expand...


I was only a little older when I started. It's not uncommon for prepubescent children to play with their genitals, Sigmund Freud studied that.

Delta is bisexual, I have dated bisexuals in the past and they do seem to have a bitof difficulty understanding "monosexuals"


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Inevitable said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Masturbation may be considered wholly sexual, but you could reason it's no more different than scratching an itchy arm. Minus another person maybe masturbation isn't so much a sexual behaviour we're taught but simply satisfying a need we're all born with. Whereas choosing to be sexual with other people is of course a sexual behaviour, and who we choose to do those behaviours with is the result of nurture. Or to be fair, maybe I'm completely wrong.  Anyone who can't conceed they might be wrong isn't worth listening to.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, yes we choose to do those behaviors, but do we choose who we are attracted to?
Click to expand...


I don't think who we're attracted to involves much choice, or at least, not conscious choice. Think whatever cues are present resulting in being attracted romantically are subtle and all but unnoticeable. Takes more than a pretty face to fall in love and pledge yourself to being with only them afterall. If it were conscious then wouldn't blind people not be falling in love?


----------



## Asclepias

Delta4Embassy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you pointing out something I already posted? What does it have to do with the fact that monozygotic twins have identical DNA, and your claim that they can still get different genes? You do understand that epigenetics, if valid, is about how the same genes develop differently, don't you?
> 
> In other words, you are wrong, just admit you made a stupid mistake and move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard others claim you were being intentionally obtuse but had never seen it till now.  I said that homosexuality is genetic.  You said it's not and posted a study in support of what you said that actually supported me.  Then you bring up the twins issue and once again I post a study that shows how epigenetic factors CAN TURN GENES ON AND OFF AFTER BIRTH and that sails right over your head.
> 
> Like I said.  You don't understand even the basics so until you learn something you're merely wasting mine and everyone else's time.  It's YOU who refuses to learn something new QW.  Not me, and not anyone else who has posted here except for the religious nutters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm unconvinced sexual behaviours are genetic. I htink we toor eadilt accept claims that a given inclination has a genetic source. My concern lies in that if such n such a behaviour has a genetic cause, then isn't genetic engineering away those genes inevitible? If homosexuality is genetic, aren't people going to ask for genetic engineered children minus that gene, or with it toggled 'off?'
> 
> Who we have sexual relations with is the result of our making a choice. The attraction though is different. But given all-male/female groups like in prison, otherwise perfectly heterosexual people will have sex with members of their own sex because that their only option. They're making a deliberate choice to have sex. May not be their first choice, but their ability to have orgasm or climaxes from it reveals that at least genes aren't solely involved. Conscious will plays a big part as well. And the willingness to 'make due' is the result of conditioning, not anything biological/genetic.
Click to expand...


Its definitely your genes or the way your genes are expressed.  There are several studies out that claim this.  I'm thinking expression makes the most sense because identical twins can have different sexual orientations.  Still that invalidates it being a choice.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33773/title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Inevitable said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our sexuality is with us from our mothers' wombs onwards as invitro video has revealed with our masturbating. Or at least spending a lot of time fondling our genitals. The belief that a child doesn't become sexual until puberty or even later is completely wrong. I was masturbating to climax from about 6 (or whatever age I was when still wearing Batman pajammas.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6 is freakish, it highly doubt it's anywhere NEAR any norm.
> 
> There is a 0% chance the person that I'm speaking about was not born gay. Anecdotal and all, but there is NO chance,
> 
> and add in myself to the anecdote - there is a 0% chance I could "choose" to get a boner for a male. It's not possible. Just like I didn't not "choose" my arousal for women, it just was. My brain wasn't telling me to react consciously, it was inherent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was only a little older when I started. It's not uncommon for prepubescent children to play with their genitals, Sigmund Freud studied that.
> 
> Delta is bisexual, I have dated bisexuals in the past and they do seem to have a bitof difficulty understanding "monosexuals"
Click to expand...


True in my case as I htink about it. I have the same difficulty 'getting' strict heterosexuals as I do strict homosexuals.  Sex first and foremost is a matter of pleasure, and having two sexes (generally speaking, there's more of course as with hermaphrodites)  means that that sexual pleasure can be had different ways. Why limit yourself to only one? Until the terms heterosexual/homosexual came about we didn't really limit ourself as in ancient Greece and Rome.


----------



## NLT

Inevitable said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What causes any compulsive behavior?  It's not genetics.  There is nothing about genetics that causes a man to be turned on by watching women wearing high heel shoes stomp small animals to death, but some men are turned on by that.
> 
> 
> 
> Fetishes are typically acquired, *being that homosexuals tend to cohabitate, become involved in romantic relationships sometimes even abstaining from sexual contact until it isdeemed appropriate,* it doesn't seem reasonable to equate it to merely something that you getyour jollies from. That tends to be the staple mischaracterization from people that argue against homosexuality.
Click to expand...




Yea right thats why you have so many bath house's and such a high rate of aids, you douche.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

G.T. said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how some gay persons have a different speech inflection and body language?
> 
> I've witnessed that in a child, lispy gay voice / girly seeming demeanor - - - - - straight brothers and sisters....................
> 
> 
> who then grew up and came out as gay.
> 
> Nobody can ever convince me that it's not something *most homosexuals are *born with *since I've seen a child "act gay" before their sexuality was even present in their life, and then magically was gay when they were older.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our sexuality is with us from our mothers' wombs onwards as invitro video has revealed with our masturbating. Or at least spending a lot of time fondling our genitals. The belief that a child doesn't become sexual until puberty or even later is completely wrong. I was masturbating to climax from about 6 (or whatever age I was when still wearing Batman pajammas.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 6 is freakish, it highly doubt it's anywhere NEAR any norm.
> 
> There is a 0% chance the person that I'm speaking about was not born gay. Anecdotal and all, but there is NO chance,
> 
> and add in myself to the anecdote - there is a 0% chance I could "choose" to get a boner for a male. It's not possible. Just like I didn't "choose" my arousal for women, it just was. My brain wasn't telling me to react consciously, it was inherent.
Click to expand...


Seen lots of Asian men who if you didn't see between their legs would be mistaken for women. Very very attractive women .


----------



## G.T.

Delta4Embassy said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our sexuality is with us from our mothers' wombs onwards as invitro video has revealed with our masturbating. Or at least spending a lot of time fondling our genitals. The belief that a child doesn't become sexual until puberty or even later is completely wrong. I was masturbating to climax from about 6 (or whatever age I was when still wearing Batman pajammas.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6 is freakish, it highly doubt it's anywhere NEAR any norm.
> 
> There is a 0% chance the person that I'm speaking about was not born gay. Anecdotal and all, but there is NO chance,
> 
> and add in myself to the anecdote - there is a 0% chance I could "choose" to get a boner for a male. It's not possible. Just like I didn't "choose" my arousal for women, it just was. My brain wasn't telling me to react consciously, it was inherent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seen lots of Asian men who if you didn't see between their legs would be mistaken for women. Very very attractive women .
Click to expand...


That's irrelevant to what I'm talking about.


----------



## Inevitable

Delta4Embassy said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Masturbation may be considered wholly sexual, but you could reason it's no more different than scratching an itchy arm. Minus another person maybe masturbation isn't so much a sexual behaviour we're taught but simply satisfying a need we're all born with. Whereas choosing to be sexual with other people is of course a sexual behaviour, and who we choose to do those behaviours with is the result of nurture. Or to be fair, maybe I'm completely wrong.  Anyone who can't conceed they might be wrong isn't worth listening to.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, yes we choose to do those behaviors, but do we choose who we are attracted to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think who we're attracted to involves much choice, or at least, not conscious choice. Think whatever cues are present resulting in being attracted romantically are subtle and all but unnoticeable. Takes more than a pretty face to fall in love and pledge yourself to being with only them afterall. If it were conscious then wouldn't blind people not be falling in love?
Click to expand...

sexual orientation is based on who we are attracted to.

Falling in love is a different thing


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry you still are clearly way off topic.
> 
> I don't wish to talk about faith healing. It seems the only topic you are capable of willingto discuss. I bow to your superior knowledge and wish to discuss it no further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRANSLATED:  Zoom - Boing Way over your head ?
> 
> * Do you prefer to be spoken down to ?  *
> Emily was trying to treat you as an equal  - hoping you would apply the mental effort required to engage with her - you chose the lazy way out - WHY ?  Did it put a strain on your brain ?  Or did she touch a nerve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I don't study faith healing, therefore it isway over my head, furthermore I have no interest in faith healing.  It doesn't matter because it is off topic.
Click to expand...


OT - Not Really - Healing is very relevant to the Topic .  Given that Homosexuality is a Mental Illness - I would chance to say that healing is the logical culmination. Be it spiritual healing - which seems to work for some people or psychological counseling which works for others, a third option is death which comes prematurely for many Gays and most definitely cures their dementias.


----------



## Inevitable

NLT said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What causes any compulsive behavior?  It's not genetics.  There is nothing about genetics that causes a man to be turned on by watching women wearing high heel shoes stomp small animals to death, but some men are turned on by that.
> 
> 
> 
> Fetishes are typically acquired, *being that homosexuals tend to cohabitate, become involved in romantic relationships sometimes even abstaining from sexual contact until it isdeemed appropriate,* it doesn't seem reasonable to equate it to merely something that you getyour jollies from. That tends to be the staple mischaracterization from people that argue against homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea right thats why you have so many bath house's and such a high rate of aids, you douche.
Click to expand...

The rate of HIV infection is actually quite low. I am sure there are no such things as narth hoses for heterosexuals.


----------



## Asclepias

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> TRANSLATED:  Zoom - Boing Way over your head ?
> 
> * Do you prefer to be spoken down to ?  *
> Emily was trying to treat you as an equal  - hoping you would apply the mental effort required to engage with her - you chose the lazy way out - WHY ?  Did it put a strain on your brain ?  Or did she touch a nerve?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I don't study faith healing, therefore it isway over my head, furthermore I have no interest in faith healing.  It doesn't matter because it is off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OT - Not Really - Healing is very relevant to the Topic .  *Given that Homosexuality is a Mental Illness* - I would chance to say that healing is the logical culmination. Be it spiritual healing - which seems to work for some people or psychological counseling which works for others, a third option is death which comes prematurely for many Gays and most definitely cures their dementias.
Click to expand...


Where is your link supporting your claim that homosexuality is a mental illness?


----------



## kaz

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> To have sex is a choice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sexuality isn't determined by having sex.
> 
> Did you know you wanted to have sex before ever having sex? If yes, than your sexuality was understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone wants to have sex before they have sex.
Click to expand...


Yes, but not with anyone, with a particular sex.


----------



## Asclepias

kaz said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sexuality isn't determined by having sex.
> 
> Did you know you wanted to have sex before ever having sex? If yes, than your sexuality was understood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone wants to have sex before they have sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but not with anyone, with a particular sex.
Click to expand...


If you are bi-sexual then any sex would do right?


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> TRANSLATED:  Zoom - Boing Way over your head ?
> 
> * Do you prefer to be spoken down to ?  *
> Emily was trying to treat you as an equal  - hoping you would apply the mental effort required to engage with her - you chose the lazy way out - WHY ?  Did it put a strain on your brain ?  Or did she touch a nerve?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I don't study faith healing, therefore it isway over my head, furthermore I have no interest in faith healing.  It doesn't matter because it is off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OT - Not Really - Healing is very relevant to the Topic .  Given that Homosexuality is a Mental Illness
Click to expand...

Homosexuality is not a mental illness. Nothing mentioned afterward is relevant due to this original mistake.


----------



## kaz

Inevitable said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's ridiculous for religious gay haters to comment on what motivates you.  You're demonstrating the reverse is also true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain further.
Click to expand...


Um...what I said seems completely clear, what about it confused you?  Anti-gay Christians don't like you, they don't understand you, so for them to say what motivates you is preposterous.  You would be the first to recognize and say that I'm sure.  And I would agree with you when you did.

You don't like Christians, you clearly don't understand them, for you to comment on what motivates them is preposterous.  Yet you turn around and do to them what they do to you that you object to.  I am just pointing that out, maybe you shouldn't do that since clearly you're not going to do it accurately and what you said about them shows that.  You don't understand them at all.  So don't pretend you do.


----------



## GreenBean

NLT said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What causes any compulsive behavior?  It's not genetics.  There is nothing about genetics that causes a man to be turned on by watching women wearing high heel shoes stomp small animals to death, but some men are turned on by that.
> 
> 
> 
> Fetishes are typically acquired, *being that homosexuals tend to cohabitate, become involved in romantic relationships sometimes even abstaining from sexual contact until it isdeemed appropriate,* it doesn't seem reasonable to equate it to merely something that you getyour jollies from. That tends to be the staple mischaracterization from people that argue against homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea right thats why you have so many bath house's and such a high rate of aids, you douche.
Click to expand...


28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners:  "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 

83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 

43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 

28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." 

....  There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals.  


Statistics on sexual promiscuity among homosexuals | homosexual partner statistics | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I don't study faith healing, therefore it isway over my head, furthermore I have no interest in faith healing.  It doesn't matter because it is off topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OT - Not Really - Healing is very relevant to the Topic .  Given that Homosexuality is a Mental Illness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexuality is not a mental illness. Nothing mentioned afterward is relevant due to this original mistake.
Click to expand...


Keep telling yourself that , and when you're done ... click your heels together, close your eyes, repeat to yourself - "I'm not sick - I'm not sick " and the bad tooth fairy will drop you back in kens ass.


----------



## Inevitable

kaz said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's ridiculous for religious gay haters to comment on what motivates you.  You're demonstrating the reverse is also true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um...what I said seems completely clear, what about it confused you?  Anti-gay Christians don't like you, they don't understand you, so for them to say what motivates you is preposterous.  You would be the first to recognize and say that I'm sure.  And I would agree with you when you did.
> 
> You don't like Christians, you clearly don't understand them, for you to comment on what motivates them is preposterous.  Yet you turn around and do to them what they do to you that you object to.  I am just pointing that out, maybe you shouldn't do that since clearly you're not going to do it accurately and what you said about them shows that.  You don't understand them at all.  So don't pretend you do.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, I am Christian, and furthermore I never once mentioned Christianity, I said religion, which doesn't mean necessarily Christian.


----------



## Katzndogz

Inevitable said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'gay accent' is a myth. I've known many Southerners with it who were hetereosexual. And Senator Lindsey Graham has it but is seemingly heterosexual too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is body language though it is subtle it dose not lie.
Click to expand...


I am very astute, but certainly have been misdirected more than once.   The man who performed the marriage ceremony for my friends was certain to be gay.  Not just gay but a flamer!  His mannerisms, his speech patterns were definitely gay.   It would not have surprised me if he made a sudden grab for the groom.

Come to find out, he used to be a lawyer but the long hours kept him away from his wife and five children too much.  He gave up the practice and now makes wedding house calls.  He also had two more children.  When commented "WOW seven kids, that's a big family!" he said his wife was too sexy for him to keep his hands off her.   And, they didn't mind at all the large family.


----------



## kaz

Asclepias said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone wants to have sex before they have sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but not with anyone, with a particular sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are bi-sexual then any sex would do right?
Click to expand...


Yes, for a very small percent.


----------



## Asclepias

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> OT - Not Really - Healing is very relevant to the Topic .  Given that Homosexuality is a Mental Illness
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not a mental illness. Nothing mentioned afterward is relevant due to this original mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that , and when you're done ... click your heels together, close your eyes, repeat to yourself - "I'm not sick - I'm not sick " and the bad tooth fairy will drop you back in kens ass.
Click to expand...


Do you have any proof its a mental illness or did you come up with your hypothesis on your own?


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fetishes are typically acquired, *being that homosexuals tend to cohabitate, become involved in romantic relationships sometimes even abstaining from sexual contact until it isdeemed appropriate,* it doesn't seem reasonable to equate it to merely something that you getyour jollies from. That tends to be the staple mischaracterization from people that argue against homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea right thats why you have so many bath house's and such a high rate of aids, you douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rate of HIV infection is actually quite low. I am sure there are no such things as narth hoses for heterosexuals.
Click to expand...


And you are sadly misinformed - please tell me you're not a bug chaser


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> OT - Not Really - Healing is very relevant to the Topic .  Given that Homosexuality is a Mental Illness
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not a mental illness. Nothing mentioned afterward is relevant due to this original mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that
Click to expand...

The truth? Yep.


----------



## kaz

Inevitable said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um...what I said seems completely clear, what about it confused you?  Anti-gay Christians don't like you, they don't understand you, so for them to say what motivates you is preposterous.  You would be the first to recognize and say that I'm sure.  And I would agree with you when you did.
> 
> You don't like Christians, you clearly don't understand them, for you to comment on what motivates them is preposterous.  Yet you turn around and do to them what they do to you that you object to.  I am just pointing that out, maybe you shouldn't do that since clearly you're not going to do it accurately and what you said about them shows that.  You don't understand them at all.  So don't pretend you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excuse me, I am Christian, and furthermore I never once mentioned Christianity, I said religion, which doesn't mean necessarily Christian.
Click to expand...


You may go to Church, but since you said Christianity is primarily social, you're obviously saying you're not actually a Christian.


----------



## midcan5

I'm always amazed that the same questions reappear monthly, thought we answered this long ago. See my links, and take the test if you are still unsure.

"Despite how straightforward and commonplace it may appear today, the heterosexual/homosexual juxtaposition was actually less to the fore in premodern times and, in effect, was not universally observed. Equally, heterosexual love-however natural it may appear today-was seen in those earlier societies not so much as a rejection of homosexuality but rather as an alternative to nonsexual male-to-male relationships and, for that matter, the love of God advocated respectively by chivalric and religious practices and codes of conduct... There is today a clear need to rethink our attitude to heterosexuality...." 'The Invention of Heterosexual Culture' Louis-Georges Tin
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Heterosexual-Culture-Louis-Georges-Tin/dp/0262017709/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8[/ame]


Insighful comment from a gay man in first link.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/50615-know-what-really-causes-homosexuality.html 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...arding-islam-and-one-flesh-2.html#post8319649

Causes of transsexualism 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-are-being-denied-a-right-9.html#post5253151


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (this includes women) are not equal, that some should not be served especially if they were endowed by their Creator with gayness or brownness or some other differentness in our eyes, that among these qualities are lots of potential reasons to deny them service that will be determined in a pursuit of our Happiness and our ideological framework of justice.
>


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea right thats why you have so many bath house's and such a high rate of aids, you douche.
> 
> 
> 
> The rate of HIV infection is actually quite low. I am sure there are no such things as narth hoses for heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are sadly misinformed - please tell me you're not a bug chaser
Click to expand...


seems you have poor math skills as well. I see 28000 infected through msm. Being that the estimates for the population that is homosexual falls between 2 and 4% of a nation with a population of 324million people that means 6-9million of us are gay, the statistic here isn't even one percent.


----------



## GreenBean

Asclepias said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not a mental illness. Nothing mentioned afterward is relevant due to this original mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that , and when you're done ... click your heels together, close your eyes, repeat to yourself - "I'm not sick - I'm not sick " and the bad tooth fairy will drop you back in kens ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any proof its a mental illness or did you come up with your hypothesis on your own?
Click to expand...


Over the course of the last few months I have probably posted a hundred or more links on that topic - I sincerely doubt you would read anything beyond the title because it appears you already have all the answers.  Or at least you've managed to pound all those square pegs into the little round holes to arrive at the conclusions that support your Liberal World View.  Let's start with this one ... shall we ?  let's see if you can read beyoond the Title 

http://www.behaviorismandmentalheal...osexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/


----------



## Inevitable

Katzndogz said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'gay accent' is a myth. I've known many Southerners with it who were hetereosexual. And Senator Lindsey Graham has it but is seemingly heterosexual too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is body language though it is subtle it dose not lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am very astute, but certainly have been misdirected more than once.   The man who performed the marriage ceremony for my friends was certain to be gay.  Not just gay but a flamer!  His mannerisms, his speech patterns were definitely gay.   It would not have surprised me if he made a sudden grab for the groom.
> 
> Come to find out, he used to be a lawyer but the long hours kept him away from his wife and five children too much.  He gave up the practice and now makes wedding house calls.  He also had two more children.  When commented "WOW seven kids, that's a big family!" he said his wife was too sexy for him to keep his hands off her.   And, they didn't mind at all the large family.
Click to expand...

flaming isn't a good indicator, you can typically tell, even the most nonflaming homosexuals bytheir eyes, namely where and how they are looking at others.


----------



## Asclepias

GreenBean said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that , and when you're done ... click your heels together, close your eyes, repeat to yourself - "I'm not sick - I'm not sick " and the bad tooth fairy will drop you back in kens ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any proof its a mental illness or did you come up with your hypothesis on your own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over the course of the last few months I have probably posted a hundred or more links on that topic - I sincerely doubt you would read anything beyond the title because it appears you already have all the answers.  Or at least you've managed to pound all those square pegs into the little round holes to arrive at the conclusions that support your Liberal World View.  Let's start with this one ... shall we ?  let's see if you can read beyoond the Title
> 
> http://www.behaviorismandmentalheal...osexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/
Click to expand...


I see you have failed to evolve along with science.   Its no longer 1974 



> According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness.



Now do you have something more than just an opinion piece?


----------



## Inevitable

kaz said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um...what I said seems completely clear, what about it confused you?  Anti-gay Christians don't like you, they don't understand you, so for them to say what motivates you is preposterous.  You would be the first to recognize and say that I'm sure.  And I would agree with you when you did.
> 
> You don't like Christians, you clearly don't understand them, for you to comment on what motivates them is preposterous.  Yet you turn around and do to them what they do to you that you object to.  I am just pointing that out, maybe you shouldn't do that since clearly you're not going to do it accurately and what you said about them shows that.  You don't understand them at all.  So don't pretend you do.
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, I am Christian, and furthermore I never once mentioned Christianity, I said religion, which doesn't mean necessarily Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may go to Church, but since you said Christianity is primarily social, you're obviously saying you're not actually a Christian.
Click to expand...

I don't go to church. I never said Christianity was primarily social, andto be Christian one only needs to accept Christ as their savior. I am Christian, whether or not i meet the criteria to be Christian in your definition is of no concern to me.

Please stop accusing me of dating things I did not say.


----------



## Inevitable

Asclepias said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any proof its a mental illness or did you come up with your hypothesis on your own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over the course of the last few months I have probably posted a hundred or more links on that topic - I sincerely doubt you would read anything beyond the title because it appears you already have all the answers.  Or at least you've managed to pound all those square pegs into the little round holes to arrive at the conclusions that support your Liberal World View.  Let's start with this one ... shall we ?  let's see if you can read beyoond the Title
> 
> http://www.behaviorismandmentalheal...osexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you have failed to evolve along with science.   Its no longer 1974
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now do you have something more than just an opinion piece?
Click to expand...

get ready he has all the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist websites bookmarked


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rate of HIV infection is actually quite low. I am sure there are no such things as narth hoses for heterosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are sadly misinformed - please tell me you're not a bug chaser
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> seems you have poor math skills as well. I see 28000 infected through msm. Being that the estimates for the population that is homosexual falls between 2 and 4% of a nation with a population of 324million people that means 6-9million of us are gay, the statistic here isn't even one percent.
Click to expand...


No no no little fella , I think you need to recalculate - not just your arithmetic - but your entire existence.  The Chart represented *DOCUMENTED ** NEW INFECTIONS* not existing ones and not un-documented ones - If you have any further problems with the numbers presented perhaps you should contact the Center for Disease Control  and Prevention  --  CDC ? Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men ? Gender ? Risk ? HIV/AIDS

Well at least we've established you're not an English Major,  not a Math Major, Not a Psych Major, you certainly never took Logic 101  - Hmmm - correct me if I'm wrong - didn't you say you were a College Student ?


----------



## Asclepias

Inevitable said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over the course of the last few months I have probably posted a hundred or more links on that topic - I sincerely doubt you would read anything beyond the title because it appears you already have all the answers.  Or at least you've managed to pound all those square pegs into the little round holes to arrive at the conclusions that support your Liberal World View.  Let's start with this one ... shall we ?  let's see if you can read beyoond the Title
> 
> http://www.behaviorismandmentalheal...osexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you have failed to evolve along with science.   Its no longer 1974
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now do you have something more than just an opinion piece?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> get ready he has all the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist websites bookmarked
Click to expand...


As long as he doesnt electrocute himself.  I'd love to see someone prove its a mental disease.


----------



## kaz

Inevitable said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, I am Christian, and furthermore I never once mentioned Christianity, I said religion, which doesn't mean necessarily Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may go to Church, but since you said Christianity is primarily social, you're obviously saying you're not actually a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't go to church. I never said Christianity was primarily social, andto be Christian one only needs to accept Christ as their savior. I am Christian, whether or not i meet the criteria to be Christian in your definition is of no concern to me.
> 
> Please stop accusing me of dating things I did not say.
Click to expand...




Inevitable said:


> Agreed, religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than God



Here you go.  You used the word "conformity."  I spent 10 minutes finding the actual quote because you wanted to word parse.  Conformity is purely social, it has no other meaning.  I'm going to pass on responding to you if you're going to play games.

So you are a Christian who doesn't go to church and thinks religion is about "conformity more than God."

Obviously when I said you don't understand Christians and you objected, it was feigned indignation and what I said was right.  All I am saying is they should not tell you what you think, you should do the same.


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over the course of the last few months I have probably posted a hundred or more links on that topic - I sincerely doubt you would read anything beyond the title because it appears you already have all the answers.  Or at least you've managed to pound all those square pegs into the little round holes to arrive at the conclusions that support your Liberal World View.  Let's start with this one ... shall we ?  let's see if you can read beyoond the Title
> 
> http://www.behaviorismandmentalheal...osexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you have failed to evolve along with science.   Its no longer 1974
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now do you have something more than just an opinion piece?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> get ready he has all the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist websites bookmarked
Click to expand...


You mean all the ones that you can't refute 

Okay - so let's start with the APA [LMAO]



> Beginning in the late 60s,  homosexual activist groups began lobbying leading psychiatric organizations to lay the groundwork for the deletion of homosexuality as a mental disorder.  Dr. Cummings in offering his proposal to declassify homosexuality as a Mental Disorder,  stated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made the resolution that being gay was not a mental illness, that it was characterological,.... I also said with that, that the APA, if it passes this resolution, will also vote to continue research that demonstrates whatever the research demonstrates. Unbiased, open research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During his tenure as APA president , the organization utilized the "Leona Tyler" principle. In a nutshell, the Leona Tyler principle called for the use of Scientific Objectivity, which is a basis of all science, or at least its supposed to be. Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at.  It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc ..
> 
> Today, it is nowhere to be found in the APA Scientific Objectivity has been swept under the carpet and completely forgotten. Since at least thje Mid 90s leftist Ideology rules at the APA. Cummings has stated that its members are âcherrypicking resultsâ to fit their Agenda. As per Cummings the gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.
> 
> American Psychological Association. Owned by the Gays
Click to expand...


Dr. Cummings is the Man who wrote the Motion to have Homosexuality removed from the DSM - a decision he now regrets


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are sadly misinformed - please tell me you're not a bug chaser
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seems you have poor math skills as well. I see 28000 infected through msm. Being that the estimates for the population that is homosexual falls between 2 and 4% of a nation with a population of 324million people that means 6-9million of us are gay, the statistic here isn't even one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No no no little fella , I think you need to recalculate - not just your arithmetic - but your entire existence.  The Chart represented *DOCUMENTED ** NEW INFECTIONS* not existing ones and not un-documented ones - If you have any further problems with the numbers presented perhaps you should contact the Center for Disease Control  and Prevention  --  CDC ? Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men ? Gender ? Risk ? HIV/AIDS
> 
> Well at least we've established you're not an English Major,  not a Math Major, Not a Psych Major, you certainly never took Logic 101  - Hmmm - correct me if I'm wrong - didn't you say you were a College Student ?
Click to expand...


ridiculous insults aside, what percentage ofgay men are known to be infected with HIV?


----------



## GreenBean

kaz said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may go to Church, but since you said Christianity is primarily social, you're obviously saying you're not actually a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't go to church. I never said Christianity was primarily social, andto be Christian one only needs to accept Christ as their savior. I am Christian, whether or not i meet the criteria to be Christian in your definition is of no concern to me.
> 
> Please stop accusing me of dating things I did not say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go.  You used the word "conformity."  I spent 10 minutes finding the actual quote because you wanted to word parse.  Conformity is purely social, it has no other meaning.  I'm going to pass on responding to you if you're going to play games.
Click to expand...



I believe spiking a quote like that may be a violation


----------



## Inevitable

kaz said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may go to Church, but since you said Christianity is primarily social, you're obviously saying you're not actually a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't go to church. I never said Christianity was primarily social, andto be Christian one only needs to accept Christ as their savior. I am Christian, whether or not i meet the criteria to be Christian in your definition is of no concern to me.
> 
> Please stop accusing me of dating things I did not say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go.  You used the word "conformity."  I spent 10 minutes finding the actual quote because you wanted to word parse.  Conformity is purely social, it has no other meaning.  I'm going to pass on responding to you if you're going to play games.
Click to expand...

Point out where I mentioned Christianity specifically. Does Christianity need a church? If so who said so?


----------



## kaz

GreenBean said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't go to church. I never said Christianity was primarily social, andto be Christian one only needs to accept Christ as their savior. I am Christian, whether or not i meet the criteria to be Christian in your definition is of no concern to me.
> 
> Please stop accusing me of dating things I did not say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go.  You used the word "conformity."  I spent 10 minutes finding the actual quote because you wanted to word parse.  Conformity is purely social, it has no other meaning.  I'm going to pass on responding to you if you're going to play games.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I believe spiking a quote like that may be a violation
Click to expand...


What do you mean?  If you are saying I changed something then please let me know what it is because I did not do that intentionally and I want to fix it.


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> seems you have poor math skills as well. I see 28000 infected through msm. Being that the estimates for the population that is homosexual falls between 2 and 4% of a nation with a population of 324million people that means 6-9million of us are gay, the statistic here isn't even one percent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No no no little fella , I think you need to recalculate - not just your arithmetic - but your entire existence.  The Chart represented *DOCUMENTED ** NEW INFECTIONS* not existing ones and not un-documented ones - If you have any further problems with the numbers presented perhaps you should contact the Center for Disease Control  and Prevention  --  CDC ? Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men ? Gender ? Risk ? HIV/AIDS
> 
> Well at least we've established you're not an English Major,  not a Math Major, Not a Psych Major, you certainly never took Logic 101  - Hmmm - correct me if I'm wrong - didn't you say you were a College Student ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ridiculous insults aside, what percentage ofgay men are known to be infected with HIV?
Click to expand...


As I told you on various threads - I'm not a Genius , just smarter than you.  I don't store this information in my head  - and * I am also not your errand Boy  *  if you desire an answer - Go Fish or Go Google as the case may be.

And so far as insults - *What Insults* - I Thought I was being pretty civil and honest ?


----------



## kaz

Inevitable said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't go to church. I never said Christianity was primarily social, andto be Christian one only needs to accept Christ as their savior. I am Christian, whether or not i meet the criteria to be Christian in your definition is of no concern to me.
> 
> Please stop accusing me of dating things I did not say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go.  You used the word "conformity."  I spent 10 minutes finding the actual quote because you wanted to word parse.  Conformity is purely social, it has no other meaning.  I'm going to pass on responding to you if you're going to play games.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point out where I mentioned Christianity specifically. Does Christianity need a church? If so who said so?
Click to expand...


So when you said "religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than God," you were not including Christianity in that?


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> [
> You mean all the ones that you can't refute
> 
> Okay - so let's start with the APA [LMAO]


I don't see the need to refute absurdity, most of your other links refuted you.


----------



## GreenBean

kaz said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go.  You used the word "conformity."  I spent 10 minutes finding the actual quote because you wanted to word parse.  Conformity is purely social, it has no other meaning.  I'm going to pass on responding to you if you're going to play games.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe spiking a quote like that may be a violation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean?  If you are saying I changed something then please let me know what it is because I did not do that intentionally and I want to fix it.
Click to expand...


Not You KAZ -*Not You* .  You're integrity is not remotely questionable - you're a true scholar .


----------



## Inevitable

kaz said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go.  You used the word "conformity."  I spent 10 minutes finding the actual quote because you wanted to word parse.  Conformity is purely social, it has no other meaning.  I'm going to pass on responding to you if you're going to play games.
> 
> 
> 
> Point out where I mentioned Christianity specifically. Does Christianity need a church? If so who said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when you said "religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than God," you were not including Christianity in that?
Click to expand...


I was speaking of organized religion of which I don't participate.


----------



## Asclepias

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you have failed to evolve along with science.   Its no longer 1974
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have something more than just an opinion piece?
> 
> 
> 
> get ready he has all the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist websites bookmarked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean all the ones that you can't refute
> 
> Okay - so let's start with the APA [LMAO]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beginning in the late 60s,  homosexual activist groups began lobbying leading psychiatric organizations to lay the groundwork for the deletion of homosexuality as a mental disorder.  Dr. Cummings in offering his proposal to declassify homosexuality as a Mental Disorder,  stated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made the resolution that being gay was not a mental illness, that it was characterological,.... I also said with that, that the APA, if it passes this resolution, will also vote to continue research that demonstrates whatever the research demonstrates. Unbiased, open research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> During his tenure as APA president , the organization utilized the "Leona Tyler" principle. In a nutshell, the Leona Tyler principle called for the use of Scientific Objectivity, which is a basis of all science, or at least its supposed to be. Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at.  It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc ..
> 
> Today, it is nowhere to be found in the APA Scientific Objectivity has been swept under the carpet and completely forgotten. Since at least thje Mid 90s leftist Ideology rules at the APA. Cummings has stated that its members are â&#8364;&#339;cherrypicking resultsâ&#8364; to fit their Agenda. As per Cummings the gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.
> 
> American Psychological Association. Owned by the Gays
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dr. Cummings is the Man who wrote the Motion to have Homosexuality removed from the DSM - a decision he now regrets
Click to expand...


How does this prove homosexuality is a mental illness? You keep coming with the opinion pieces. Do you have some hard data that proves all gay people are mentally ill?  I can tell you from personal experience you dont have any.  I know quite a few gay people and everyone of them are well adjusted, high functioning human beings.


----------



## kaz

Inevitable said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point out where I mentioned Christianity specifically. Does Christianity need a church? If so who said so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when you said "religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than God," you were not including Christianity in that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was speaking of organized religion of which I don't participate.
Click to expand...


So again back to what I said and you objected to, it seems you have not established any merit for your objection.


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You mean all the ones that you can't refute
> 
> Okay - so let's start with the APA [LMAO]
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the need to refute absurdity, most of your other links refuted you.
Click to expand...


TRANSLATED:  You don't have the ability to refute what flies in the face of your agenda. Truth Hurts - doesn't it ?


----------



## kaz

GreenBean said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe spiking a quote like that may be a violation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?  If you are saying I changed something then please let me know what it is because I did not do that intentionally and I want to fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not You KAZ -*Not You* .  You're integrity is not remotely questionable - you're a true scholar .
Click to expand...


Um...OK?


----------



## kaz

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You mean all the ones that you can't refute
> 
> Okay - so let's start with the APA [LMAO]
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the need to refute absurdity, most of your other links refuted you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TRANSLATED:  You don't have the ability to refute what flies in the face of your agenda. Truth Hurts - doesn't it ?
Click to expand...


I personally believe in a loving God who doesn't make people gay and then says he's going to condemn even if they are hurting no one unless they live a miserable life with someone they aren't attracted to.  If someone is gay and they have a gay partner, who cares?  I certainly don't.


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> No no no little fella , I think you need to recalculate - not just your arithmetic - but your entire existence.  The Chart represented *DOCUMENTED ** NEW INFECTIONS* not existing ones and not un-documented ones - If you have any further problems with the numbers presented perhaps you should contact the Center for Disease Control  and Prevention  --  CDC ? Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men ? Gender ? Risk ? HIV/AIDS
> 
> Well at least we've established you're not an English Major,  not a Math Major, Not a Psych Major, you certainly never took Logic 101  - Hmmm - correct me if I'm wrong - didn't you say you were a College Student ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ridiculous insults aside, what percentage ofgay men are known to be infected with HIV?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I told you on various threads - I'm not a Genius , just smarter than you.
Click to expand...




> I don't store this information in my head  - and * I am also not your errand Boy*


* You have something to prove, you can't produce evidence, guess your claim isn't valid. 






			if you desire an answer - Go Fish or Go Google as the case may be.
		
Click to expand...

I havethe answers I just find your squirming and sputtering amusing. 




			And so far as insults - What Insults - I Thought I was being pretty civil and honest ?
		
Click to expand...

This is the most dishonest thing you have posted. Weren't you banned from other forumsbecause of this behavior?*


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You mean all the ones that you can't refute
> 
> Okay - so let's start with the APA [LMAO]
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the need to refute absurdity, most of your other links refuted you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TRANSLATED:  You don't have the ability to refute what flies in the face of your agenda. Truth Hurts - doesn't it ?
Click to expand...

Agenda?


----------



## Asclepias

Inevitable said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the need to refute absurdity, most of your other links refuted you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRANSLATED:  You don't have the ability to refute what flies in the face of your agenda. Truth Hurts - doesn't it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agenda?
Click to expand...


In order for his tinfoil hat conspiracies to work, you have to have an agenda. Dont you know that?


----------



## Inevitable

kaz said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when you said "religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than God," you were not including Christianity in that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was speaking of organized religion of which I don't participate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So again back to what I said and you objected to, it seems you have not established any merit for your objection.
Click to expand...

You said I was attacking Christianity, I was not.


----------



## Inevitable

​


Asclepias said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> TRANSLATED:  You don't have the ability to refute what flies in the face of your agenda. Truth Hurts - doesn't it ?
> 
> 
> 
> Agenda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order for his tinfoil hat conspiracies to work, you have to have an agenda. Dont you know that?
Click to expand...

Apparently there is a gay mafia, a gay political front, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't think there were gay men from Mars to infiltrate and...um...well "he was never really clear about his boogeyman's motive. I guess it is to usurp the normalcy of straightness or something of that nature, who knows.


----------



## Inevitable

Asclepias said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> get ready he has all the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist websites bookmarked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean all the ones that you can't refute
> 
> Okay - so let's start with the APA [LMAO]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beginning in the late 60s,  homosexual activist groups began lobbying leading psychiatric organizations to lay the groundwork for the deletion of homosexuality as a mental disorder.  Dr. Cummings in offering his proposal to declassify homosexuality as a Mental Disorder,  stated
> 
> 
> 
> During his tenure as APA president , the organization utilized the "Leona Tyler" principle. In a nutshell, the Leona Tyler principle called for the use of Scientific Objectivity, which is a basis of all science, or at least its supposed to be. Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at.  It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc ..
> 
> Today, it is nowhere to be found in the APA Scientific Objectivity has been swept under the carpet and completely forgotten. Since at least thje Mid 90s leftist Ideology rules at the APA. Cummings has stated that its members are â&#8364;&#339;cherrypicking resultsâ&#8364; to fit their Agenda. As per Cummings the gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.
> 
> American Psychological Association. Owned by the Gays
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dr. Cummings is the Man who wrote the Motion to have Homosexuality removed from the DSM - a decision he now regrets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does this prove homosexuality is a mental illness? You keep coming with the opinion pieces. Do you have some hard data that proves all gay people are mentally ill?  I can tell you from personal experience you dont have any.  I know quite a few gay people and everyone of them are well adjusted, high functioning human beings.
Click to expand...


I have dealt with him on another forum, he has nothing.


----------



## emilynghiem

Slyhunter said:


> It's a genetic defect that can someday be cured and, if parents wanted, currently aborted to prevent unwanted gay pregnancy's.



 [MENTION=49398]Slyhunter[/MENTION]

1. if it is a "genetic defect" then in studies on identical twins, why don't BOTH twins MANIFEST the same orientation? Why is it only 50% match "at most." Are you saying the gene is there, but it may or may not develop into that orientation? So other factors are involved?

2. NOTE a highly respected well read and well researched psychologist that a friend of mine successfully completed therapy with, did ALL the research he could and found 
**NO proof of any genetic cause of "homosexuality"**

3. the most I found was recognized differences in male, female, homosexual brains etc:
Brain Study Shows Differences Between Gays, Straights - washingtonpost.com

if this difference isn't by genes from birth, then does the brain develop differently later on?


----------



## RKMBrown

Inevitable said:


> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?



I think the question is bigoted because it implies that a cause should be found, as if being gay is something to be fixed.  I don't think gay people need to be fixed.  I don't think the fact that there are gay people in our society needs to be fixed.

They are gay because they are gay.  Women are attracted to men in much the same way men can be attracted to men.  Men are attracted to women in much the same way women can be attracted to women.  How / why are we attracted to each other?  There are many social and physiological reasons we are attracted to others.  Other than the whole part about how a specific couple of opposing gender might typically get pregnant together and have kids, none of these reasons are abjectly impossible between two people of the same gender.  

Thus I can only discern this to be a Troll thread.


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean all the ones that you can't refute
> 
> Okay - so let's start with the APA [LMAO]
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Cummings is the Man who wrote the Motion to have Homosexuality removed from the DSM - a decision he now regrets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does this prove homosexuality is a mental illness? You keep coming with the opinion pieces. Do you have some hard data that proves all gay people are mentally ill?  I can tell you from personal experience you dont have any.  I know quite a few gay people and everyone of them are well adjusted, high functioning human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have dealt with him on another forum, he has nothing.
Click to expand...


That's true - but finish the sentence -*I have nothing* *that you can refute* - so you choose to deflect


----------



## GreenBean

RKMBrown said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the question is bigoted because it implies that a cause should be found, as if being gay is something to be fixed.  I don't think gay people need to be fixed.  I don't think the fact that there are gay people in our society needs to be fixed.
> 
> They are gay because they are gay.  Women are attracted to men in much the same way men can be attracted to men.  Men are attracted to women in much the same way women can be attracted to women.  How / why are we attracted to each other?  There are many social and physiological reasons we are attracted to others.  Other than the whole part about how a specific couple of opposing gender might typically get pregnant together and have kids, none of these reasons are abjectly impossible between two people of the same gender.
> 
> Thus I can only discern this to be a Troll thread.
Click to expand...


And you are sadly misinformed if you believe there is nothing to be fixed , to have become totally *desensitized* ....



> 1) Desensitization  Through a consistent barrage and exposure to homosexuals in the media - primarily the fantasy world of Television and the Movies, but also on radio, and in the print media , the public would become acquainted and accustomed to gays as a normal part of society and life. Numerous novels, plays, movies, and television shows have tediously worn down and desensitized society from its former disgust with the homosexual.
> 
> *As per the strategy* the image conveyed would be of gays as productive healthy members of society. Although in reality this is far from the truth. Although there are many productive and otherwise admirable gays , *the majority are psychologically maladjusted, and an extremely large percentage are infested with a myriad of both organic and psychological maladies arising from their perverted lifestyles, going far beyond HIV/AIDs. *This dark side of the Gay Lifestyle was/is taboo - the public must not be made aware of, or exposed to it. Out of sight out of mind.
> 
> That fact that the public was/is not permitted to be educated on or even be made aware of the darker side of homosexuality , especially in the early days of the movement can be demonstrated with a 1974 episode of Marcus Welby MD.


----------



## RKMBrown

emilynghiem said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a genetic defect that can someday be cured and, if parents wanted, currently aborted to prevent unwanted gay pregnancy's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=49398]Slyhunter[/MENTION]
> 
> 1. if it is a "genetic defect" then in studies on identical twins, why don't BOTH twins MANIFEST the same orientation? Why is it only 50% match "at most." Are you saying the gene is there, but it may or may not develop into that orientation? So other factors are involved?
> 
> 2. NOTE a highly respected well read and well researched psychologist that a friend of mine successfully completed therapy with, did ALL the research he could and found
> **NO proof of any genetic cause of "homosexuality"**
> 
> 3. the most I found was recognized differences in male, female, homosexual brains etc:
> Brain Study Shows Differences Between Gays, Straights - washingtonpost.com
> 
> if this difference isn't by genes from birth, then does the brain develop differently later on?
Click to expand...


There is an initial state for our brains, but our brains are also pliable in that they can develop different tendencies over time based on effort and stimulus.  Think of the brain as a muscle.  Yes we are all given a certain set of genetic pre-dispositions for how our bodies function, but we can change our bodies significantly via effort.  IOW it's not one or the other it's both.


----------



## RKMBrown

GreenBean said:


> And you are sadly misinformed if you believe there is nothing to be fixed , to have become totally *desensitized* ....



To err is human... no?

Why should everyone be forced to be flawless like you greenbean?


----------



## Asclepias

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does this prove homosexuality is a mental illness? You keep coming with the opinion pieces. Do you have some hard data that proves all gay people are mentally ill?  I can tell you from personal experience you dont have any.  I know quite a few gay people and everyone of them are well adjusted, high functioning human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have dealt with him on another forum, he has nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true - but finish the sentence -*I have nothing* *that you can refute* - so you choose to deflect
Click to expand...


Glad to see you admit you have nothing and no one can refute that.


----------



## kaz

Inevitable said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was speaking of organized religion of which I don't participate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So again back to what I said and you objected to, it seems you have not established any merit for your objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said I was attacking Christianity, I was not.
Click to expand...


No, I said you don't understand Christians, so you shouldn't say what they think when you clearly don't know.  Just like I said they should not speak for you as they obviously don't know.


----------



## GISMYS

WHAT HOMOSEXUAL ACT IS NOT JUST PERVERTED LUST WITH NO HONOR ??== God wants you to be made holy. He wants you to stay away from sexual sins. 4 He wants all of you to learn to control your own bodies. You must live in a way that is holy. You must live with honor. 5 Don&#8217;t long to commit sexual sins like those who don&#8217;t know God. 1 THESSALIOANS 4:4


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

GISMYS said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occam's razor doesn't apply because it is only a problem in the mind of fanatics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occam applies to ALL scientific questions.  Religious nutters ignore science and the scientific method.  I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! SCIENCE THEORY CHANGES ALMOST DAY TO DAY!  BIG BANG NOW DEBUNKED!!! LIFE BEGAN IN PONDSCUM BUT TODAY THE THEORY IS LIFE CAME TO EARTH ON SPACE ROCKS!!LOL!! WITHOUT EVEN A IDEA AS TO WHERE AND HOW  THE LIFE ON SPACE ROCKS BEGAN!! ROFLMAO!! Come on!!!
Click to expand...


Dude, stop with the all caps, already! It's against the rules and you are deliberately adding lower-case letters in order to circumvent the auto-shift. 

It's annoying, thanks.

Furthermore, this is a place for civilized debate; shoveling a bunch of right-wing nonsense into your post is not the same thing.


----------



## emilynghiem

kaz said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, religion in and of itself *it's more about conformity than God*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go.  You used the word "conformity."  I spent 10 minutes finding the actual quote because you wanted to word parse.  Conformity is purely social, it has no other meaning.  I'm going to pass on responding to you if you're going to play games.
> 
> So you are a Christian who doesn't go to church and *thinks religion is about "conformity more than God."*
> 
> Obviously when I said you don't understand Christians and you objected, it was feigned indignation and what I said was right.  All I am saying is they should not tell you what you think, you should do the same.
Click to expand...


Dear Kaz and Inevitable:
I think both things are going on, not either/or. Religions involve both absolute truth that "God" represents, and relative expression per group based on conformity. 
In practice, the RELIGIONS themselves are used as cultural languages among a like community, so this is to help establish a "common language" and law that peers agree to live by. 
In spirit, the CONTENT in religions all point toward universal laws that "God" represents. So it is both.

Inevitable's comment is general enough to apply to all, and did not single out Christianity.
Even if Inevitable has a limit and mild bias, he is honest and fair, not unreasonable about it,
and invites open discussion within the language he does relate to more in secular terms.

He is no different in asking that WE conform to "common language" for sake of communicating more effectively. 
How is that much different from conformity in religions? 

As long as we are committed to discerning truth and correcting error, that is still seeking "God's truth" or "universal truth"
regardless what language, secular or religious, we use for "conformity" sake.
Thank you for this!


----------



## kaz

GISMYS said:


> WHAT HOMOSEXUAL ACT IS NOT JUST PERVERTED LUST WITH NO HONOR ??== God wants you to be made holy. He wants you to stay away from sexual sins. 4 He wants all of you to learn to control your own bodies. You must live in a way that is holy. You must live with honor. 5 Dont long to commit sexual sins like those who dont know God. 1 THESSALIOANS 4:4



Why does it bother you so much?  I look at all the things that happen in this world with victims, and I can't grasp the obsession some people have with something that doesn't harm anyone.


----------



## GISMYS

kaz said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT HOMOSEXUAL ACT IS NOT JUST PERVERTED LUST WITH NO HONOR ??== God wants you to be made holy. He wants you to stay away from sexual sins. 4 He wants all of you to learn to control your own bodies. You must live in a way that is holy. You must live with honor. 5 Dont long to commit sexual sins like those who dont know God. 1 THESSALIOANS 4:4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it bother you so much?  I look at all the things that happen in this world with victims, and I can't grasp the obsession some people have with something that doesn't harm anyone.
Click to expand...


40,000,000 + Dead from HIV AIDS, another 40 million HIV positive, countless more millions living ruined lives ofguilt and shame and you say""whats the harm""????


----------



## sealybobo

Inevitable said:


> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?



Gay people are born that way.  Bi sexual people or people who could possibly go both ways are born that way and so are people who are completely hetero.  A complete hetero knows they were born straight.  A complete homo knows they were born that way.  It's the bi sexuals that are confused.  They think everyone thinks the way they do.

My question, "Is religion a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?"

Because people are certainly not born religious.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT HOMOSEXUAL ACT IS NOT JUST PERVERTED LUST WITH NO HONOR ??== God wants you to be made holy. He wants you to stay away from sexual sins. 4 He wants all of you to learn to control your own bodies. You must live in a way that is holy. You must live with honor. 5 Dont long to commit sexual sins like those who dont know God. 1 THESSALIOANS 4:4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it bother you so much?  I look at all the things that happen in this world with victims, and I can't grasp the obsession some people have with something that doesn't harm anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 40,000,000 + Dead from HIV AIDS, another 40 million HIV positive, countless more millions living ruined lives ofguilt and shame and you say""whats the harm""????
Click to expand...


If god is perfect, why didn't he ONLY give it to gays and drug users?  Is god a fuck up?


----------



## kaz

emilynghiem said:


> I think both things are going on, not either/or. Religions involve both absolute truth that "God" represents, and relative expression per group based on conformity.
> In practice, the RELIGIONS themselves are used as cultural languages among a like community, so this is to help establish a "common language" and law that peers agree to live by.
> In spirit, the CONTENT in religions all point toward universal laws that "God" represents. So it is both.



I actually by calling it "social" made his point less critical as "conformity" has a connotation of  being motivated by a fear of being different while "social" doesn't.   He didn't say conformity was a factor, he didn't even say it was both, he said it was the primary factor.  That's not true with the Christians I know, the religion is very important to them.  Which is why I suggested and suggest if he doesn't like them and doesn't understand them, he should probably not claim to know what motivates them.   I said the same about them with him.


----------



## sealybobo

kaz said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT HOMOSEXUAL ACT IS NOT JUST PERVERTED LUST WITH NO HONOR ??== God wants you to be made holy. He wants you to stay away from sexual sins. 4 He wants all of you to learn to control your own bodies. You must live in a way that is holy. You must live with honor. 5 Dont long to commit sexual sins like those who dont know God. 1 THESSALIOANS 4:4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it bother you so much?  I look at all the things that happen in this world with victims, and I can't grasp the obsession some people have with something that doesn't harm anyone.
Click to expand...


Great point.  And Gismys says aids is a problem.  True.  So maybe god is trying to tell them if they are going to be gay don't have sex with multiple partners.  And if you are going to wear a condom.  But god, jesus and mosus didn't know about sheep skin back then, did they?


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay people are born that way.  Bi sexual people or people who could possibly go both ways are born that way and so are people who are completely hetero.  A complete hetero knows they were born straight.  A complete homo knows they were born that way.  It's the bi sexuals that are confused.  They think everyone thinks the way they do.
> 
> My question, "Is religion a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?"
> 
> Because people are certainly not born religious.
Click to expand...


Lol the sinner's "big cop out"= I was just born that way! LOL!  He says,"I was born a natural liar or a desire to steal, or my genes makeme a drunk,a glutton,a druggiee or a sexual pervert, or a pedophile====== NO!! Its your choice!!!


----------



## kaz

GISMYS said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT HOMOSEXUAL ACT IS NOT JUST PERVERTED LUST WITH NO HONOR ??== God wants you to be made holy. He wants you to stay away from sexual sins. 4 He wants all of you to learn to control your own bodies. You must live in a way that is holy. You must live with honor. 5 Dont long to commit sexual sins like those who dont know God. 1 THESSALIOANS 4:4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it bother you so much?  I look at all the things that happen in this world with victims, and I can't grasp the obsession some people have with something that doesn't harm anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 40,000,000 + Dead from HIV AIDS, another 40 million HIV positive, countless more millions living ruined lives ofguilt and shame and you say""whats the harm""????
Click to expand...


That's a ridiculous answer.  How many heterosexuals have died from sexual diseases?   How many women are beaten and afraid to leave and eventually end up killed?  Should we blame heterosexuality for that?


----------



## RKMBrown

GISMYS said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT HOMOSEXUAL ACT IS NOT JUST PERVERTED LUST WITH NO HONOR ??== God wants you to be made holy. He wants you to stay away from sexual sins. 4 He wants all of you to learn to control your own bodies. You must live in a way that is holy. You must live with honor. 5 Don&#8217;t long to commit sexual sins like those who don&#8217;t know God. 1 THESSALIOANS 4:4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it bother you so much?  I look at all the things that happen in this world with victims, and I can't grasp the obsession some people have with something that doesn't harm anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 40,000,000 + Dead from HIV AIDS, another 40 million HIV positive, countless more millions living ruined lives ofguilt and shame and you say""whats the harm""????
Click to expand...


You are confusing irresponsible sexual interactions of groups of people who share needles and have continual and ongoing non-monogamous sexual relations with gays and straights who do not share needles and do not have continual and ongoing non-monogamous sexual relations.  IOW you are fear mongering and mixing good behavior with bad behavior to make all gays look bad.  Aids is spread rampantly by sharing needles and having continual and ongoing non-monogamous sexual relations.  Which has nothing to do with being gay.


----------



## GreenBean

RKMBrown said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are sadly misinformed if you believe there is nothing to be fixed , to have become totally *desensitized* ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To err is human... no?
> 
> Why should everyone be forced to be flawless like you greenbean?
Click to expand...


To strive for perfection is an admirable thing - and I am glad to see you admit that Homosexuality is a flaw.


----------



## GISMYS

kaz said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it bother you so much?  I look at all the things that happen in this world with victims, and I can't grasp the obsession some people have with something that doesn't harm anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40,000,000 + Dead from HIV AIDS, another 40 million HIV positive, countless more millions living ruined lives ofguilt and shame and you say""whats the harm""????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a ridiculous answer.  How many heterosexuals have died from sexual diseases?   How many women are beaten and afraid to leave and eventually end up killed?  Should we blame heterosexuality for that?
Click to expand...


40,000,000+ dead from AIDS!!! For what??? GOD says don't do it! Do you really need more proof sexual perversion is an abomination!!!


----------



## sealybobo

kaz said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think both things are going on, not either/or. Religions involve both absolute truth that "God" represents, and relative expression per group based on conformity.
> In practice, the RELIGIONS themselves are used as cultural languages among a like community, so this is to help establish a "common language" and law that peers agree to live by.
> In spirit, the CONTENT in religions all point toward universal laws that "God" represents. So it is both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually by calling it "social" made his point less critical as "conformity" has a connotation of  being motivated by a fear of being different while "social" doesn't.   He didn't say conformity was a factor, he didn't even say it was both, he said it was the primary factor.  That's not true with the Christians I know, the religion is very important to them.  Which is why I suggested and suggest if he doesn't like them and doesn't understand them, he should probably not claim to know what motivates them.   I said the same about them with him.
Click to expand...


If Americans really believed the jesus stories were real we would be a christian nation.  There would be no seperation of church and state.  Fact is our forefathers were smart enough to know to keep the corrupt churches/religions away from our government/democracy/freedom/nation/fill in the blank.  

Most supposed christians don't even take the bible literally. 

Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham


----------



## GreenBean

Asclepias said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have dealt with him on another forum, he has nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true - but finish the sentence -*I have nothing* *that you can refute* - so you choose to deflect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad to see you admit you have nothing and no one can refute that.
Click to expand...


That's true there is nothing I have that you can refute .  Did that answer your question, or did it question your answer, in any event your reesponse was a questionable answer .


----------



## emilynghiem

GreenBean said:


> And you are sadly misinformed if you believe there is nothing to be fixed , to have become totally *desensitized* ....



   [MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION]: not "totally" desensitized but SELECTIVELY so

I find it curious that each side is genuinely sensitive to the personal testimonies and research that back up their points, 
but more ready to DISMISS the EQUAL personal testimony and research of others that prove their own positions.

Why not expand our scope and leave EQUAL room for the experiences and research of others, then we can be Equally Sensitive.

I find everyone on here quite passionate and committed to truth, driven by conscience.

As for anything to be fixed, people generally know what is natural and unnatural for them. If something needs to be fixed, they will seek help. 
If not, they remain as they are. No one needs or responds to being pushed to change or not change, they will push themselves.

All people here are pushing to share or fix something. If we listened and became "more sensitive" to what someone is saying that is new and different, maybe they'd open up, too!

Can we try to hear points on all sides, and put the "larger picture" together from all those pieces everyone is contributing from their knowledge and different experiences?

GreenBean, if we want people to be more sensitive and inclusive of our points, shouldn't we practice more sensitivity and respect for them and their points?


----------



## Howey

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it bother you so much?  I look at all the things that happen in this world with victims, and I can't grasp the obsession some people have with something that doesn't harm anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40,000,000 + Dead from HIV AIDS, another 40 million HIV positive, countless more millions living ruined lives ofguilt and shame and you say""whats the harm""????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If god is perfect, why didn't he ONLY give it to gays and drug users?  Is god a fuck up?
Click to expand...



He must be to have created ignorant, uneducated people such as you.

Heterosexuals predominately have herpes simplex. Men primarily are victims of Parkinsons, women osteoporosis.  Blacks are more prone to sickle cell anemia, and so on. Why did God create these?


----------



## RKMBrown

GreenBean said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are sadly misinformed if you believe there is nothing to be fixed , to have become totally *desensitized* ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To err is human... no?
> 
> Why should everyone be forced to be flawless like you greenbean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To strive for perfection is an admirable thing - and I am glad to see you admit that Homosexuality is a flaw.
Click to expand...


That's not what I said.  Why lie?  

What I said is to err is human.  All humans err.  Additionally, all humans sin.  If you truly believe yourself to be flawless, well then you are not human.  Your error is in thinking you are flawless enough to be able to decide when other humans are making wrong choices in who they want to couple with.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did say that but only Jesus knows why you inferred what you did from it, I certainly didn't imply anything of the sort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did it mean then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you having trouble understanding?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If sexuality is understood because people want to have sex, who understands it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't answer loaded questions.
Click to expand...


You didn't like my interpretation of what you posted, but you refuse to clarify it for me. I ask questions because I want the answers.

B t he way, for a guy that keeps telling me he understands logic, you really don't. A loaded question contains am unjustified, or even controversial, assumption. Can you explain how asking you what you  mean is in any way controversial? I already assumed I understood your point, and you said that I got it wrong. Asking for an explanation after that seems, to me, to be the next step of a conversation.

Perhaps you should stop projecting your debating technique on me.


----------



## kaz

GISMYS said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 40,000,000 + Dead from HIV AIDS, another 40 million HIV positive, countless more millions living ruined lives ofguilt and shame and you say""whats the harm""????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a ridiculous answer.  How many heterosexuals have died from sexual diseases?   How many women are beaten and afraid to leave and eventually end up killed?  Should we blame heterosexuality for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 40,000,000+ dead from AIDS!!! For what??? GOD says don't do it! Do you really need more proof sexual perversion is an abomination!!!
Click to expand...


Not if you admit heterosexual is an abomination for the reasons I mentioned.  

I don't think we should stone people for adultery, I don't think eating pork is a sin and I am fine with coffee too.  I don't think God ever meant to read the bible and turn your brain off.


----------



## GISMYS

Howey said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 40,000,000 + Dead from HIV AIDS, another 40 million HIV positive, countless more millions living ruined lives ofguilt and shame and you say""whats the harm""????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If god is perfect, why didn't he ONLY give it to gays and drug users?  Is god a fuck up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He must be to have created ignorant, uneducated people such as you.
> 
> Heterosexuals predominately have herpes simplex. Men primarily are victims of Parkinsons, women osteoporosis.  Blacks are more prone to sickle cell anemia, and so on. Why did God create these?
Click to expand...


sexual perverts gave theirself hiv aids not GOD!!! god is not willing that any perish but are free to choose HIV AIDS all you need do is live in sexual perversion! 40,000,000+ have paid the ""big"" price= death!


----------



## RKMBrown

GISMYS said:


> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If god is perfect, why didn't he ONLY give it to gays and drug users?  Is god a fuck up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He must be to have created ignorant, uneducated people such as you.
> 
> Heterosexuals predominately have herpes simplex. Men primarily are victims of Parkinsons, women osteoporosis.  Blacks are more prone to sickle cell anemia, and so on. Why did God create these?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sexual perverts gave theirself hiv aids not GOD!!! god is not willing that any perish but are free to choose HIV AIDS all you need do is live in sexual perversion! 40,000,000+ have paid the ""big"" price= death!
Click to expand...

So if a monogamous heterosexual couple gets aids, it happened because the are living in sexual perversion? Huh?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am no longer interested in playing mind games with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> You would come off as more mature if you just admitted your mistakes instead of trying to pretend the other guy is playing games.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what mistake? I would admit to them if I knew I what in God's name you were talking about.
Click to expand...


I explained it, you have no evidence to call me a hypocrite unless you can show me that I take a stance morally, and then do the opposite in private. My moral position is that what people do in private is none of my business, just like what I do in private is none of theirs. I have never stated that homosexuality is wrong. I have, occasioally, pointed out that some things homosexuals do is considered a sin according to the Bible, but I have never once told anyone that they are headed to Hell as a result of their sins. That is not my decision, I am not management, so I don't pretend that I have the answers.

You are free to call me hard headed, stubborn, ill informed, and a whole list of other things, many of which I will cheerfully admit to, but I am not a hypocrite. You misused the word, so feel free to admit you made a mistake instead of accusing me of playing mind games.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gtarguy921 said:


> *Maybe you should have paid more attention.*
> 
> If I'd paid any more attention, my eyes would have popped out of their sockets.
> 
> More likely your criteria for defining a conscious decision are considerably more flexible than mine.
> 
> No biggee.



Maybe. Lets just leave it at that and move along. My comment was facetious anyway.


----------



## Slyhunter

Delta4Embassy said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> _This above all: To thine own-self, be true. _
> 
> I think Shakespeare had it right.
> 
> Is this discussion turning into a Bible discussion? Is this what the OP had in mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any discussion about homosexuality is going to inevitably come around to religion since religion is the only groups against it. Minus religion, no one would be against it thus no need to discuss it.
Click to expand...


Incorrect. I'm an agnostic and I'm against public displays of homosexuality. What they do in their own homes is none of my business. But what they do in public is disgusting. Interrupting church services while cross dressing, having gay day parades wearing their loud disgusting sexual outfits in public. Or simply making out in our parks. It isn't natural. I don't give a fuck about what God says. Nature says it's disgusting. Where you take a shit is not where a dick should go, on anybody.

If they keep it private than I don't care. My problem is they keep wanting to rub my face with it by being public with it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> It boggles my mind people think its a choice.  Its 2014 for cryin out loud.  I didnt even know what turned on was but I knew I wanted to get next to the cute little girl in my class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is everyone who knows they made a choice lying? Is there some sort of conspiracy? Are they delusional? Are you so close minded you cannot admit that you might not know everything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said everyone that made a choice is lying? I said its not a choice when you are born what sex you are attracted to. You can make a choice later on but your initial sexual orientation is not determined by choice. You can convince yourself of pretty much anything but you cant change what you came out with. Dont you know anything about the human mind?
Click to expand...


So, gay people can chose to be straight? And vice versa?


----------



## Asclepias

GreenBean said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's true - but finish the sentence -*I have nothing* *that you can refute* - so you choose to deflect
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to see you admit you have nothing and no one can refute that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true there is nothing I have that you can refute .  Did that answer your question, or did it question your answer, in any event your reesponse was a questionable answer .
Click to expand...


Dont confuse yourself trying to deflect. You havent supplied a link proving homosexuality was a mental illness.  What happened?  Did you hope I would forget?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just accused me of being a hypocrite because I asked someone questions that pertain to their position. If that isn't an attack, what is it?
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't an attack, but I will dropit because this circular garbage is rather pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You havent seen anything yet. Quantum is a master at deflecting when caught in a lie.
> 
> He honestly wants people to believe he made a decision to be gay and was born without a sexual orientation.
Click to expand...


You never caught me in a lie, you just claim that the words you posted mean something else.


----------



## Asclepias

GISMYS said:


> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If god is perfect, why didn't he ONLY give it to gays and drug users?  Is god a fuck up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He must be to have created ignorant, uneducated people such as you.
> 
> Heterosexuals predominately have herpes simplex. Men primarily are victims of Parkinsons, women osteoporosis.  Blacks are more prone to sickle cell anemia, and so on. Why did God create these?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sexual perverts gave theirself hiv aids not GOD!!! god is not willing that any perish but are free to choose HIV AIDS all you need do is live in sexual perversion! 40,000,000+ have paid the ""big"" price= death!
Click to expand...


Tell that to all the children dying of AIDS each year. Your god is pretty heartless.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

theDoctorisIn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gene's are traits that are passed on.  In twins (or any family descent) one can get the gay gene while the other doesn't.  Just like in heart disease.  Two identical twins can be born and one inherits the gene that leads to coronary artery disease while the other doesn't.
> 
> Your argument is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do monozygotic twins, which nave identical DNA, get different genes? Or did you not even read the blurb from the link I posted?
> 
> Keep telling me how smart and open minded you are, it amuses me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think westwall is referring to the difference between genotype and phenotype.
Click to expand...


I think he doesn't know what he is referring to, and is upset that I caught him taking a position that is demonstrably false.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is everyone who knows they made a choice lying? Is there some sort of conspiracy? Are they delusional? Are you so close minded you cannot admit that you might not know everything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said everyone that made a choice is lying? I said its not a choice when you are born what sex you are attracted to. You can make a choice later on but your initial sexual orientation is not determined by choice. You can convince yourself of pretty much anything but you cant change what you came out with. Dont you know anything about the human mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, gay people can chose to be straight? And vice versa?
Click to expand...


There are plenty of people that are/were gay and lived their lives as straight people and even have children. Jason Collins was engaged to be married to a woman at one point. I dont know why anyone would choose to be gay but I'm sure it has happened.


----------



## kaz

Howey said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 40,000,000 + Dead from HIV AIDS, another 40 million HIV positive, countless more millions living ruined lives ofguilt and shame and you say""whats the harm""????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If god is perfect, why didn't he ONLY give it to gays and drug users?  Is god a fuck up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He must be to have created ignorant, uneducated people such as you.
> 
> Heterosexuals predominately have herpes simplex. Men primarily are victims of Parkinsons, women osteoporosis.  Blacks are more prone to sickle cell anemia, and so on. Why did God create these?
Click to expand...


You didn't understand his post correctly, he is making essentially the same point you did


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you pick it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you pick the shirt you wore today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was the one on the top of the pile.....
Click to expand...


Pretty typical answer, and usually why I pick mine.

Thanks.


----------



## GISMYS

Asclepias said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> He must be to have created ignorant, uneducated people such as you.
> 
> Heterosexuals predominately have herpes simplex. Men primarily are victims of Parkinsons, women osteoporosis.  Blacks are more prone to sickle cell anemia, and so on. Why did God create these?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sexual perverts gave theirself hiv aids not GOD!!! god is not willing that any perish but are free to choose HIV AIDS all you need do is live in sexual perversion! 40,000,000+ have paid the ""big"" price= death!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to all the children dying of AIDS each year. Your god is pretty heartless.
Click to expand...


yes!!! there is a cost to those around you when you live in sexual perversion, sexual perverts cause their partners and even children to die from aids then they try to blame GOD for the results of their sin!!! Typical!!!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

GreenBean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How wrong you are.  I am interested in facts.  Truth is the purview of religion not science.  To that end the definition of HERITABILITY is
> 
> 1:  the quality or state of being heritable
> 
> 
> 2:  the proportion of observed variation in a particular trait (as height) that can be attributed to inherited *genetic factors* in contrast to environmental ones.
> 
> Heritability - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> *YOUR* link supporting what I said.  Don't you dare lecture me about science when you don't even know what the basics are.  This is a simple definition which you seem to not understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't, you said that homosexuality is genetic, That is flat out wrong, if it were all monozygotic twins would either be gay or straight. The studies show that this is not true.
> 
> Understanding Genetics
> 
> Did you notice that I, once again, used a link that disagrees with my position? Feel free to pretend to yourself that you are the one that is being unbiased and objective even though I have proved you wrong twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twin studies of homosexuality have shown that identical twins are about twice as likely to both be gay compared to fraternal twins. This means that being gay is partly genetic and not simply something that a person learns or chooses to be.
> There is one important thing to note, though. If the DNA sequence is the only thing determining whether someone is gay or not, we would expect that if one identical twin were gay, then the other would be too 100% of the time.
> But this is not what scientists have found  the rate is actually closer to 50%. So while we know that genetics is involved, it doesnt tell us the whole story. This is where environment comes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boiled down , there appears there *might be* an inheritable factor / trait that *increases the chances* of of acquiring homosexual tendencies- but does not guarantee it.  So they can theorize that *]in some cases* there could conceivably be genetic factors that alter the odds of *acquiring*  sexual dysphoric orientation , Ego-dystonic sexual orientation and related psychosis that equate to being Gay. .
> 
> That - in of itself does not prove that anyone is born gay - it simply proves that some people have a greater chance of becoming Gay. due to environmental factors , enhanced by genetic defect.
Click to expand...


Sexual preference is not a psychosis.


----------



## Asclepias

GISMYS said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> sexual perverts gave theirself hiv aids not GOD!!! god is not willing that any perish but are free to choose HIV AIDS all you need do is live in sexual perversion! 40,000,000+ have paid the ""big"" price= death!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to all the children dying of AIDS each year. Your god is pretty heartless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes!!! there is a cost to those around you when you live in sexual perversion, sexual perverts cause their partners and even children to die from aids then they try to blame GOD for the results of their sin!!! Typical!!!
Click to expand...


Usually how it works is you protect the innocent.  Since the children are innocent your god should not allow them to contract AIDS. Your god seems to be the scorched earth type of guy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Delta4Embassy said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> _This above all: To thine own-self, be true. _
> 
> I think Shakespeare had it right.
> 
> Is this discussion turning into a Bible discussion? Is this what the OP had in mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any discussion about homosexuality is going to inevitably come around to religion since religion is the only groups against it. Minus religion, no one would be against it thus no need to discuss it.
Click to expand...


I love it when people say stupid things.

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage


----------



## GISMYS

Quantum Windbag said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't, you said that homosexuality is genetic, That is flat out wrong, if it were all monozygotic twins would either be gay or straight. The studies show that this is not true.
> 
> Understanding Genetics
> 
> Did you notice that I, once again, used a link that disagrees with my position? Feel free to pretend to yourself that you are the one that is being unbiased and objective even though I have proved you wrong twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twin studies of homosexuality have shown that identical twins are about twice as likely to both be gay compared to fraternal twins. This means that being gay is partly genetic and not simply something that a person learns or chooses to be.
> There is one important thing to note, though. If the DNA sequence is the only thing determining whether someone is gay or not, we would expect that if one identical twin were gay, then the other would be too 100% of the time.
> But this is not what scientists have found  the rate is actually closer to 50%. So while we know that genetics is involved, it doesnt tell us the whole story. This is where environment comes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boiled down , there appears there *might be* an inheritable factor / trait that *increases the chances* of of acquiring homosexual tendencies- but does not guarantee it.  So they can theorize that *]in some cases* there could conceivably be genetic factors that alter the odds of *acquiring*  sexual dysphoric orientation , Ego-dystonic sexual orientation and related psychosis that equate to being Gay. .
> 
> That - in of itself does not prove that anyone is born gay - it simply proves that some people have a greater chance of becoming Gay. due to environmental factors , enhanced by genetic defect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sexual preference is not a psychosis.
Click to expand...


Sexual preference is a psychosis. the result of very poor sinful CHOICE!!!


----------



## emilynghiem

kaz said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think both things are going on, not either/or. Religions involve both absolute truth that "God" represents, and relative expression per group based on conformity.
> In practice, the RELIGIONS themselves are used as cultural languages among a like community, so this is to help establish a "common language" and law that peers agree to live by.
> In spirit, the CONTENT in religions all point toward universal laws that "God" represents. So it is both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually by calling it "social" made his point less critical as "conformity" has a connotation of  being motivated by a fear of being different while "social" doesn't.   He didn't say conformity was a factor, he didn't even say it was both, he said it was the primary factor.  That's not true with the Christians I know, the religion is very important to them.  Which is why I suggested and suggest if he doesn't like them and doesn't understand them, he should probably not claim to know what motivates them.   I said the same about them with him.
Click to expand...


Thanks Kaz You clearly have more experience interacting and understanding this bias.

Since this is my first thread where we shared in greater depth, the most I could see was him pushing his own conformity in sticking to the topic and the psychological terms.

1. That could be one bias, because he insists on conformity he assumes this of others.
2. Because he does not see how any knowledge/research of 'spiritual healing' affects the data and research being "depended on for proof" of course, he does not know what is missing and how much impact that has on conclusions being made, even by professionals.
3. Similarly if he hasn't seen this concept work through natural laws and science, of course he's not going to get the same concept when it's 'dressed up' in religious symbolism either.

Kaz I can hardly expect anyone to understand the concepts before they see proof.
The top practictioners I recommend EACH had to "see and experience physical proof of this process FIRSTHAND" before they believed it, and then understood it AFTERWARD as natural. At first, it doesn't seem real or applicable! The mind cannot visualize in advance.

If you can please forgive the fact he doesn't have the understanding or perspective from that viewpoint, but is starting from what he can relate to, that's enough to explore.

This is his thread, can we start with wherever he asks to focus on and work from there?

I did not mean to jump on your comments either, and I apologize for any confusion Kaz.
The "conformity" I support is everyone agreeing to hear and respect each other's contributions, especially when correcting or clarifying. The views and beliefs remain diverse or conflicting, while interaction between us is unifying where our points align.

I call it "alignment" where it's clear we remain different and just find points of intersection and agreement, which is not the same as forcing conformity on people like making all believe the same.
Until someone actually goes through this process, how can they understand "aligning" what we each agree is true, and it isn't being pushed like "religious conformity for fear" or ulterior motives?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> what mistake? I would admit to them if I knew I what in God's name you were talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some scriptures in some versions of the old testament state that we should stone gays. But "versions of bibles" is a question even beyond versions of the old test.
> 
> Murder in the Bible
> 
> ^The bible isn't evil. but people should know their talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed, religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than God
Click to expand...


Now you are an expert on religion?

Feel free to start a thread about your expertise in religion so I can demonstrate to you all the ways you are wrong. But, for one example of a non conformist religion.

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations - UUA


----------



## Quantum Windbag

kaz said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some scriptures in some versions of the old testament state that we should stone gays. But "versions of bibles" is a question even beyond versions of the old test.
> 
> Murder in the Bible
> 
> ^The bible isn't evil. but people should know their talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's ridiculous for religious gay haters to comment on what motivates you.  You're demonstrating the reverse is also true.
Click to expand...


I owe you rep for this.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can condition people to do anything, up to and especially including commit mass murder (ask Hitler.) By comparison, sexuality is a weekends worth of work.
> 
> 
> 
> The ability to brainwash a person doesn't really fit your dialogue. If sexuality was merely a choice you wouldn't need such measures to talk you out of it.
> 
> Talking someone into doing something that it's out of their nature isn't at all like them doing something intheir nature.
Click to expand...


You would be surprised how easy it is to talk people into something that is "outside their nature".


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some scriptures in some versions of the old testament state that we should stone gays. But "versions of bibles" is a question even beyond versions of the old test.
> 
> Murder in the Bible
> 
> ^The bible isn't evil. but people should know their talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are an expert on religion?
> 
> Feel free to start a thread about your expertise in religion so I can demonstrate to you all the ways you are wrong. But, for one example of a non conformist religion.
> 
> Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations - UUA
Click to expand...


Did you really type that?  Non conformist religion?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What causes any compulsive behavior?  It's not genetics.  There is nothing about genetics that causes a man to be turned on by watching women wearing high heel shoes stomp small animals to death, but some men are turned on by that.
> 
> 
> 
> Fetishes are typically acquired, being that homosexuals tend to cohabitate, become involved in romantic relationships sometimes even abstaining from sexual contact until it isdeemed appropriate, it doesn't seem reasonable to equate it to merely something that you getyour jollies from. That tends to be the staple mischaracterization from people that argue against homosexuality.
Click to expand...


She didn't ask about fetishes, she asked about compulsive behavior. There is a difference.

Also, if you think fetishes are not part of sexuality, you really shouldn't be discussing sexuality.


----------



## GISMYS

Huge downside for school children who in school are being taught "nothing wrong with sexual perversion give it a try you may like it" WOW!!! So they do try it even in grade school in the school building during school!!!!  God HAVE MERCY!!!!


----------



## GreenBean

Quantum Windbag said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't, you said that homosexuality is genetic, That is flat out wrong, if it were all monozygotic twins would either be gay or straight. The studies show that this is not true.
> 
> Understanding Genetics
> 
> Did you notice that I, once again, used a link that disagrees with my position? Feel free to pretend to yourself that you are the one that is being unbiased and objective even though I have proved you wrong twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twin studies of homosexuality have shown that identical twins are about twice as likely to both be gay compared to fraternal twins. This means that being gay is partly genetic and not simply something that a person learns or chooses to be.
> There is one important thing to note, though. If the DNA sequence is the only thing determining whether someone is gay or not, we would expect that if one identical twin were gay, then the other would be too 100% of the time.
> But this is not what scientists have found  the rate is actually closer to 50%. So while we know that genetics is involved, it doesnt tell us the whole story. This is where environment comes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boiled down , there appears there *might be* an inheritable factor / trait that *increases the chances* of of acquiring homosexual tendencies- but does not guarantee it.  So they can theorize that *]in some cases* there could conceivably be genetic factors that alter the odds of *acquiring*  sexual dysphoric orientation , Ego-dystonic sexual orientation and related psychosis that equate to being Gay. .
> 
> That - in of itself does not prove that anyone is born gay - it simply proves that some people have a greater chance of becoming Gay. due to environmental factors , enhanced by genetic defect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sexual preference is not a psychosis.
Click to expand...


*You are not qualified to make that statement . *  I give you the benefit of acknowledging that you are indeed an intelligent person - but you seem to have a problem distinguishing fact from theory and realty from fantasy - I believe we had that discussion in the past - and you were wholly incapable of telling the difference between a fact and a theory.

Psychosis is defined as "A mental state caused by psychiatric or organic illness, characterized by a loss of contact with reality and an inability to think rationally. A psychotic person often behaves inappropriately and is incapable of normal social functioning." 

Many people within the gay community suffer from psychosis  HOWEVER , many professioials , even unbiased ones will sometimes argue that homosexuality is not a psychosis as homosexuals and lesbians are able to think rationally, are *generally* in contact with reality and are also usually able to function socially in a way people would see as normal.

So as to whether Homosexuality is a psychosis or not - is an opinion and not a fact - but it's an opinion and judgement that you are not competent to judge.


----------



## Asclepias

GISMYS said:


> Huge downside for school children who in school are being taught "nothing wrong with sexual perversion give it a try you may like it" WOW!!! So they do try it even in grade school in the school building during school!!!!  God HAVE MERCY!!!!



What school did you go to?  At my school you got suspended for having sex on school property.


----------



## GISMYS

In numerous civilizations throughout history, personal values and morality have slid into the pit and were attended to by God&#8217;s wrath. The slide is, again, well underway in our great USA today. The destruction of Sodom is the classic example in history where the town was obliterated for practicing the homosexual lifestyle.

Homosexual activists have set a well planned and well financed agenda that started in the 1960s and now includes not only tolerance of their lethal lifestyle but acceptance with privileges as a special class, as a minority group. The key target is our youth. This can be seen in the following written by &#8220;gay revolutionary&#8221; Mark Swift and printed in the February 15, 1987 issue of Gay Community News. These excerpts are reprinted from the Congressional Record:

&#8220;We shall sodomize your sons, We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your youth groups, Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will come to crave and adore us. All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable.... We shall raise vast, private armies...to defeat you. The family unit....will be abolished. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory....All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men. Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.&#8221;


----------



## Asclepias

GreenBean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boiled down , there appears there *might be* an inheritable factor / trait that *increases the chances* of of acquiring homosexual tendencies- but does not guarantee it.  So they can theorize that *]in some cases* there could conceivably be genetic factors that alter the odds of *acquiring*  sexual dysphoric orientation , Ego-dystonic sexual orientation and related psychosis that equate to being Gay. .
> 
> That - in of itself does not prove that anyone is born gay - it simply proves that some people have a greater chance of becoming Gay. due to environmental factors , enhanced by genetic defect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sexual preference is not a psychosis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are not qualified to make that statement . *  I give you the benefit of acknowledging that you are indeed an intelligent person - but you seem to have a problem distinguishing fact from theory and realty from fantasy - I believe we had that discussion in the past - and you were wholly incapable of telling the difference between a fact and a theory.
> 
> Psychosis is defined as "A mental state caused by psychiatric or organic illness, characterized by a loss of contact with reality and an inability to think rationally. A psychotic person often behaves inappropriately and is incapable of normal social functioning."
> 
> Many people within the gay community suffer from psychosis  HOWEVER , many professioials , even unbiased ones will sometimes argue that homosexuality is not a psychosis as homosexuals and lesbians are able to think rationally, are *generally* in contact with reality and are also usually able to function socially in a way people would see as normal.
> 
> So as to whether Homosexuality is a psychosis or not - is an opinion and not a fact - but it's an opinion and judgement that you are not competent to judge.
Click to expand...


You should take your own advice.  You claimed homosexuality was a mental illness. Now that you have been asked to provide some proof you have avoided doing so.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> Sexual preference is a psychosis. the result of very poor sinful CHOICE!!!



Dear GISMYS: this aligns with the similar points that 
"some is genetic" / "some is social factor or choice"

 [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
do you agree 
A. SOME karma/SIN is BORN, such as a psychopathic killer that was born with a personality disorder and manifested this in abusive and addictive behavior, that if they are criminally ill they didn't choose to be born or to be affected by this condition.

B. people COULD CHOOSE to get treatment and therapy to recover from such conditions (whether they "chose" it or were born with generational sins/karma passed down)

So even if A is NOT chosen but born spiritually, B can STILL BE CHOSEN. (That still means SOME cases of A are "by birth and NOT CHOSEN", even if B can be CHOSEN as you said.)

Schizophrenic people are not always by choice, some are by birth.
Even though some schizophrenic people can CHOOSE to seek therapy to cure them.

And Matthew 19:12 about some eunuchs made by man at
and some from their mother's womb. One is by choice, the other is not.

But we can CHOOSE either way to get help to change IF something is not natural.
You are right about that, but it does not mean the ORIGINAL conditions were chosen!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard others claim you were being intentionally obtuse but had never seen it till now.  I said that homosexuality is genetic.  You said it's not and posted a study in support of what you said that actually supported me.  Then you bring up the twins issue and once again I post a study that shows how epigenetic factors CAN TURN GENES ON AND OFF AFTER BIRTH and that sails right over your head.
> 
> Like I said.  You don't understand even the basics so until you learn something you're merely wasting mine and everyone else's time.  It's YOU who refuses to learn something new QW.  Not me, and not anyone else who has posted here except for the religious nutters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm unconvinced sexual behaviours are genetic. I htink we toor eadilt accept claims that a given inclination has a genetic source. My concern lies in that if such n such a behaviour has a genetic cause, then isn't genetic engineering away those genes inevitible? If homosexuality is genetic, aren't people going to ask for genetic engineered children minus that gene, or with it toggled 'off?'
> 
> Who we have sexual relations with is the result of our making a choice. The attraction though is different. But given all-male/female groups like in prison, otherwise perfectly heterosexual people will have sex with members of their own sex because that their only option. They're making a deliberate choice to have sex. May not be their first choice, but their ability to have orgasm or climaxes from it reveals that at least genes aren't solely involved. Conscious will plays a big part as well. And the willingness to 'make due' is the result of conditioning, not anything biological/genetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its definitely your genes or the way your genes are expressed.  There are several studies out that claim this.  I'm thinking expression makes the most sense because identical twins can have different sexual orientations.  Still that invalidates it being a choice.
> 
> http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/
Click to expand...


How does it invalidate it being a choice, other than your confirmation bias?

Since I actually posted the article you just did, after I had read it all the way through, I know for a fact it doesn't address the issue of choice. I also know that it is very careful not to say that epigenetics is absolutely the cause of sexual preference. Using it to try and prove your point just proves you didn't read it.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But where is that nature coming from? We're all raised by other people who're imparting their natures onto us in the process. If we were raised alone on a desert island without even animals to witness behaviours from then we could see what our true natue is (assuming that were possible which it isn't.)  So when we raise kids who eventually hit puberty and their bodies begin producing larger amounts of sexual hormones intiating desire to have sex, they've been conditioned for some years to think certain ways about sexuality. I'd think then that 5% of the ones raised to be heterosexual (as most everyone is but for a few exceptions perhaps) that identify as homosexual or at least not strictly heterosexual are overriding their conditioning by thinking independently. And maybe that's the variable. Rather than sexual behaviour having a genetic trigger, maybe raising kids to be more indepent-minded leads to some to experiment with homosexual behaviours, some realize they like it even more than hetero, and then id that way. Whereas more dependent-minded obvediant types stick to how they were taught repressing the natural curiousity for experimentation. I experimented with an out co-worker and realized both had their appeal. I was also taught to be very independent and self-reliant. So while my Mom emphasized heterosexuality, I had enough will to find out for myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know how some gay persons have a different speech inflection and body language?
> 
> I've witnessed that in a child, lispy gay voice / girly seeming demeanor - - - - - straight brothers and sisters....................
> 
> 
> who then grew up and came out as gay.
> 
> Nobody can ever convince me that it's not something *most homosexuals are *born with *since I've seen a child "act gay" before their sexuality was even present in their life, and then magically was gay when they were older.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless ultrasounds have improved significantly since yesterday you have no videos, of fetuses masturbating. You might have a few of them with near their pelvis, but you won't have enough detail to actually prove to anyone that they are masturbating.
Click to expand...


I never stated that fetuses masturbate.


----------



## GISMYS

The  Journal of the American Medical Association reported:
50 percent of male AIDS victims reported having sex with an adult male by the age of 16. 
20 percent of male AIDS victims had sex with an adult male by age 10. 
WOW!!! WHO is protecting our children????


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um...what I said seems completely clear, what about it confused you?  Anti-gay Christians don't like you, they don't understand you, so for them to say what motivates you is preposterous.  You would be the first to recognize and say that I'm sure.  And I would agree with you when you did.
> 
> You don't like Christians, you clearly don't understand them, for you to comment on what motivates them is preposterous.  Yet you turn around and do to them what they do to you that you object to.  I am just pointing that out, maybe you shouldn't do that since clearly you're not going to do it accurately and what you said about them shows that.  You don't understand them at all.  So don't pretend you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excuse me, I am Christian, and furthermore I never once mentioned Christianity, I said religion, which doesn't mean necessarily Christian.
Click to expand...


And you are still wrong.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm unconvinced sexual behaviours are genetic. I htink we toor eadilt accept claims that a given inclination has a genetic source. My concern lies in that if such n such a behaviour has a genetic cause, then isn't genetic engineering away those genes inevitible? If homosexuality is genetic, aren't people going to ask for genetic engineered children minus that gene, or with it toggled 'off?'
> 
> Who we have sexual relations with is the result of our making a choice. The attraction though is different. But given all-male/female groups like in prison, otherwise perfectly heterosexual people will have sex with members of their own sex because that their only option. They're making a deliberate choice to have sex. May not be their first choice, but their ability to have orgasm or climaxes from it reveals that at least genes aren't solely involved. Conscious will plays a big part as well. And the willingness to 'make due' is the result of conditioning, not anything biological/genetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its definitely your genes or the way your genes are expressed.  There are several studies out that claim this.  I'm thinking expression makes the most sense because identical twins can have different sexual orientations.  Still that invalidates it being a choice.
> 
> http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it invalidate it being a choice, other than your confirmation bias?
> 
> Since I actually posted the article you just did, after I had read it all the way through, I know for a fact it doesn't address the issue of choice. I also know that it is very careful not to say that epigenetics is absolutely the cause of sexual preference. Using it to try and prove your point just proves you didn't read it.
Click to expand...


If you read my post all the way like you read the article you would see I didnt use it to prove any point.  I suggested that there was an alternative theory.  Its plain to see that its either genetics or epigenetics. You dont chose your inherent sexual orientation. However, you can later convince yourself to change it.


----------



## GreenBean

Asclepias said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to see you admit you have nothing and no one can refute that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true there is nothing I have that you can refute .  Did that answer your question, or did it question your answer, in any event your reesponse was a questionable answer .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dont confuse yourself trying to deflect. You havent supplied a link proving homosexuality was a mental illness.  What happened?  Did you hope I would forget?
Click to expand...


Start Here>

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/greenbean.html?tab=quotes&perpage=20&page=257#quotes


*Therapist Calls Homosexuality "Mental Illness"*

"Most homosexuals don't want to be homosexual, anymore than a schizophrenic wants to hear voices. A highly respected colleague quietly told me that he cures 80% of the homosexuals that come to him."  

Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, I am Christian, and furthermore I never once mentioned Christianity, I said religion, which doesn't mean necessarily Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may go to Church, but since you said Christianity is primarily social, you're obviously saying you're not actually a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't go to church. I never said Christianity was primarily social, andto be Christian one only needs to accept Christ as their savior. I am Christian, whether or not i meet the criteria to be Christian in your definition is of no concern to me.
> 
> Please stop accusing me of dating things I did not say.
Click to expand...


Who told you that all you have to do to be Christian is accept Christ as your Savior?


----------



## GISMYS

I GOT NO ANSWER!!! Why????===The Journal of the American Medical Association reported:
&#8226;50 percent of male AIDS victims reported having sex with an adult male by the age of 16. 
&#8226;20 percent of male AIDS victims had sex with an adult male by age 10. 
WOW!!! WHO is protecting our children????


----------



## G.T.

GISMYS said:


> I GOT NO ANSWER!!! Why????===The Journal of the American Medical Association reported:
> &#8226;50 percent of male AIDS victims reported having sex with an adult male by the age of 16.
> &#8226;20 percent of male AIDS victims had sex with an adult male by age 10.
> WOW!!! WHO is protecting our children????



Because the % versus the overall population, or even of the overall gay population - - - - - is miniscule.

In other words, our children ARE by and large protected.


----------



## GISMYS

G.T. said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I GOT NO ANSWER!!! Why????===The Journal of the American Medical Association reported:
> 50 percent of male AIDS victims reported having sex with an adult male by the age of 16.
> 20 percent of male AIDS victims had sex with an adult male by age 10.
> WOW!!! WHO is protecting our children????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the % versus the overall population, or even of the overall gay population - - - - - is miniscule.
Click to expand...


40,000,000 dead from HIV AIDS is not "miniscule" in my thinking!!! and you???


----------



## Asclepias

GreenBean said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's true there is nothing I have that you can refute .  Did that answer your question, or did it question your answer, in any event your reesponse was a questionable answer .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont confuse yourself trying to deflect. You havent supplied a link proving homosexuality was a mental illness.  What happened?  Did you hope I would forget?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start Here>
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/greenbean.html?tab=quotes&perpage=20&page=257#quotes
> 
> 
> *Therapist Calls Homosexuality "Mental Illness"*
> 
> "Most homosexuals don't want to be homosexual, anymore than a schizophrenic wants to hear voices. A highly respected colleague quietly told me that he cures 80% of the homosexuals that come to him."
> 
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals
> 
> I grow weary of providing information for the incompetent , who are simply incapable of  comprehending what they are provided with.   - YOu can lead a horse to water - but you can't make it drink.  If you're gonna drionk the water that's fine - otherwise STFU
Click to expand...


Dont get emotional about it.  i just asked for some proof to your claim that you have contradicted yourself on.  Proof means its a fact.  I know many homosexuals that are perfectly content with being gay which invalidates your 1 off statement up above.  Your links are more opinion pieces.  Please link to a credible scientific site that shows being gay is a mental illness.

From your last link. 



> Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates. *Discrimination may contribute to the higher risk, believes lead researcher Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK*.


----------



## G.T.

GISMYS said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I GOT NO ANSWER!!! Why????===The Journal of the American Medical Association reported:
> 50 percent of male AIDS victims reported having sex with an adult male by the age of 16.
> 20 percent of male AIDS victims had sex with an adult male by age 10.
> WOW!!! WHO is protecting our children????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the % versus the overall population, or even of the overall gay population - - - - - is miniscule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 40,000,000 dead from HIV AIDS is not "miniscule" in my thinking!!! and you???
Click to expand...



Overall aids deaths versus child rape .

Yes, the child rape is miniscule, in number versus overall population. The odds are astronomically low.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are an expert on religion?
> 
> Feel free to start a thread about your expertise in religion so I can demonstrate to you all the ways you are wrong. But, for one example of a non conformist religion.
> 
> Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations - UUA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you really type that?  Non conformist religion?
Click to expand...


Not only did I type it, I meant it. You should check them out, they even welcome atheists.


----------



## emilynghiem

Asclepias said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to all the children dying of AIDS each year. Your god is pretty heartless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes!!! there is a cost to those around you when you live in sexual perversion, sexual perverts cause their partners and even children to die from aids then they try to blame GOD for the results of their sin!!! Typical!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Usually how it works is you protect the innocent.  Since the children are innocent your god should not allow them to contract AIDS. Your god seems to be the scorched earth type of guy.
Click to expand...


Hi Asclepias: Because God made humans with a collective conscience,
if we don't solve problems but let them repeat, unfortunately the children who suffer often become the "wake up call" to conscience if that's what gets our attention. When "innocent" people suffer, then we realize this isn't acceptable and then we take action to change. Not always if we think "people's actions don't matter where they only affect themselves"

Same with alcoholism and drunk driving. How many people "fail to get help in time"
BEFORE they kill innocent bystanders and then are FORCED to get help to change?

When Betty Williams made the commitment to unite women in marching against religious wars in Ireland, it was after young schoolkids got scalped to death by a tank rolling down the street and died in her arms when she made that promise to end the violence.

If only the people who "deserved to kill each other" suffered, we'd let wars go on.
If only drug dealers hurt themselves, we'd trust justice to kill off the bad guys.

But when problems unjustly kill those who did not deserve to suffer, that tells us something more should be done to PREVENT those problems. Not wait for them to kill people off who caused them, and be content never to address the causes, but let them continue on.

The human conscience works this way. And God/Nature created the conscience to learn from experience, to seek satisfaction and peace and stability, and to avoid pain and suffering. So our conscience is designed by God/Nature to learn to correct these problems.

And where we fail to, then the symptoms like this occur to MOTIVATE us to learn the causes and do better in the future.


----------



## GISMYS

G.T. said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the % versus the overall population, or even of the overall gay population - - - - - is miniscule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40,000,000 dead from HIV AIDS is not "miniscule" in my thinking!!! and you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Overall aids deaths versus child rape .
> 
> Yes, the child rape is miniscule, in number versus overall population. The odds are astronomically low.
Click to expand...


"how miniscule" if it is your child?????????? or maybe you say,"who cares" the guy must have been just looking for a little fun!!! no harm!!!


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are an expert on religion?
> 
> Feel free to start a thread about your expertise in religion so I can demonstrate to you all the ways you are wrong. But, for one example of a non conformist religion.
> 
> Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations - UUA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you really type that?  Non conformist religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only did I type it, I meant it. You should check them out, they even welcome atheists.
Click to expand...


I figured you did. You do realize that believing in a god/higher power/principles is conforming don't you?



> con·form
> k&#601;n&#712;fôrm/Submit
> verb
> comply with rules, standards, or laws.
> "the kitchen does not conform to hygiene regulations"
> synonyms:	comply with, abide by, obey, observe, follow, keep to, stick to, adhere to, uphold, heed, accept, go along with, fall in with, respect, defer to; More
> antonyms:	flout
> (of a person) behave according to socially acceptable conventions or standards.
> "the pressure to conform"
> synonyms:	follow convention, be conventional, fit in, adapt, adjust, follow the crowd; More
> antonyms:	rebel
> be similar in form or type; agree.
> "the countryside should conform to a certain idea of the picturesque"
> synonyms:	match, fit, suit, answer, agree with, be like, correspond to, be consistent with, measure up to, tally with, square with
> "goods must conform to their description"





> Unitarian Universalists hold the Principles as strong values and moral teachings. As Rev. Barbara Wells ten Hove explains, &#8220;The Principles are not dogma or doctrine, but rather a guide for those of us who choose to join and participate in Unitarian Universalist religious communities.&#8221;
> 
> 1st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
> 2nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
> 3rd Principle: Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
> 4th Principle: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
> 5th Principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
> 6th Principle: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
> 7th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.


----------



## G.T.

GISMYS said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 40,000,000 dead from HIV AIDS is not "miniscule" in my thinking!!! and you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overall aids deaths versus child rape .
> 
> Yes, the child rape is miniscule, in number versus overall population. The odds are astronomically low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "how miniscule" if it is your child?????????? or maybe you say,"who cares" the guy must have been just looking for a little fun!!! no harm!!!
Click to expand...


My child is protected. 

As are most children, the great great great majority, in fact. 

Which is why your question "what are we doing to protect our children" is answered by the numbers alone.


----------



## westwall

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm unconvinced sexual behaviours are genetic. I htink we toor eadilt accept claims that a given inclination has a genetic source. My concern lies in that if such n such a behaviour has a genetic cause, then isn't genetic engineering away those genes inevitible? If homosexuality is genetic, aren't people going to ask for genetic engineered children minus that gene, or with it toggled 'off?'
> 
> Who we have sexual relations with is the result of our making a choice. The attraction though is different. But given all-male/female groups like in prison, otherwise perfectly heterosexual people will have sex with members of their own sex because that their only option. They're making a deliberate choice to have sex. May not be their first choice, but their ability to have orgasm or climaxes from it reveals that at least genes aren't solely involved. Conscious will plays a big part as well. And the willingness to 'make due' is the result of conditioning, not anything biological/genetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its definitely your genes or the way your genes are expressed.  There are several studies out that claim this.  I'm thinking expression makes the most sense because identical twins can have different sexual orientations.  Still that invalidates it being a choice.
> 
> http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it invalidate it being a choice, other than your confirmation bias?
> 
> Since I actually posted the article you just did, after I had read it all the way through, I know for a fact it doesn't address the issue of choice. I also know that it is very careful not to say that epigenetics is absolutely the cause of sexual preference. Using it to try and prove your point just proves you didn't read it.
Click to expand...







How about your confirmation bias?  You are ignoring a wealth of peer reviewed papers that say there IS a genetic link.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how some gay persons have a different speech inflection and body language?
> 
> I've witnessed that in a child, lispy gay voice / girly seeming demeanor - - - - - straight brothers and sisters....................
> 
> 
> who then grew up and came out as gay.
> 
> Nobody can ever convince me that it's not something *most homosexuals are *born with *since I've seen a child "act gay" before their sexuality was even present in their life, and then magically was gay when they were older.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless ultrasounds have improved significantly since yesterday you have no videos, of fetuses masturbating. You might have a few of them with near their pelvis, but you won't have enough detail to actually prove to anyone that they are masturbating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never stated that fetuses masturbate.
Click to expand...


Damn, my mistake, quoted the wrong post.
My sincere apologies, I will delete the post.


----------



## GISMYS

G.T. said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overall aids deaths versus child rape .
> 
> Yes, the child rape is miniscule, in number versus overall population. The odds are astronomically low.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "how miniscule" if it is your child?????????? or maybe you say,"who cares" the guy must have been just looking for a little fun!!! no harm!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My child is protected.
> 
> As are most children, the great great great majority, in fact.
> 
> Which is why your question "what are we doing to protect our children" is answered by the numbers alone.
Click to expand...

Who protected the 40,000,000 dead from HIV AIDS? OF THAT 40 MILLION
MAYBE ONLY 1% WERE CHILDREN???? 1 % OF 40,000,000 IS----------


----------



## G.T.

GISMYS said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> "how miniscule" if it is your child?????????? or maybe you say,"who cares" the guy must have been just looking for a little fun!!! no harm!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My child is protected.
> 
> As are most children, the great great great majority, in fact.
> 
> Which is why your question "what are we doing to protect our children" is answered by the numbers alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who protected the 40,000,000 dead from HIV AIDS? OF THAT 40 MILLION
> MAYBE ONLY 1% WERE CHILDREN???? 1 % OF 40,000,000 IS----------
Click to expand...


1% of 40, 000, 000 is 400, 000

400, 000 is X-percent of 7 billion? Good luck.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its definitely your genes or the way your genes are expressed.  There are several studies out that claim this.  I'm thinking expression makes the most sense because identical twins can have different sexual orientations.  Still that invalidates it being a choice.
> 
> http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it invalidate it being a choice, other than your confirmation bias?
> 
> Since I actually posted the article you just did, after I had read it all the way through, I know for a fact it doesn't address the issue of choice. I also know that it is very careful not to say that epigenetics is absolutely the cause of sexual preference. Using it to try and prove your point just proves you didn't read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read my post all the way like you read the article you would see I didnt use it to prove any point.  I suggested that there was an alternative theory.  Its plain to see that its either genetics or epigenetics. You dont chose your inherent sexual orientation. However, you can later convince yourself to change it.
Click to expand...


You said it is definitely your genes, or the way your genes are expressed. Their is not enough evidence to support that conclusion, which is why scientists say they don't know. 

In other words, you are still wrong.


----------



## GISMYS

G.T. said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> My child is protected.
> 
> As are most children, the great great great majority, in fact.
> 
> Which is why your question "what are we doing to protect our children" is answered by the numbers alone.
> 
> 
> 
> Who protected the 40,000,000 dead from HIV AIDS? OF THAT 40 MILLION
> MAYBE ONLY 1% WERE CHILDREN???? 1 % OF 40,000,000 IS----------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1% of 40, 000, 000 is 400, 000
> 
> 400, 000 is X-percent of 7 billion? Good luck.
Click to expand...


ONLY 400,000 ??? WOW!!! No big deal then!!! Go sexual perverts,welcome to grade school!!!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you really type that?  Non conformist religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only did I type it, I meant it. You should check them out, they even welcome atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I figured you did. You do realize that believing in a god/higher power/principles is conforming don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> con·form
> k&#601;n&#712;fôrm/Submit
> verb
> comply with rules, standards, or laws.
> "the kitchen does not conform to hygiene regulations"
> synonyms:    comply with, abide by, obey, observe, follow, keep to, stick to, adhere to, uphold, heed, accept, go along with, fall in with, respect, defer to; More
> antonyms:    flout
> (of a person) behave according to socially acceptable conventions or standards.
> "the pressure to conform"
> synonyms:    follow convention, be conventional, fit in, adapt, adjust, follow the crowd; More
> antonyms:    rebel
> be similar in form or type; agree.
> "the countryside should conform to a certain idea of the picturesque"
> synonyms:    match, fit, suit, answer, agree with, be like, correspond to, be consistent with, measure up to, tally with, square with
> "goods must conform to their description"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unitarian Universalists hold the Principles as strong values and moral teachings. As Rev. Barbara Wells ten Hove explains, The Principles are not dogma or doctrine, but rather a guide for those of us who choose to join and participate in Unitarian Universalist religious communities.
> 
> 1st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
> 2nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
> 3rd Principle: Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
> 4th Principle: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
> 5th Principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
> 6th Principle: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
> 7th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


And? I am sure you think you have a point, even if the rest of the universe is completely baffled as to what it is.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does it invalidate it being a choice, other than your confirmation bias?
> 
> Since I actually posted the article you just did, after I had read it all the way through, I know for a fact it doesn't address the issue of choice. I also know that it is very careful not to say that epigenetics is absolutely the cause of sexual preference. Using it to try and prove your point just proves you didn't read it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read my post all the way like you read the article you would see I didnt use it to prove any point.  I suggested that there was an alternative theory.  Its plain to see that its either genetics or epigenetics. You dont chose your inherent sexual orientation. However, you can later convince yourself to change it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said it is definitely your genes, or the way your genes are expressed. Their is not enough evidence to support that conclusion, which is why scientists say they don't know.
> 
> In other words, you are still wrong.
Click to expand...


In other words you are wrong that it is a choice then.


----------



## G.T.

GISMYS said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who protected the 40,000,000 dead from HIV AIDS? OF THAT 40 MILLION
> MAYBE ONLY 1% WERE CHILDREN???? 1 % OF 40,000,000 IS----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1% of 40, 000, 000 is 400, 000
> 
> 400, 000 is X-percent of 7 billion? Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ONLY 400,000 ??? WOW!!! No big deal then!!! Go sexual perverts,welcome to grade school!!!
Click to expand...


I didn't say it was no big deal.

I said the odds of it occurring are so low that to say that our children are somehow unprotected from it is INSANE in the face of MATH/LOGIC/REALITY. 

Sensationalism doesn't magically inflate your point, and also AIDS is spread by much more than just sex, let alone gay sex.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only did I type it, I meant it. You should check them out, they even welcome atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I figured you did. You do realize that believing in a god/higher power/principles is conforming don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unitarian Universalists hold the Principles as strong values and moral teachings. As Rev. Barbara Wells ten Hove explains, The Principles are not dogma or doctrine, but rather a guide for those of us who choose to join and participate in Unitarian Universalist religious communities.
> 
> 1st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
> 2nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
> 3rd Principle: Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
> 4th Principle: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
> 5th Principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
> 6th Principle: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
> 7th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? I am sure you think you have a point, even if the rest of the universe is completely baffled as to what it is.
Click to expand...


The point is there is no such thing as a non conformist religion. The very idea is is funny. I understand you mysteriously get baffled easily when your logic is exposed as being fraudulent.


----------



## GreenBean

Asclepias said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont confuse yourself trying to deflect. You havent supplied a link proving homosexuality was a mental illness.  What happened?  Did you hope I would forget?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Start Here>
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/greenbean.html?tab=quotes&perpage=20&page=257#quotes
> 
> 
> *Therapist Calls Homosexuality "Mental Illness"*
> 
> "Most homosexuals don't want to be homosexual, anymore than a schizophrenic wants to hear voices. A highly respected colleague quietly told me that he cures 80% of the homosexuals that come to him."
> 
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals
> 
> I grow weary of providing information for the incompetent , who are simply incapable of  comprehending what they are provided with.   - YOu can lead a horse to water - but you can't make it drink.  If you're gonna drionk the water that's fine - otherwise STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dont get emotional about it.  i just asked for some proof to your claim that you have contradicted yourself on.  Proof means its a fact.  I know many homosexuals that are perfectly content with being gay which invalidates your 1 off statement up above.  Your links are more opinion pieces.  Please link to a credible scientific site that shows being gay is a mental illness.
> 
> From your last link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates. *Discrimination may contribute to the higher risk, believes lead researcher Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I believe you are mistaken - The Opinion of  *Dr*. Apu Chakraborty  is a qualified scientific opinion .  Now pardon me , lest I forget we are in the CDZ .  Regards and have a Nice Day


----------



## GISMYS

G.T. said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1% of 40, 000, 000 is 400, 000
> 
> 400, 000 is X-percent of 7 billion? Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONLY 400,000 ??? WOW!!! No big deal then!!! Go sexual perverts,welcome to grade school!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it was no big deal.
> 
> I said the odds of it occurring are so low that to say that our children are somehow unprotected from it is INSANE in the face of MATH/LOGIC/REALITY.
> 
> Sensationalism doesn't magically inflate your point, and also AIDS is spread by much more than just sex, let alone gay sex.
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO!!! EXTREAM IGNORANCE!!! But your choice!!! now begone !!! you waste my time!!!


----------



## G.T.

GISMYS said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ONLY 400,000 ??? WOW!!! No big deal then!!! Go sexual perverts,welcome to grade school!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it was no big deal.
> 
> I said the odds of it occurring are so low that to say that our children are somehow unprotected from it is INSANE in the face of MATH/LOGIC/REALITY.
> 
> Sensationalism doesn't magically inflate your point, and also AIDS is spread by much more than just sex, let alone gay sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! EXTREAM IGNORANCE!!! But your choice!!! now begone !!! you waste my time!!!
Click to expand...


You spelled extreme WRONG, right before gloating about someone's IGNORANCE.



PRICELESS.


----------



## GISMYS

PRO-HOMOSEXUAL VIDEO TARGETS PUBLIC SCHOOLS
by Ed Vitagliano | AFA Journal
 The battle in this country between those holding to traditional morality and those espousing hedonism has reached a fever pitch, manifested in no clearer terms that the ideological conflict over homosexuality. But forget about same-sex marriage, employment discrimination or AIDS funding. There may be no area of debate that causes blood pressures to escalate more rapidly than the question of whether public schools should teach children about homosexuality.

Now the homosexual community has thrown down the gauntlet by unveiling a video entitled It&#8217;s Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues In School, and as its title implies, the video is aimed at the educational establishment.

The video is produced by Helen Cohen and Debra Chasnoff, the latter an Academy Award-winning documentary producer. In 1992 Chasnoff became the first woman to openly declare her lesbianism at the Oscars.

The producers went into six elementary and middle schools where teachers and principals are already force-feeding children with pro-gay grist. The narrator says the educators allowed the filming &#8220;in the hope of inspiring other educators and parents to take the next step in their own school communities to teach children respect for all.&#8221;
THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS  GOD IS ANGRY!


----------



## Asclepias

GreenBean said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start Here>
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/greenbean.html?tab=quotes&perpage=20&page=257#quotes
> 
> 
> *Therapist Calls Homosexuality "Mental Illness"*
> 
> "Most homosexuals don't want to be homosexual, anymore than a schizophrenic wants to hear voices. A highly respected colleague quietly told me that he cures 80% of the homosexuals that come to him."
> 
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals
> 
> I grow weary of providing information for the incompetent , who are simply incapable of  comprehending what they are provided with.   - YOu can lead a horse to water - but you can't make it drink.  If you're gonna drionk the water that's fine - otherwise STFU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont get emotional about it.  i just asked for some proof to your claim that you have contradicted yourself on.  Proof means its a fact.  I know many homosexuals that are perfectly content with being gay which invalidates your 1 off statement up above.  Your links are more opinion pieces.  Please link to a credible scientific site that shows being gay is a mental illness.
> 
> From your last link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates. *Discrimination may contribute to the higher risk, believes lead researcher Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you are mistaken - The *Opinion* of  *Dr*. Apu Chakraborty  is a qualified scientific *opinion* .  Now pardon me , lest I forget we are in the CDZ .  Regards and have a Nice Day
Click to expand...


Oh I'm not mistaken. You dont have anything that proves homosexuality is a mental illness. In fact I'm glad you posted it so you don't claim I attributed something to you that you didnt say.  He has an *opinion* not a *proven fact*. There is a difference or were you unaware of that?


----------



## kaz

GreenBean said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start Here>
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/greenbean.html?tab=quotes&perpage=20&page=257#quotes
> 
> 
> *Therapist Calls Homosexuality "Mental Illness"*
> 
> "Most homosexuals don't want to be homosexual, anymore than a schizophrenic wants to hear voices. A highly respected colleague quietly told me that he cures 80% of the homosexuals that come to him."
> 
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals
> 
> I grow weary of providing information for the incompetent , who are simply incapable of  comprehending what they are provided with.   - YOu can lead a horse to water - but you can't make it drink.  If you're gonna drionk the water that's fine - otherwise STFU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont get emotional about it.  i just asked for some proof to your claim that you have contradicted yourself on.  Proof means its a fact.  I know many homosexuals that are perfectly content with being gay which invalidates your 1 off statement up above.  Your links are more opinion pieces.  Please link to a credible scientific site that shows being gay is a mental illness.
> 
> From your last link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates. *Discrimination may contribute to the higher risk, believes lead researcher Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you are mistaken - The Opinion of  *Dr*. Apu Chakraborty  is a qualified scientific opinion .  Now pardon me , lest I forget we are in the CDZ .  Regards and have a Nice Day
Click to expand...


Gays not wanting to be gay is driven by societal reaction to it, not being gay.  I know quite a few gays and the ones in an accepting community are perfectly happy.  I've heard lots of people say they would never have picked being gay referring to things like their parents reaction or being picked on in school.  I've never heard one say they wish they were not gay because the thought of being gay itself bothers them.


----------



## GISMYS

GISMYS said:


> PRO-HOMOSEXUAL VIDEO TARGETS PUBLIC SCHOOLS
> by Ed Vitagliano | AFA Journal
> The battle in this country between those holding to traditional morality and those espousing hedonism has reached a fever pitch, manifested in no clearer terms that the ideological conflict over homosexuality. But forget about same-sex marriage, employment discrimination or AIDS funding. There may be no area of debate that causes blood pressures to escalate more rapidly than the question of whether public schools should teach children about homosexuality.
> 
> Now the homosexual community has thrown down the gauntlet by unveiling a video entitled Its Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues In School, and as its title implies, the video is aimed at the educational establishment.
> 
> The video is produced by Helen Cohen and Debra Chasnoff, the latter an Academy Award-winning documentary producer. In 1992 Chasnoff became the first woman to openly declare her lesbianism at the Oscars.
> 
> The producers went into six elementary and middle schools where teachers and principals are already force-feeding children with pro-gay grist. The narrator says the educators allowed the filming in the hope of inspiring other educators and parents to take the next step in their own school communities to teach children respect for all.
> THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS  GOD IS ANGRY!



Ellen Varella, principal of Peabody Elementary School in Cambridge, Mass., decided that her school would host a photo-text exhibit entitled, Love Makes a Family: Living in Lesbian and Gay Families. She said she anticipated no controversy, because the school community was a very open and embracing and nurturing community.

The decision did result in controversy, however, presumably among the closed-minded, non-nurturing types. When a friend warned her that she could lose her job over the exhibit, Varella was unfazed. I felt strongly that the children in this community needed to be educated around this topic, she said. 

Perhaps one of the most shocking statements in Its Elementary came from Thomas Price, principal of Cambridge Friends School in Cambridge, Mass. I dont think that its appropriate that values only be taught at home, he said. There are social values as well, there are community values. And apparently those critical community values include this one: homosexuality is good.

Enlightened white knights of the public schools

The underlying belief of these social architects is that parents cannot be trusted to convey the truth about homosexuality to their children. The intervention of the public schools is necessary. At a faculty meeting at Cambridge Friends School, the teachers are discussing the results of their fourth annual Gay and Lesbian Pride Day. One teacher admits, I think that we are asking kids to believe that (the homosexual lifestyle) is right....[W]ere educating them, and this is part of what we consider to be a healthy education, (emphasis added).

Some go beyond mere recommendation of advocacy. Take for example George Sloan, principal at Luther Burbank Middle School in San Francisco. Sloan said he believed that learning under a pro-homosexual curricula should be mandatory for all students.

At the Manhattan Country School in New York City, eighth grade English teacher Carol ODonnell listens as one student complains that she is confused about the issue of homosexuality, because her family tells her its wrong.

Another student agrees that kids hear different things from different places. The solution? chool needs to give us all the facts, so we can decide on our own what to think and what to do. Some parents might be disturbed to know that their voice has been relegated to the status of being one among many. Yet it is the opinion promulgated in Its Elementary that, when conflicting voices sow confusion, the public school system can intervene with the facts so the children can decide for themselves.

But are they given the facts? And are they really deciding for themselves?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its definitely your genes or the way your genes are expressed.  There are several studies out that claim this.  I'm thinking expression makes the most sense because identical twins can have different sexual orientations.  Still that invalidates it being a choice.
> 
> http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it invalidate it being a choice, other than your confirmation bias?
> 
> Since I actually posted the article you just did, after I had read it all the way through, I know for a fact it doesn't address the issue of choice. I also know that it is very careful not to say that epigenetics is absolutely the cause of sexual preference. Using it to try and prove your point just proves you didn't read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about your confirmation bias?  You are ignoring a wealth of peer reviewed papers that say there IS a genetic link.
Click to expand...


I do that because I actually research all the evidence, even if it contradicts my position. I deliberately chose to use papers that contradict my opinion just so you cannot accuse me on only using papers that support my beliefs, now you want to claim that the fact that I do so proves I am using conformation bias. Is this another example of you using terms you don't understand?

The thing is, unlike you, I don't actually know what causes people to have a certain sexual preference. My opinion may be wrong, but it is based on examining all the evidence, both for and against, and reaching a conclusion based on my understanding of it. Can you honestly say the same thing? Because you have categorically argued that I am wrong right here in this thread.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read my post all the way like you read the article you would see I didnt use it to prove any point.  I suggested that there was an alternative theory.  Its plain to see that its either genetics or epigenetics. You dont chose your inherent sexual orientation. However, you can later convince yourself to change it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said it is definitely your genes, or the way your genes are expressed. Their is not enough evidence to support that conclusion, which is why scientists say they don't know.
> 
> In other words, you are still wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you are wrong that it is a choice then.
Click to expand...


No, because I never categorically claimed I was right. I am expressing an opinion based on my understanding of the evidence, and will change it if someone ever finds enough evidence to prove I am wrong because, ultimately, I don't know, and understand that I might be wrong.

You, on the other hand, know you are right, which is why you are wrong.


----------



## kaz

Asclepias said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont get emotional about it.  i just asked for some proof to your claim that you have contradicted yourself on.  Proof means its a fact.  I know many homosexuals that are perfectly content with being gay which invalidates your 1 off statement up above.  Your links are more opinion pieces.  Please link to a credible scientific site that shows being gay is a mental illness.
> 
> From your last link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are mistaken - The Opinion of  *Dr*. Apu Chakraborty  is a qualified scientific *opinion* .  Now pardon me , lest I forget we are in the CDZ .  Regards and have a Nice Day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I'm not mistaken. You dont have anything that proves homosexuality is a mental illness. In fact I'm glad you posted it so you don't claim I attributed something to you that you didnt say.  He has an *opinion* not a *proven fact*. There is a difference or were you unaware of that?
Click to expand...


I've been to a lot of conservative churches in my life.  Most people in those churches actually aren't really concerned about the gay thing.  Most of the people don't condemn gays, they just say it's going to be between God and the gay person when the time comes, it's not up to them to say.  Then there are always a few vocal anti-gay, they tend to be people who are very judgmental about a lot of things and not a lot of fun in general.  My view is they have more mental health issues than most of the gays I know.

I am not referring to you Greenbean, I don't know you.  I am talking about in general.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I figured you did. You do realize that believing in a god/higher power/principles is conforming don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? I am sure you think you have a point, even if the rest of the universe is completely baffled as to what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is there is no such thing as a non conformist religion. The very idea is is funny. I understand you mysteriously get baffled easily when your logic is exposed as being fraudulent.
Click to expand...


Yet you posted nothing that even remotely looks like a demand for conformity.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said it is definitely your genes, or the way your genes are expressed. Their is not enough evidence to support that conclusion, which is why scientists say they don't know.
> 
> In other words, you are still wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you are wrong that it is a choice then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because I never categorically claimed I was right. I am expressing an opinion based on my understanding of the evidence, and will change it if someone ever finds enough evidence to prove I am wrong because, ultimately, I don't know, and understand that I might be wrong.
> 
> You, on the other hand, know you are right, which is why you are wrong.
Click to expand...


The only thing I am right about is that it has to do with the genes in some form or another.  Since I never claimed anything other than that I am not wrong. 

Your opinion is wrong.  Its not a choice.  You are born with a sexual orientation. How you decide to act on that orientation is a choice like most things you have control of.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? I am sure you think you have a point, even if the rest of the universe is completely baffled as to what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is there is no such thing as a non conformist religion. The very idea is is funny. I understand you mysteriously get baffled easily when your logic is exposed as being fraudulent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you posted nothing that even remotely looks like a demand for conformity.
Click to expand...


You must be pretending you didn't see my post with the principles. 

Its ok. I know you will deny to the bitter end.  Have fun.


----------



## kaz

GISMYS said:


> When a friend warned her that she could lose her job over the exhibit, Varella was unfazed. I felt strongly that the children in this community needed to be educated around this topic, she said.



She should be fired, it's an inappropriate platform to use government schools to advance any political agenda.  Government schools should teach English and math and leave politics at home.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you are wrong that it is a choice then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because I never categorically claimed I was right. I am expressing an opinion based on my understanding of the evidence, and will change it if someone ever finds enough evidence to prove I am wrong because, ultimately, I don't know, and understand that I might be wrong.
> 
> You, on the other hand, know you are right, which is why you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing I am right about is that it has to do with the genes in some form or another.  Since I never claimed anything other than that I am not wrong.
> 
> Your opinion is wrong.  Its not a choice.  You are born with a sexual orientation. How you decide to act on that orientation is a choice like most things you have control of.
Click to expand...


Yet there is absolutely no evidecnce, othe r that a statsictal correlation among families, that itis in any way related to genes. 

Doesn't sound like you care much about the evidence to me, you just formed an opinion, and ignore the fact that all the evidence out there that contradict it. That is close minded.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is there is no such thing as a non conformist religion. The very idea is is funny. I understand you mysteriously get baffled easily when your logic is exposed as being fraudulent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you posted nothing that even remotely looks like a demand for conformity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be pretending you didn't see my post with the principles.
> 
> Its ok. I know you will deny to the bitter end.  Have fun.
Click to expand...


The principles? Seriously? Shich is the one that you think demands conformity?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because I never categorically claimed I was right. I am expressing an opinion based on my understanding of the evidence, and will change it if someone ever finds enough evidence to prove I am wrong because, ultimately, I don't know, and understand that I might be wrong.
> 
> You, on the other hand, know you are right, which is why you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing I am right about is that it has to do with the genes in some form or another.  Since I never claimed anything other than that I am not wrong.
> 
> Your opinion is wrong.  Its not a choice.  You are born with a sexual orientation. How you decide to act on that orientation is a choice like most things you have control of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet there is absolutely no evidecnce, othe r that a statsictal correlation among families, that itis in any way related to genes.
> 
> Doesn't sound like you care much about the evidence to me, you just formed an opinion, and ignore the fact that all the evidence out there that contradict it. That is close minded.
Click to expand...


There is mountains of evidence. Your drive to procreate is the strongest urge going after the freeze, flight, or fight response.  The fact this world is populated should tell you that. You honestly think choice has something to do with that?


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you posted nothing that even remotely looks like a demand for conformity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be pretending you didn't see my post with the principles.
> 
> Its ok. I know you will deny to the bitter end.  Have fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The principles? Seriously? Shich is the one that you think demands conformity?
Click to expand...


adjusting your lifestyle to the principles of a religion is _conforming_, is his point. by definition it's conforming.


----------



## GreenBean

kaz said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are mistaken - The Opinion of  *Dr*. Apu Chakraborty  is a qualified scientific *opinion* .  Now pardon me , lest I forget we are in the CDZ .  Regards and have a Nice Day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I'm not mistaken. You dont have anything that proves homosexuality is a mental illness. In fact I'm glad you posted it so you don't claim I attributed something to you that you didnt say.  He has an *opinion* not a *proven fact*. There is a difference or were you unaware of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been to a lot of conservative churches in my life.  Most people in those churches actually aren't really concerned about the gay thing.  Most of the people don't condemn gays, they just say it's going to be between God and the gay person when the time comes, it's not up to them to say.  Then there are always a few vocal anti-gay, they tend to be people who are very judgmental about a lot of things and not a lot of fun in general.  My view is they have more mental health issues than most of the gays I know.
> 
> I am not referring to you Greenbean, I don't know you.  I am talking about in general.
Click to expand...


I would hope not - I'm not a Christian


----------



## Asclepias

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be pretending you didn't see my post with the principles.
> 
> Its ok. I know you will deny to the bitter end.  Have fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The principles? Seriously? Shich is the one that you think demands conformity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> adjusting your lifestyle to the principles of a religion is _conforming_, is his point. by definition it's conforming.
Click to expand...


He will just pretend it means something else or deflect by asking some inane question.


----------



## kaz

GreenBean said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I'm not mistaken. You dont have anything that proves homosexuality is a mental illness. In fact I'm glad you posted it so you don't claim I attributed something to you that you didnt say.  He has an *opinion* not a *proven fact*. There is a difference or were you unaware of that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been to a lot of conservative churches in my life.  Most people in those churches actually aren't really concerned about the gay thing.  Most of the people don't condemn gays, they just say it's going to be between God and the gay person when the time comes, it's not up to them to say.  Then there are always a few vocal anti-gay, they tend to be people who are very judgmental about a lot of things and not a lot of fun in general.  My view is they have more mental health issues than most of the gays I know.
> 
> I am not referring to you Greenbean, I don't know you.  I am talking about in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would hope not - I'm not a Christian
Click to expand...


Yes, exactly.  I don't know you.  Since it was commenting on a reply to you, I didn't want it inferred that it was a direct reference to you.

I also remember that we agree on a lot of other things in other discussions.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing I am right about is that it has to do with the genes in some form or another.  Since I never claimed anything other than that I am not wrong.
> 
> Your opinion is wrong.  Its not a choice.  You are born with a sexual orientation. How you decide to act on that orientation is a choice like most things you have control of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet there is absolutely no evidecnce, othe r that a statsictal correlation among families, that itis in any way related to genes.
> 
> Doesn't sound like you care much about the evidence to me, you just formed an opinion, and ignore the fact that all the evidence out there that contradict it. That is close minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is mountains of evidence. Your drive to procreate is the strongest urge going after the freeze, flight, or fight response.  The fact this world is populated should tell you that. You honestly think choice has something to do with that?
Click to expand...


If the drive to procreate is  so strong, how do you explain homosexuality at all? The fact that people, and animals, actually engage in sex when procreation is impossible proves that you are wrong about this. That might lead you  to consider he possibility that you are wrong about other things.

I doubt it, but it might.


----------



## GreenBean

kaz said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont get emotional about it.  i just asked for some proof to your claim that you have contradicted yourself on.  Proof means its a fact.  I know many homosexuals that are perfectly content with being gay which invalidates your 1 off statement up above.  Your links are more opinion pieces.  Please link to a credible scientific site that shows being gay is a mental illness.
> 
> From your last link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are mistaken - The Opinion of  *Dr*. Apu Chakraborty  is a qualified scientific opinion .  Now pardon me , lest I forget we are in the CDZ .  Regards and have a Nice Day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays not wanting to be gay is driven by societal reaction to it, not being gay.  I know quite a few gays and the ones in an accepting community are perfectly happy.  I've heard lots of people say they would never have picked being gay referring to things like their parents reaction or being picked on in school.  I've never heard one say they wish they were not gay because the thought of being gay itself bothers them.
Click to expand...


You can't really get mad at low information gays such as many of the Gays and Useful Idiots who post here- all they know is whats preached to them by the Church of LGBT.  And everything that is wrong with Gays is all becuse of Homophobes - yup - homophobes brought the AIDS over to get rid of em all , and hopmophobes didn't help to stop it's spread , and homophobes are the reason they kill themselves - it's all the homophobes fault - that and that nasty little religion of yours preaching all that silliness about Morality - Christians are nothing but a bunch of homophobes .  And while we're at it those Damn Republicans - trying to defend family Values - bunch of friggin homophobes !!!!


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet there is absolutely no evidecnce, othe r that a statsictal correlation among families, that itis in any way related to genes.
> 
> Doesn't sound like you care much about the evidence to me, you just formed an opinion, and ignore the fact that all the evidence out there that contradict it. That is close minded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is mountains of evidence. Your drive to procreate is the strongest urge going after the freeze, flight, or fight response.  The fact this world is populated should tell you that. You honestly think choice has something to do with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If the drive to procreate is  so strong, how do you explain homosexuality at all?* The fact that people, and animals, actually engage in sex when procreation is impossible proves that you are wrong about this. That might lead you  to consider he possibility that you are wrong about other things.
> 
> I doubt it, but it might.
Click to expand...


Glad you asked that. Genes or gene expression.

Your genes have no understanding of if procreation is possible.  Thanks for pointing that out.  That should let you know its hardwired into humans.


----------



## emilynghiem

Inevitable said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What causes any compulsive behavior?  It's not genetics.  There is nothing about genetics that causes a man to be turned on by watching women wearing high heel shoes stomp small animals to death, but some men are turned on by that.
> 
> 
> 
> Fetishes are typically acquired, being that homosexuals tend to cohabitate, become involved in romantic relationships sometimes even abstaining from sexual contact until it isdeemed appropriate, it doesn't seem reasonable to equate it to merely something that you getyour jollies from. That tends to be the staple mischaracterization from people that argue against homosexuality.
Click to expand...


Dear Katzndogz and Inevitable:
Some fetishes, phobias or obsessions could be spiritually born or caused.

Some therapists are trying to get more research done on this angle --
where karma from past generations can be carried spiritually and influence
people not genetically connected, including "phobias" or other irrational obsessions.

I met a woman who had such a phobia, and went to a therapist who used a combination of Buddhist past life regression and Christian prayer to identify and heal the connection from the past which, when released, eliminated the phobic reactions (in her case she had some emotional attachment associated with "candles" and "fire", while another friend of mine had fear of "hair" and also irrational attraction to "antique carved furniture legs" that she came to peace with as spiritually connected to people from past generations who lived or died in some way related to those things.)

This "spiritual connection" is IMPOSSIBLE to prove,
but the PROCESS of healing phobias/obsessions by going through the steps,
the METHOD CAN be quantified in stages by professional observation to meet criteria for diagnosis,  similar to doctors treating psychiatric patients by recording their progress.

The more people who report success in healing, by identifying and releasing connections to past generations, the STATISTICS can show a correlation in outcome/recovery (even if spiritual theories of where this comes from and if it is real or imagined cannot be proven).

 [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]: back to the idea that a condition does not need to be a "pathological disease" with a "proven cause" in order to be HEALED. Someone can have a disdain for "black thugs" and be HEALED of fear by forgiving all negative associations and events related. And that is not a physical pathology or disease. Someone publicly offered to help TX Gov. Perry recovery from his "homophobia" -- what this means is to forgive and heal of negative biases that make him come across as a bigot. Is bigotry a mental illness? In some cases it may be caused by an extreme phobic reaction. If not, it can still be healed by forgiveness.


----------



## emilynghiem

GreenBean said:


> You can't really get mad at low information gays such as many of the Gays and Useful Idiots who post here- all they know is whats preached to them by the Church of LGBT.  And everything that is wrong with Gays is all becuse of Homophobes - yup - homophobes brought the AIDS over to get rid of em all , and hopmophobes didn't help to stop it's spread , and homophobes are the reason they kill themselves - it's all the homophobes fault - that and that nasty little religion of yours preaching all that silliness about Morality - Christians are nothing but a bunch of homophobes .  And while we're at it those Damn Republicans - trying to defend family Values - bunch of friggin homophobes !!!!



Dear [MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
First GISMYS posts about progay-propagation-propaganda
Now GreenBean posts it's all this "anti-homophobe" propaganda

I can see how this helps you express your viewpoint. But doesn't it make things worse?
Further reinforcing opposition by turning people way, so it defeats any progress?

 [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] really wanted us to stick to addressing the issue of how can this be
defined as a disease, pathology, mental illness, etc. by professional medical standards.

Can we focus on solutions (not problems we ALL know are going on in the media)
and try to find common terms, language, RESEARCH or studies/examples that explain
how these "conditions" have been successfully healed or changed without any fraud?

As long as we agree that any change is to "restore people to their natural orientation,"
(and is NOT to turn people into something unnatural that's not them), we don't have to agree if "ALL cases are" a choice, genetic, caused by social influence, abuse/rape, etc.

Can we "table" the points we disagree on, and focus on what kind of changes or healing we WOULD agree is Natural, consistent with science and normal effective therapy, and not rejected by anyone. If we can agree there, these other points may not be such an issue.

Thank you, Gentlemen. I'm glad if we can agree on something!
That there is more that is being missed, so how do we work toward that as a team?


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't really get mad at low information gays such as many of the Gays and Useful Idiots who post here- all they know is whats preached to them by the Church of LGBT.  And everything that is wrong with Gays is all becuse of Homophobes - yup - homophobes brought the AIDS over to get rid of em all , and hopmophobes didn't help to stop it's spread , and homophobes are the reason they kill themselves - it's all the homophobes fault - that and that nasty little religion of yours preaching all that silliness about Morality - Christians are nothing but a bunch of homophobes .  And while we're at it those Damn Republicans - trying to defend family Values - bunch of friggin homophobes !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear [MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
> First GISMYS posts about progay-propagation-propaganda
> Now GreenBean posts it's all this "anti-homophobe" propaganda
> 
> I can see how this helps you express your viewpoint. But doesn't it make things worse?
> Further reinforcing opposition by turning people way, so it defeats any progress?
> 
> [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] really wanted us to stick to addressing the issue of how can this be
> defined as a disease, pathology, mental illness, etc. by professional medical standards.
> 
> Can we focus on solutions (not problems we ALL know are going on in the media)
> and try to find common terms, language, RESEARCH or studies/examples that explain
> how these "conditions" have been successfully healed or changed without any fraud?
> 
> As long as we agree that any change is to "restore people to their natural orientation,"
> (and is NOT to turn people into something unnatural that's not them), we don't have to agree if "ALL cases are" a choice, genetic, caused by social influence, abuse/rape, etc.
> 
> Can we "table" the points we disagree on, and focus on what kind of changes or healing we WOULD agree is Natural, consistent with science and normal effective therapy, and not rejected by anyone. If we can agree there, these other points may not be such an issue.
> 
> Thank you, Gentlemen. I'm glad if we can agree on something!
> That there is more that is being missed, so how do we work toward that as a team?
Click to expand...


Pharisees told JESUS their way of doing things were far better than his!!!


----------



## GreenBean

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet there is absolutely no evidecnce, othe r that a statsictal correlation among families, that itis in any way related to genes.
> 
> Doesn't sound like you care much about the evidence to me, you just formed an opinion, and ignore the fact that all the evidence out there that contradict it. That is close minded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is mountains of evidence. Your drive to procreate is the strongest urge going after the freeze, flight, or fight response.  The fact this world is populated should tell you that. You honestly think choice has something to do with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the drive to procreate is  so strong, how do you explain homosexuality at all? The fact that people, and animals, actually engage in sex when procreation is impossible proves that you are wrong about this. That might lead you  to consider he possibility that you are wrong about other things.
> 
> I doubt it, but it might.
Click to expand...


The drive is not to procreate -the drive is to mate  - procreation is the end result
In the case of homosexality the drive is to fornicate -  disease in the end result



> how do you explain homosexuality at all?



That's a good portion of the argument - homosexuality does not fit ino the natural scheme of things , it serves no useful biological function.  Other than deviant erotic satiation.

IN the case of homosexuals they are un-natural and confused in their sex drive and that is theorized to be derived largely due to Child hood trauma - although there are other worthy alternative theories as well



> The fact that people, and animals, actually engage in sex when procreation is impossible proves that you are wrong about this.



People and animals engage in sexual activity because it is their natural instinct to do so - rarely do they engage in that activity for the purpose of  creating a baby .  People even engage in sex , and work hard at not getting pregnant


----------



## emilynghiem

Asclepias said:


> The only thing I am right about is that it has to do with the genes in some form or another.  Since I never claimed anything other than that I am not wrong.
> 
> Your opinion is wrong.  Its not a choice.  You are born with a sexual orientation. How you decide to act on that orientation is a choice like most things you have control of.



Dear Asclepias: I agree MANY people, especially transgender, experience being their orientation or gender all their lives, as their inherent personality.

However, what about people whose behavior came from rape or abuse and was not natural.

Are you counting such people as heterosexual from birth, so that after they go through recovery therapy to heal from the abuse, then they restore their "natural orientation."

If people are "born gay" but act as heterosexual (even marry and have children) until they come out with homosexual relations, can't people be "born heterosexual" but act as homosexual and then return to their natural orientation "from birth."

Note: I have cited my experience with a friend who was in a heterosexual marriage and after going through forgiveness and healing he came out as transgender which he considered his natural personality he was born with. He didn't "become something he was not" after going through healing but came to terms with his "natural identity."

So why can't this be okay the other way, where if people decide they aren't bisexual but heterosexual, why can't that be their true "natural identity/orientation" from birth?


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing I am right about is that it has to do with the genes in some form or another.  Since I never claimed anything other than that I am not wrong.
> 
> Your opinion is wrong.  Its not a choice.  You are born with a sexual orientation. How you decide to act on that orientation is a choice like most things you have control of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Asclepias: I agree MANY people, especially transgender, experience being their orientation or gender all their lives, as their inherent personality.
> 
> However, what about people whose behavior came from rape or abuse and was not natural.
> 
> Are you counting such people as heterosexual from birth, so that after they go through recovery therapy to heal from the abuse, then they restore their "natural orientation."
> 
> If people are "born gay" but act as heterosexual (even marry and have children) until they come out with homosexual relations, can't people be "born heterosexual" but act as homosexual and then return to their natural orientation "from birth."
> 
> Note: I have cited my experience with a friend who was in a heterosexual marriage and after going through forgiveness and healing he came out as transgender which he considered his natural personality he was born with. He didn't "become something he was not" after going through healing but came to terms with his "natural identity."
> 
> So why can't this be okay the other way, where if people decide they aren't bisexual but heterosexual, why can't that be their true "natural identity/orientation" from birth?
Click to expand...


So you and your friend have no reguard as to what GOD'S word has to say about those that choose to live in the abomination of homosexuality=sexual perversion??? WOW!!!


----------



## emilynghiem

GreenBean said:


> The drive is not to procreate -the drive is to mate  - procreation is the end result
> In the case of homosexality the drive is to fornicate -  disease in the end result



 [MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION] in both heterosexual and homosexual partnerships
there are always people who seek the companionship and aren't just
motivated by mating, procreating or fornicating.

Again, this is where I focus on the SPIRITUAL motivation,
when certain "soul-mates" are incarnated as whatever gender/orientation
they are meant to be in life in order to go through certain experiences.

The people motivated on a SPIRITUAL level seek to connect with their soul-mates.

There are MANY heterosexual couples who do not want kids, or do not have sex.

So why can't this be true of some homosexual couples also?
Many DO abstain and/or live together for companionship to be with their life partner.
To them it isn't about the sex.


----------



## GISMYS

The Antichrist will appear to the masses of the earth using many illusions and lying wonders, and the majority of the world will be deceived into following him. The truth is our primary weapon against Satan. The truth can be dealt with, no matter how unbelievable; but a lie cannot be dealt with, no matter how convincing. The best place to hide a LIE is between two TRUTHS. And so it is in the world today. The truth is always found amidst a plethora of lies and disinformation. 

Those who desire to find the truth about God must first sort through all the false Bibles, false ministers, false churches, false religions, false doctrines, and false Christs; and hopefully they'll realize that only the King James Bible is the uncorruptible Word of God, and Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven, and no religion can get a person into Heaven, and any doctrine that disagrees with the Bible is a false doctrine. 

If you want the truth, God will reveal it to you. You have to not want the truth to remain ignorant in today's world, because the truth is all around us.


----------



## GISMYS

Don&#8217;t you know that evil people will not receive God&#8217;s kingdom? Don&#8217;t be fooled. Those who commit sexual sins will not receive the kingdom. Neither will those who worship statues of gods or commit adultery. Neither will men who are prostitutes or who commit homosexual acts.1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear GISMYS
Yes, I do trust that the Bible is true and will be fulfilled perfectly.
But that doesn't mean I am going to dictate someone else's process or understanding
of that message and every step along the way.

When a baby is still in the crib, or a kid's in the middle of algebra class,
do you start harping on rules for driving on the road so nobody dies? One thing at a time!
It does NOT mean "I don't care" if people die from not stopping at a stop sign
just because I am not preaching in advance "against running stop signs" 24/7 (in ALL CAPS!!!)

I trust all people have a conscience that will only be satisfied with truth, which by definition,  
must be consistent with God's "universal" laws in order to be absolute truth, by definition.

For sake of truth, what I focus on is which points we are "not forgiving" which block the process of getting to that truth at the end. 
As we learn to forgive each conflict, the errors and stumbling blocks can be cleaned up, but not if we are caught in emotional entanglement.

My main concern is to loosen and untangle the knots. To REMOVE stumbling blocks.

All falsehood and error will be corrected. I don't have to be in charge of that for it to happen.

      [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] you and I care that every thing inside a car needs to work properly in order to run. 
But I don't have to "nitpick over every piece" to make sure it does.
so it's "not that I don't care" but I trust that it is working. 
Same with the process of working toward understanding of universal truth.
==================================

https://new.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19:11-12&version=NIV

Jesus replied, &#8220;Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 
12 For there are eunuchs who were *born that way, 
and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others&#8212;
and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.* 
The one who can accept this should accept it."

1. God's word in Matthew 19:12 makes it clear
* some are born
* some are made by man
* some are for God's purposes.
And not everyone can receive/understand this.

2. Since not everyone can understand this
it is between them and God what they SHOULD or NEED to understand and WHEN.

Thank you, GISMYS
I pray you too will receive greater and greater understanding and peace
to bring everyone on earth closer and closer in God's truth and love


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

I don't believe that most gays are born gay. That being said, I don't care if people chose to become gay. It's none of my concern. 

God bless everybody!


----------



## emilynghiem

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, religion in and of itself it's more about conformity than God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are an expert on religion?
> 
> Feel free to start a thread about your expertise in religion so I can demonstrate to you all the ways you are wrong. But, for one example of a non conformist religion.
> 
> Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations - UUA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you really type that?  Non conformist religion?
Click to expand...


What about Christian Anarchists? Sorry, that will get too far off topic to rescue.
How about Buddhism that offers instruction or advice, but no coercion or indoctrination, only independent investigation and choice.
The process is to be in harmony with natural spiritual laws already in place, not from imposing from "outside authority"
but individual discovery by working within through one's own path and choice to follow.

The Dalai Lama originally referred to homosexuality as unnatural,
but after advocacy groups criticized him, he reworded his position
to focus on "not discriminating" against such individuals.



			
				link said:
			
		

> Buddhist monks are expected to live lives of celibacy, meaning abstinence from any type of sex. There is no explicit rule prohibiting those with a homosexual orientation from monastic life. [1] However, in the Vinaya, the Buddha is recorded as opposing the ordination of those who openly expressed cross-gender features [2] or strong homosexual desires and actions [7]. The Buddhist sacred texts do contain a great deal of instances of loving relationships between unmarried men, which some believe to have homoerotic overtones. No sexual contact is mentioned in these instances, however. [1]
> 
> Lay Buddhists (those who live outside the monastery) are expected to adhere to Five Precepts, the third of which is a vow "not to engage in sexual misconduct." But what is sexual misconduct? Right and wrong behavior in Buddhism is generally determined by considerations such as the following:
> 
> Universalibility principle - "How would I like it if someone did this to me?"
> Consequences - Does the act cause harm and regret (in oneself or others) or benefit and joy?
> Utilitarian principle - Will the act help or harm the attainment of goals (ultimately spiritual liberation)?
> Intention - Is the act motivated by love, generosity and understanding?
> 
> "Sexual misconduct" has thus traditionally been interpreted to include actions like coercive sex, sexual harassment, child molestation and adultery. As Homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's sayings recorded in the Pali Canon (Tripitaka), most interpreters have taken this to mean that homosexuality should be evaluated in the same way as heterosexuality, in accordance with the above principles.
> . . .
> 
> It is also worth noting that Buddhism does not traditionally place great value on procreation like many western religions. From the Buddhist viewpoint, being married with children is regarded as generally positive, but not compulsory (although social norms in various Buddhist countries often have different views). [3]
> 
> Despite all this, in practice, Theravada Buddhist countries are not terribly open to homosexual practice. This has much to do with cultural norms, as well as the notion of karma, which remains strong in countries such as Thailand. From this viewpoint, a person's characteristics and situations are a result of past sins or good deeds. *Homosexuality and other alternative forms of sexuality are often seen as karmic punishments for heterosexual misconduct in a past life.* Thus far, the gay rights movement has not had great success in Theravada Buddhist countries. [7]



http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/buddhism.htm



			
				Homosexuality in Vajrayana/Tibetan Buddhism said:
			
		

> In a 1997 interview, the Dalai Lama (the leader of Tibetan Buddhism and a widely-respected spiritual figure) was asked about homosexuality. He did not offer any strong answer either way, but noted that all monks are expected to refrain from sex. For laypeople, he commented that the purpose of sex in general is for procreation, so homosexual acts do seem a bit unnatural. He said that sexual desires in themselves are natural, perhaps including homosexual desires, but that one should not try to increase those desires or indulge them without self-control. [4]
> 
> In a 1993 talk given in Seattle, the Dalai Lama said:
> 
> nature arranged male and female organs "in such a manner that is very suitable... Same-sex organs cannot manage well." But he stopped short of condemning homosexual relationships altogether, saying if two people agree to enter a relationship that is not sexually abusive, "then I don't know. It's difficult to say." [5]
> 
> The Dalai Lama was more specific in a meeting with Buddhist leaders and human rights activists in San Francisco in 1997, where he commented that *all forms of sex other than penile-vaginal sex are prohibited for Buddhists, whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals. At a press conference the day before the meeting, he said, "From a Buddhist point of view, [gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct."* But he did note that this rule is for Buddhists, and from society's viewpoint, homosexual relationships can be "of mutual benefit, enjoyable, and harmless." [6]
> 
> The Dalai Lama is well known for his activism for human rights, and this specifically includes equal rights for gays. According to an Office of Tibet spokeman, *"His Holiness opposes violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation. He urges respect, tolerance, compassion, and the full recognition of human rights for all."* [6]


----------



## emilynghiem

Mad_Cabbie said:


> I don't believe that most gays are born gay. That being said, I don't care if people chose to become gay. It's none of my concern.
> 
> God bless everybody!



Does it bother you when public resources, courts, or legislation is spent
fighting over marriage laws, restroom policies*, and business practices?

*(I for one would rather see money raised to create Unisex restrooms to solve issues over transgender usage, and quit creating unnecessary political backlash and legal costs.)

It USED to be a private issue; but since pushing these policies into public institutions,
now taxpayers face more costs every time these conflicts come up in legislation or courts.

So if we don't resolve these issues between us in private, it imposes costs on the public now.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] and [MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION]
Thanks for developing a very interesting and diverse thread with different angles.

1. Healing still applies, WITHOUT Homosexuality being a "disease or mental illness."

Factoring in the studies, PROCESS, and results of effective natural healing
DOES change the statistical data and medical findings, and the resulting conclusions.

*So Inevitable, it can make the difference between drawing a false or true conclusion.*

2. "Faith healing" (as in "blind praying for an outcome") is faulty and NOT what is meant.

Real spiritual healing is about "praying to receive forgiveness" over conflicts that were previously blocking natural healing; and it is NOT about "dictating" conditions or results.

It is about taking the steps to RECEIVE natural healing after obstructions are removed by forgiving the issues, memories, conflicts, motions and perceptions attached, letting go.

(Even the process cannot be dictated: if the wrong thing is prayed for instead of forgiving the real cause, it won't work; and nobody can dictate the outcome which varies.)

*So it's NOT "faith healing" and it doesn't depend on homosexuality being a "disease."*



GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> OT - Not Really - Healing is very relevant to the Topic .  Given that Homosexuality is a Mental Illness
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not a mental illness. Nothing mentioned afterward is relevant due to this original mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that , and when you're done ... click your heels together, close your eyes, repeat to yourself - "I'm not sick - I'm not sick " and the bad tooth fairy will drop you back in kens ass.
Click to expand...


BTW I'm glad to know you are Christian, if that helps you understand there is a bigger process going on. I believe science can prove the healing of other mental illness such as schizophrenia, using the same methods, and resolve a lot of these issues at the same time. That's why I see a connection. How can you research one without affecting all applications.

The mind/body follow a natural healing process that works for all people (if something is not forgiven or resolved in the past, it can build up negative memories and emotions and block the mind/body from the natural flow of life's healing energy and process; and if the blocked memory or conflict is removed by forgiveness, this unblocks that natural energy flow so the mind/body can heal as they are designed).

Conditions DON't have to be an "illness, disease or disorder" to be healed this way.


----------



## Asclepias

emilynghiem said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing I am right about is that it has to do with the genes in some form or another.  Since I never claimed anything other than that I am not wrong.
> 
> Your opinion is wrong.  Its not a choice.  You are born with a sexual orientation. How you decide to act on that orientation is a choice like most things you have control of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Asclepias: I agree MANY people, especially transgender, experience being their orientation or gender all their lives, as their inherent personality.
> 
> However, what about people whose behavior came from rape or abuse and was not natural.
> 
> Are you counting such people as heterosexual from birth, so that after they go through recovery therapy to heal from the abuse, then they restore their "natural orientation."
> 
> If people are "born gay" but act as heterosexual (even marry and have children) until they come out with homosexual relations, can't people be "born heterosexual" but act as homosexual and then return to their natural orientation "from birth."
> 
> Note: I have cited my experience with a friend who was in a heterosexual marriage and after going through forgiveness and healing he came out as transgender which he considered his natural personality he was born with. He didn't "become something he was not" after going through healing but came to terms with his "natural identity."
> 
> So why can't this be okay the other way, where if people decide they aren't bisexual but heterosexual, why can't that be their true "natural identity/orientation" from birth?
Click to expand...


I agree its possible but you are talking about behaviors that are not an expression of their sexual orientation. These behaviors are instead motivated by a societal need to conform and or a psychosis. Take for instance a case where a man marries a woman and has children but all along knows he is gay and attracted to men.  Or another case where a male child is abused and thinks that is the only way to obtain love is to have sex with  men but really is attracted to females.  I've heard both cases and I don't consider the behaviors as orientations.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

emilynghiem said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that most gays are born gay. That being said, I don't care if people chose to become gay. It's none of my concern.
> 
> God bless everybody!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it bother you when public resources, courts, or legislation is spent
> fighting over marriage laws, restroom policies*, and business practices?
> 
> *(I for one would rather see money raised to create Unisex restrooms to solve issues over transgender usage, and quit creating unnecessary political backlash and legal costs.)
> 
> It USED to be a private issue; but since pushing these policies into public institutions,
> now taxpayers face more costs every time these conflicts come up in legislation or courts.
> 
> So if we don't resolve these issues between us in private, it imposes costs on the public now.
Click to expand...


Why is there a fight? Who's doing the fighting and why are the people trying to prevent gay marriage making me - "Joe taxpayer" foot the bill for their _morality crusade_?


----------



## freedombecki

Mad_Cabbie said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that most gays are born gay. That being said, I don't care if people chose to become gay. It's none of my concern.
> 
> God bless everybody!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it bother you when public resources, courts, or legislation is spent
> fighting over marriage laws, restroom policies*, and business practices?
> 
> *(I for one would rather see money raised to create Unisex restrooms to solve issues over transgender usage, and quit creating unnecessary political backlash and legal costs.)
> 
> It USED to be a private issue; but since pushing these policies into public institutions,
> now taxpayers face more costs every time these conflicts come up in legislation or courts.
> 
> So if we don't resolve these issues between us in private, it imposes costs on the public now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is there a fight? Who's doing the fighting and why are the people trying to prevent gay marriage making me - "Joe taxpayer" foot the bill for their _morality crusade_?
Click to expand...

The way I read it, you will be paying for sex changes for the poor anyhow because I don't think there's been a morality change crusade since Revival Tent days.


----------



## alan1

Luddly Neddite said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the face of it, I agree but they should have the same right I do and that's what they're demanding.
> 
> I support that completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a brother and sister demand the same rights, are you fine with that?
> The assumption being that the brother sister wont procreate just like the homosexuals wont procreate.
> Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HUH??
> 
> Sorry but last I looked, this thread concerned homosexuality. If you would like to start a thread about incest, by all means do.  In the meantime, I'll just say that the two are not the same and, pardon the pun, not related.
Click to expand...


And last I looked, your post was about rights (see blue above, thus my question as it pertained to your post and rights.

Now then, since it was a question about "rights' (which you brought up), do you care to answer the question, or are you going to continue dodging what *you* introduced into the conversation?


----------



## emilynghiem

Asclepias said:


> Oh I'm not mistaken. You dont have anything that proves homosexuality is a mental illness.



 [MENTION=44774]Asclepias[/MENTION] 
Nor does a condition have to be a "mental illness" for people
to heal, or change their behavior or relationships

My friend who came out as transgender, changed his whole life, divorced his wife, changed his gender. His getting married as a heterosexual couple, and his suppression of his female personality was not a "mental illness".

But when he forgave what was causing conflicts, then his natural self came out.
He felt freed and healed of the emotions he held back before, but these weren't sick.
They were conflicted, like deciding you don't agree with the Republican party all your friends expect you to be with, and you come out as liberal Democrat. Or you don't relate to your family's Catholicism and convert to Islam or Atheism (I've seen both happen, where the people are liberated from hiding behind what isn't them)

None of that healing and changing is due to "mental illness"
It's about forgiveness and letting go, so you come to terms with your natural ways

=====================

I had to go through mental steps to overcome emotional disconnection
to other Asian people because I didn't speak the language, felt stupid and judged.

This condition created a wall of separation that I didn't realize was there.
It was like a mental or emotional barrier I didn't recognize until it was gone.
Then I could see the difference not having it there.

When I forgave and overcame my fear I couldn't ever fit in,
my perception changed and I could connect with others I couldn't before.
I was no longer afraid or embarrassed all the time, which came across
as judging others because I felt they were judging me.

My relationships changed completely, over that one thing.

My race did not change, I could have had the equivalent of a "racial bias or cultural separation." It was not a "disease" or "mental illness"
but it changed how I related to people by forgiving issues or conflicts I had.

It was a similar process of forgiving and letting go emotions and perceptions so that you open yourself up more and restore more natural states without fear-based conditions.


----------



## alan1

GreenBean said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a brother and sister demand the same rights, are you fine with that?
> The assumption being that the brother sister wont procreate just like the homosexuals wont procreate.
> Just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH??
> 
> Sorry but last I looked, this thread concerned homosexuality. If you would like to start a thread about incest, by all means do.  In the meantime, I'll just say that the two are not the same and, pardon the pun, not related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was trying to draw a paralell bewenn sexual taboos in linking homosexuality to incest - while I agree the two are not the same - his point would have been better served had he used pedophilia or beastiality as an example.
Click to expand...


I was drawing a parallel about 'rights', which Luddly Neddite introduced into the conversation.
Pedophilia or bestiality are not comparable as neither involves adult humans of the age of consent whilst my example did.  Yer just trying to stir up shit.


----------



## emilynghiem

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Why is there a fight? Who's doing the fighting and why are the people trying to prevent gay marriage making me - "Joe taxpayer" foot the bill for their _morality crusade_



Because it's a MUTUAL fight.
1. the gay advocates feel this is natural progression for them to gain equality, no different from the blacks and slavery
2. the blacks and churches who disagree and/or insulted by this, get involved and protest
and push to stop from imposing too far (neutral and open policies are okay, but not imposing further than equal inclusion)
3. the conservatives and christians who disagree jump in and lobby to defend their beliefs against imposition by other beliefs "pushed too far" (again, neutral objective and equally inclusive is okay, but not punishing people for beliefs which is imposing farther)

And all these groups blame the imposition on the other.

The same way you see it as the morality crusaders costing us money with conflict.
Put them in YOUR shoes, [MENTION=45886]Mad_Cabbie[/MENTION]
And they feel the SAME way, that the OTHER group is pushing THEIR agenda "too far"
and introducing conflict to cost taxpayers money

They BOTH feel just like you do. Why is this going on and why do I have to pay for your conflict imposed in other ppl's space? Why can't you stay within your private space?

BOTH argue the other side is "pushing too far" and causing discrimination.
Sad thing is, they are both right.
BOTH are discriminating against the other if they don't arrive at a consensual solution.
So they are BOTH causing the fights and costs if they don't resolve conflicts and
agree on policies or agree to separate. and quit fighting in public at taxpayer expense.


----------



## emilynghiem

Asclepias said:


> I agree its possible but you are talking about behaviors that are not an expression of their sexual orientation. These behaviors are instead motivated by a societal need to conform and or a psychosis. Take for instance a case where a man marries a woman and has children but all along knows he is gay and attracted to men.  Or another case where a male child is abused and thinks that is the only way to obtain love is to have sex with  men but really is attracted to females.  I've heard both cases and I don't consider the behaviors as orientations.



Ok you don't have to call them orientations for them to change.
Nor does someone have to call orientation a mental illness for it to change.

Do we agree whatever changes/healing occurs:
people are merely restoring their natural selves?


----------



## RKMBrown

emilynghiem said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is there a fight? Who's doing the fighting and why are the people trying to prevent gay marriage making me - "Joe taxpayer" foot the bill for their _morality crusade_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's a MUTUAL fight.
> 1. the gay advocates feel this is natural progression for them to gain equality, no different from the blacks and slavery
> 2. the blacks and churches who disagree and/or insulted by this, get involved and protest
> and push to stop from imposing too far (neutral and open policies are okay, but not imposing further than equal inclusion)
> 3. the conservatives and christians who disagree jump in and lobby to defend their beliefs against imposition by other beliefs "pushed too far" (again, neutral objective and equally inclusive is okay, but not punishing people for beliefs which is imposing farther)
> 
> And all these groups blame the imposition on the other.
> 
> The same way you see it as the morality crusaders costing us money with conflict.
> Put them in YOUR shoes, [MENTION=45886]Mad_Cabbie[/MENTION]
> And they feel the SAME way, that the OTHER group is pushing THEIR agenda "too far"
> and introducing conflict to cost taxpayers money
> 
> They BOTH feel just like you do. Why is this going on and why do I have to pay for your conflict imposed in other ppl's space? Why can't you stay within your private space?
> 
> BOTH argue the other side is "pushing too far" and causing discrimination.
> Sad thing is, they are both right.
> BOTH are discriminating against the other if they don't arrive at a consensual solution.
> So they are BOTH causing the fights and costs if they don't resolve conflicts and
> agree on policies or agree to separate. and quit fighting in public at taxpayer expense.
Click to expand...

not really, not on the gay marriage issue...

One side is pushing for liberty to live as they see fit so long as they don't harm anyone.  This for a very basic human right, the right to marry another adult, and yes to have that marriage be on the same legal level as heterosexual marriages.

The other side is pushing for a right to harm others by taking that liberty away from gay couples.  

It's not the same thing.


----------



## emilynghiem

kaz said:


> In extreme cases of trauma, people can have all sorts of reactions to it.  I would agree with that.  I think you're talking about a pretty miniscule percent of gays though here.



Yes, and gays are a small % of the population (estimated 4%?)
and yet public policy, marriage and business laws are all being debated
on how to accommodate gays without imposing on people's beliefs either way.

Obviously size doesn't matter over principle.
If it affects a small % it still must be accounted for to be fair.

Or else we wouldn't even be discussing this
if that small % didn't matter because it's so minor.

Note: even if it's just a small % the same PROCESS that helps
them also helps all people


----------



## RKMBrown

emilynghiem said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> In extreme cases of trauma, people can have all sorts of reactions to it.  I would agree with that.  I think you're talking about a pretty miniscule percent of gays though here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and gays are a small % of the population (estimated 4%?)
> and yet public policy, marriage and business laws are all being debated
> on how to accommodate gays without imposing on people's beliefs either way.
> 
> Obviously size doesn't matter over principle.
> If it affects a small % it still must be accounted for to be fair.
> 
> Or else we wouldn't even be discussing this
> if that small % didn't matter because it's so minor.
> 
> Note: even if it's just a small % the same PROCESS that helps
> them also helps all people
Click to expand...


BS. On the issue of gay marriage, they are not asking for accommodation, they are asking for the bigoted laws against gay marriages to be stricken.


----------



## Inevitable

kaz said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So again back to what I said and you objected to, it seems you have not established any merit for your objection.
> 
> 
> 
> You said I was attacking Christianity, I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I said you don't understand Christians, so you shouldn't say what they think when you clearly don't know.  Just like I said they should not speak for you as they obviously don't know.
Click to expand...

Nobody knows how anybody thinks. To suggest Christians think a certain way and that they all think that way, you are just as guilty as I am.


----------



## alan1

RKMBrown said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> In extreme cases of trauma, people can have all sorts of reactions to it.  I would agree with that.  I think you're talking about a pretty miniscule percent of gays though here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and gays are a small % of the population (estimated 4%?)
> and yet public policy, marriage and business laws are all being debated
> on how to accommodate gays without imposing on people's beliefs either way.
> 
> Obviously size doesn't matter over principle.
> If it affects a small % it still must be accounted for to be fair.
> 
> Or else we wouldn't even be discussing this
> if that small % didn't matter because it's so minor.
> 
> Note: even if it's just a small % the same PROCESS that helps
> them also helps all people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS. On the issue of gay marriage, they are not asking for accommodation, they are asking for the bigoted laws against gay marriages to be stricken.
Click to expand...


They are asking for government involvement in their marriages.  Probably not wise of them considering past government involvement in personal affairs.
If I was homosexual, I'd be fighting against government involvement.  I'm trying to warn them, but they don't listen.
They'll get what they ask for, then regret it.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

emilynghiem said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is there a fight? Who's doing the fighting and why are the people trying to prevent gay marriage making me - "Joe taxpayer" foot the bill for their _morality crusade_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's a MUTUAL fight.
> 1. the gay advocates feel this is natural progression for them to gain equality, no different from the blacks and slavery
> 2. the blacks and churches who disagree and/or insulted by this, get involved and protest
> and push to stop from imposing too far (neutral and open policies are okay, but not imposing further than equal inclusion)
> 3. the conservatives and christians who disagree jump in and lobby to defend their beliefs against imposition by other beliefs "pushed too far" (again, neutral objective and equally inclusive is okay, but not punishing people for beliefs which is imposing farther)
> 
> And all these groups blame the imposition on the other.
> 
> The same way you see it as the morality crusaders costing us money with conflict.
> Put them in YOUR shoes, [MENTION=45886]Mad_Cabbie[/MENTION]
> And they feel the SAME way, that the OTHER group is pushing THEIR agenda "too far"
> and introducing conflict to cost taxpayers money
> 
> They BOTH feel just like you do. Why is this going on and why do I have to pay for your conflict imposed in other ppl's space? Why can't you stay within your private space?
> 
> BOTH argue the other side is "pushing too far" and causing discrimination.
> Sad thing is, they are both right.
> BOTH are discriminating against the other if they don't arrive at a consensual solution.
> So they are BOTH causing the fights and costs if they don't resolve conflicts and
> agree on policies or agree to separate. and quit fighting in public at taxpayer expense.
Click to expand...


No, the gays are just fighting for what we already promised them in the constitution. 

The "moralist" who are sticking their noses into other people's personal affairs are the ones who are keeping this going. 

It's not the governments job to be the morality police - if someone has broken the law, then the government should step in. If the law is in stark contrast to personal liberty, then it should be abolished. 

They aren't asking for "more rights" than straight people - they're asking for the same rights. 

I say give it to them.

Most level-headed people living in America, now feel that way.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

alan1 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and gays are a small % of the population (estimated 4%?)
> and yet public policy, marriage and business laws are all being debated
> on how to accommodate gays without imposing on people's beliefs either way.
> 
> Obviously size doesn't matter over principle.
> If it affects a small % it still must be accounted for to be fair.
> 
> Or else we wouldn't even be discussing this
> if that small % didn't matter because it's so minor.
> 
> Note: even if it's just a small % the same PROCESS that helps
> them also helps all people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS. On the issue of gay marriage, they are not asking for accommodation, they are asking for the bigoted laws against gay marriages to be stricken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are asking for government involvement in their marriages.  Probably not wise of them considering past government involvement in personal affairs.
> If I was homosexual, I'd be fighting against government involvement.  I'm trying to warn them, but they don't listen.
> They'll get what they ask for, then regret it.
Click to expand...


That is a really lame idea - to not want the government to have a say, because they muck stuff up. 

The Government has failed us before, so we don't need them? Do you refuse legal council for a lawsuit, because lawyers are crooked? 

Not if you have any sense.


----------



## GreenBean

alan1 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> HUH??
> 
> Sorry but last I looked, this thread concerned homosexuality. If you would like to start a thread about incest, by all means do.  In the meantime, I'll just say that the two are not the same and, pardon the pun, not related.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to draw a paralell bewenn sexual taboos in linking homosexuality to incest - while I agree the two are not the same - his point would have been better served had he used pedophilia or beastiality as an example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was drawing a parallel about 'rights', which Luddly Neddite introduced into the conversation.
> Pedophilia or bestiality are not comparable as neither involves adult humans of the age of consent whilst my example did.  Yer just trying to stir up shit.
Click to expand...


So then you are supporting the "rights" of homosexuals to fornicate with children and hamsters ? 

Hmmmmm  ... berry berry interesting -
Glad you brought that out in the open - that took a lot of courage - coming out like that - do you think PETA might have a thing or two to say about  that kind of activity - ya know hamsters have rights too ?  You know those PETA people they are so homophobic - don't you agree ?


----------



## alan1

Mad_Cabbie said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS. On the issue of gay marriage, they are not asking for accommodation, they are asking for the bigoted laws against gay marriages to be stricken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are asking for government involvement in their marriages.  Probably not wise of them considering past government involvement in personal affairs.
> If I was homosexual, I'd be fighting against government involvement.  I'm trying to warn them, but they don't listen.
> They'll get what they ask for, then regret it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a really lame idea - to not want the government to have a say, because they muck stuff up.
> 
> The Government has failed us before, so we don't need them? Do you refuse legal council for a lawsuit, because lawyers are crooked?
> 
> Not if you have any sense.
Click to expand...


History has shown that government tends to fuck most things up when it comes to social affairs, not the same for lawyers and law.  Your comparison is idiotic.


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What causes any compulsive behavior?  It's not genetics.  There is nothing about genetics that causes a man to be turned on by watching women wearing high heel shoes stomp small animals to death, but some men are turned on by that.
> 
> 
> 
> Fetishes are typically acquired, being that homosexuals tend to cohabitate, become involved in romantic relationships sometimes even abstaining from sexual contact until it isdeemed appropriate, it doesn't seem reasonable to equate it to merely something that you getyour jollies from. That tends to be the staple mischaracterization from people that argue against homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Katzndogz and Inevitable:
> Some fetishes, phobias or obsessions could be spiritually born or caused.
> 
> Some therapists are trying to get more research done on this angle --
> where karma from past generations can be carried spiritually and influence
> people not genetically connected, including "phobias" or other irrational obsessions.
> 
> I met a woman who had such a phobia, and went to a therapist who used a combination of Buddhist past life regression and Christian prayer to identify and heal the connection from the past which, when released, eliminated the phobic reactions (in her case she had some emotional attachment associated with "candles" and "fire", while another friend of mine had fear of "hair" and also irrational attraction to "antique carved furniture legs" that she came to peace with as spiritually connected to people from past generations who lived or died in some way related to those things.)
> 
> This "spiritual connection" is IMPOSSIBLE to prove,
> but the PROCESS of healing phobias/obsessions by going through the steps,
> the METHOD CAN be quantified in stages by professional observation to meet criteria for diagnosis,  similar to doctors treating psychiatric patients by recording their progress.
> 
> The more people who report success in healing, by identifying and releasing connections to past generations, the STATISTICS can show a correlation in outcome/recovery (even if spiritual theories of where this comes from and if it is real or imagined cannot be proven).
> 
> [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]: back to the idea that a condition does not need to be a "pathological disease" with a "proven cause" in order to be HEALED. Someone can have a disdain for "black thugs" and be HEALED of fear by forgiving all negative associations and events related. And that is not a physical pathology or disease. Someone publicly offered to help TX Gov. Perry recovery from his "homophobia" -- what this means is to forgive and heal of negative biases that make him come across as a bigot. Is bigotry a mental illness? In some cases it may be caused by an extreme phobic reaction. If not, it can still be healed by forgiveness.
Click to expand...

again, everything in this post is almost completely irrelevant and has little or nothing to do with the topic.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is mountains of evidence. Your drive to procreate is the strongest urge going after the freeze, flight, or fight response.  The fact this world is populated should tell you that. You honestly think choice has something to do with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If the drive to procreate is  so strong, how do you explain homosexuality at all?* The fact that people, and animals, actually engage in sex when procreation is impossible proves that you are wrong about this. That might lead you  to consider he possibility that you are wrong about other things.
> 
> I doubt it, but it might.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you asked that. Genes or gene expression.
> 
> Your genes have no understanding of if procreation is possible.  Thanks for pointing that out.  That should let you know its hardwired into humans.
Click to expand...


Actually,  a number of different animals know when procreation is possible, humans among them. The human body, like many animals, emits signals when women are fertile, and men can detect them.  

Men Can Smell Fertility, Study Says - ABC News

I actually knew the exact time when my ex wife became pregnant. She never believed me, and I know you won't, but I did. I also knew an ex girlfriend was  lying to me when she told me she was pregnant.

The funny thing is, even though I knew when to procreate, it never once stopped from having sex, because, ultimately, we aren't programmed to procreate. Despite Dawkins claims to the contrary, genes do not control behavior in any species on Earth.

So, even though we are quite capable of knowing when to procreate.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said I was attacking Christianity, I was not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said you don't understand Christians, so you shouldn't say what they think when you clearly don't know.  Just like I said they should not speak for you as they obviously don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody knows how anybody thinks. To suggest Christians think a certain way and that they all think that way, you are just as guilty as I am.
Click to expand...


Kaz did not suggest that, you did. You might not be aware of the suggestion, but you can't claim kaz is not the only person that saw it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Mad_Cabbie said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS. On the issue of gay marriage, they are not asking for accommodation, they are asking for the bigoted laws against gay marriages to be stricken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are asking for government involvement in their marriages.  Probably not wise of them considering past government involvement in personal affairs.
> If I was homosexual, I'd be fighting against government involvement.  I'm trying to warn them, but they don't listen.
> They'll get what they ask for, then regret it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a really lame idea - to not want the government to have a say, because they muck stuff up.
> 
> The Government has failed us before, so we don't need them? Do you refuse legal council for a lawsuit, because lawyers are crooked?
> 
> Not if you have any sense.
Click to expand...


Huh? Are you saying all lawyers are government lawyers?


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> [
> [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] really wanted us to stick to addressing the issue of how can this be
> defined as a disease, pathology, mental illness, etc. by professional medical standards.
> 
> Can we focus on solutions (not problems we ALL know are going on in the media)
> and try to find common terms, language, RESEARCH or studies/examples that explain
> how these "conditions" have been successfully healed or changed without any fraud?


 [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]
What conditions?



> As long as we agree that any change is to "restore people to their natural orientation,"
> (and is NOT to turn people into something unnatural that's not them), we don't have to agree if "ALL cases are" a choice, genetic, caused by social influence, abuse/rape, etc.


If you have some unusual or dangerous proclivities from sexual abuse, please explain how that even remotely effects orientation.



> Can we "table" the points we disagree on, and focus on what kind of changes or healing we WOULD agree is Natural, consistent with science and normal effective therapy, and not rejected by anyone. If we can agree there, these other points may not be such an issue.


The place where we disagree it's the need for change. Why would somebody need to change their sexual orientation? I don't even think it'spossible let alone ethical. 



> Thank you, Gentlemen. I'm glad if we can agree on something!
> That there is more that is being missed, so how do we work toward that as a team?


We don't agree, I think you are dead wrong to suggest sexual orientation is acquired via rape or sexual abuse, I further think you are dead wrong to insist that people can change it via whichever method of the week you choose.


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> Hi [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] and [MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION]
> Thanks for developing a very interesting and diverse thread with different angles.
> 
> 1. Healing still applies, WITHOUT Homosexuality being a "disease or mental illness."


 [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]
What on earth is unwell or in need of healing about homosexuality? I think the best cure is for people to stop insisting there is something wrong with gay people, you can't explain thatthere is any condition that even needs healing based on sexual orientation. 



> Factoring in the studies, PROCESS, and results of effective natural healing
> DOES change the statistical data and medical findings, and the resulting conclusions.
> 
> *So Inevitable, it can make the difference between drawing a false or true conclusion.*


Natural healing is rather meaningless to me. Not sure that phrase even has a meaning.



> 2. "Faith healing" (as in "blind praying for an outcome") is faulty and NOT what is meant.
> 
> Real spiritual healing is about "praying to receive forgiveness" over conflicts that were previously blocking natural healing; and it is NOT about "dictating" conditions or results.


From what you have explained thus far, "natural healing" is hocuspocus. I recall asking you several times what natural healing was and why it should be regarded as anything only to be ignored. 



> It is about taking the steps to RECEIVE natural healing after obstructions are removed by forgiving the issues, memories, conflicts, motions and perceptions attached, letting go.


What on earth does this have to do with the thread?



> *So it's NOT "faith healing" and it doesn't depend on homosexuality being a "disease."*


So explain to me then why you feel it's so important to push your faith healing on the thread about homosexuality and frankly any thread regarding this topic. It's beginning to become insulting. Are you posting this as a cure for homosexuality?f





> BTW I'm glad to know you are Christian, if that helps you understand there is a bigger process going on. I believe science can prove the healing of other mental illness such as schizophrenia, using the same methods, and resolve a lot of these issues at the same time. That's why I see a connection. How can you research one without affecting all applications.
> 
> The mind/body follow a natural healing process that works for all people (if something is not forgiven or resolved in the past, it can build up negative memories and emotions and block the mind/body from the natural flow of life's healing energy and process; and if the blocked memory or conflict is removed by forgiveness, this unblocks that natural energy flow so the mind/body can heal as they are designed).
> 
> Conditions DON't have to be an "illness, disease or disorder" to be healed this way.


This is exactly what I meant when I said it's beginning to be insulting. Why do you think homosexuality is a condition or that people need to be healed from it?


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said you don't understand Christians, so you shouldn't say what they think when you clearly don't know.  Just like I said they should not speak for you as they obviously don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody knows how anybody thinks. To suggest Christians think a certain way and that they all think that way, you are just as guilty as I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kaz did not suggest that, you did. You might not be aware of the suggestion, but you can't claim kaz is not the only person that saw it.
Click to expand...

You make no sense.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If the drive to procreate is  so strong, how do you explain homosexuality at all?* The fact that people, and animals, actually engage in sex when procreation is impossible proves that you are wrong about this. That might lead you  to consider he possibility that you are wrong about other things.
> 
> I doubt it, but it might.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you asked that. Genes or gene expression.
> 
> Your genes have no understanding of if procreation is possible.  Thanks for pointing that out.  That should let you know its hardwired into humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually,  a number of different animals know when procreation is possible, humans among them. The human body, like many animals, emits signals when women are fertile, and men can detect them.
> 
> Men Can Smell Fertility, Study Says - ABC News
> 
> I actually knew the exact time when my ex wife became pregnant. She never believed me, and I know you won't, but I did. I also knew an ex girlfriend was  lying to me when she told me she was pregnant.
> 
> The funny thing is, even though I knew when to procreate, it never once stopped from having sex, because, ultimately, we aren't programmed to procreate. Despite Dawkins claims to the contrary, genes do not control behavior in any species on Earth.
> 
> So, even though we are quite capable of knowing when to procreate.
Click to expand...


Some animals and very few people can tell when the optimum time is to procreate.  That has nothing to do with the genes the express this urge. You may be able to sense it but most people cant or have lost the ability to recognize it.  It wont stop you from having sex because your genes have instilled that urge to procreate regardless of it being the best time or not.  Like most procreation its a hit or miss proposition.  I thought you said on another thread you were gay?  Maybe I got you mixed up with someone else?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

GreenBean said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to draw a paralell bewenn sexual taboos in linking homosexuality to incest - while I agree the two are not the same - his point would have been better served had he used pedophilia or beastiality as an example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was drawing a parallel about 'rights', which Luddly Neddite introduced into the conversation.
> Pedophilia or bestiality are not comparable as neither involves adult humans of the age of consent whilst my example did.  Yer just trying to stir up shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you are supporting the "rights" of homosexuals to fornicate with children and hamsters ?
Click to expand...


He never said that. He never said that at all - just stop already.

I think you're looking for the FZ.


----------



## kaz

emilynghiem said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> In extreme cases of trauma, people can have all sorts of reactions to it.  I would agree with that.  I think you're talking about a pretty miniscule percent of gays though here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and gays are a small % of the population (estimated 4%?)
> and yet public policy, marriage and business laws are all being debated
> on how to accommodate gays without imposing on people's beliefs either way.
> 
> Obviously size doesn't matter over principle.
> If it affects a small % it still must be accounted for to be fair.
> 
> Or else we wouldn't even be discussing this
> if that small % didn't matter because it's so minor.
> 
> Note: even if it's just a small % the same PROCESS that helps
> them also helps all people
Click to expand...


I'm not saying that because it's a small percentage that it's irrelevant.  I am just saying that I wasn't taking the thread discussion to mean in every case but in general.  I'm not saying this as a rebuttal because I think you implied otherwise, just clarifying.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> In extreme cases of trauma, people can have all sorts of reactions to it.  I would agree with that.  I think you're talking about a pretty miniscule percent of gays though here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and gays are a small % of the population (estimated 4%?)
> and yet public policy, marriage and business laws are all being debated
> on how to accommodate gays without imposing on people's beliefs either way.
> 
> Obviously size doesn't matter over principle.
> If it affects a small % it still must be accounted for to be fair.
> 
> Or else we wouldn't even be discussing this
> if that small % didn't matter because it's so minor.
> 
> Note: even if it's just a small % the same PROCESS that helps
> them also helps all people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS. On the issue of gay marriage, they are not asking for accommodation, they are asking for the bigoted laws against gay marriages to be stricken.
Click to expand...


Be honest, validation by the collective is a big part of it as well.  That's where I disagree with them.  I don't think validation at the point of a gun is acceptance and validation should be gained by vote, not criminal judicial decrees.


----------



## kaz

Inevitable said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said I was attacking Christianity, I was not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said you don't understand Christians, so you shouldn't say what they think when you clearly don't know.  Just like I said they should not speak for you as they obviously don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody knows how anybody thinks. To suggest Christians think a certain way and that they all think that way, you are just as guilty as I am.
Click to expand...


You said conformity was the primary reason for religion.  My disagreeing with your sweeping statement makes me as guilty as you are because I am suggesting they think a certain way?  That I disagreed with your sweeping statement?

You are a word parser, and a poor one at that.  I'll take your posts for what they are worth until I get more quality in response.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Something that always occurs to me about this subject is 'who's it benefitting?' Why ask the question in the first place? If it's genetic, then homosexuals and heterosexuals are blameless right? If it's a choice then they're both culpable. But who's that benefit? All the people against homosexuals probably WANT it to not be genetic since if it is then they can't condemn homosexuals for being homosexual - God made them that way. If it's a choice, they can. But until we have a scientificly sound answer one way or the other debating it is pointless. Might go wither way, we simply don't have adequate evidence yet to make a conclusion.


----------



## RKMBrown

alan1 said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are asking for government involvement in their marriages.  Probably not wise of them considering past government involvement in personal affairs.
> If I was homosexual, I'd be fighting against government involvement.  I'm trying to warn them, but they don't listen.
> They'll get what they ask for, then regret it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a really lame idea - to not want the government to have a say, because they muck stuff up.
> 
> The Government has failed us before, so we don't need them? Do you refuse legal council for a lawsuit, because lawyers are crooked?
> 
> Not if you have any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has shown that government tends to fuck most things up when it comes to social affairs, not the same for lawyers and law.  Your comparison is idiotic.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.  The main reason govco is in the marriage business is because the marriage license is a legally binding contract between two individuals, thus a matter of law, thus a matter for lawyers should there be an issue with the contract.

Do you want to end contractual law entirely, or just the ones between two people.


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and gays are a small % of the population (estimated 4%?)
> and yet public policy, marriage and business laws are all being debated
> on how to accommodate gays without imposing on people's beliefs either way.
> 
> Obviously size doesn't matter over principle.
> If it affects a small % it still must be accounted for to be fair.
> 
> Or else we wouldn't even be discussing this
> if that small % didn't matter because it's so minor.
> 
> Note: even if it's just a small % the same PROCESS that helps
> them also helps all people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS. On the issue of gay marriage, they are not asking for accommodation, they are asking for the bigoted laws against gay marriages to be stricken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be honest, validation by the collective is a big part of it as well.  That's where I disagree with them.  I don't think validation at the point of a gun is acceptance and validation should be gained by vote, not criminal judicial decrees.
Click to expand...


While I would agree with you that everyone wants to be loved, and no one really wants to be an outcast in their society, I am being honest when I say .... many (all that I know) do not want to to force you to validate them.  What they want is to force the government to stop restricting their liberty on the basis of sexual orientation.


----------



## RKMBrown

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If the drive to procreate is  so strong, how do you explain homosexuality at all?* The fact that people, and animals, actually engage in sex when procreation is impossible proves that you are wrong about this. That might lead you  to consider he possibility that you are wrong about other things.
> 
> I doubt it, but it might.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you asked that. Genes or gene expression.
> 
> Your genes have no understanding of if procreation is possible.  Thanks for pointing that out.  That should let you know its hardwired into humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually,  a number of different animals know when procreation is possible, humans among them. The human body, like many animals, emits signals when women are fertile, and men can detect them.
> 
> Men Can Smell Fertility, Study Says - ABC News
> 
> I actually knew the exact time when my ex wife became pregnant. She never believed me, and I know you won't, but I did. I also knew an ex girlfriend was  lying to me when she told me she was pregnant.
> 
> The funny thing is, even though I knew when to procreate, it never once stopped from having sex, because, ultimately, we aren't programmed to procreate. Despite Dawkins claims to the contrary, genes do not control behavior in any species on Earth.
> 
> So, even though we are quite capable of knowing when to procreate.
Click to expand...


Interesting, and believable.

I can make the hair stand up on my arms in 2 sec on command by commanding my body to generation Adrenalin.

I can also tell north from south with my eyes closed in a strange location with very good accuracy.


----------



## kaz

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody knows how anybody thinks. To suggest Christians think a certain way and that they all think that way, you are just as guilty as I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kaz did not suggest that, you did. You might not be aware of the suggestion, but you can't claim kaz is not the only person that saw it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make no sense.
Click to expand...


Um...

When I said you said Christianity was primarily social, you said no you didn't, you said Religion!  As if that you said religion means you weren't talking about Christianity?  And you said nothing about social!  I found the quote and you used the word "conformity," which is clearly social, it has no other meaning.  Conformity is conforming to social customs.

Then you are a Christian, but you don't go to church, and you think people go their primarily for conformity.

Then when I said your sweeping statement is ridiculous, you said that for me to challenge your sweeping statement was me telling you what Christians think.

And you're telling someone else they "make no sense?"

LOL, you sound like a good guy.  But an effective debater you are not.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS. On the issue of gay marriage, they are not asking for accommodation, they are asking for the bigoted laws against gay marriages to be stricken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest, validation by the collective is a big part of it as well.  That's where I disagree with them.  I don't think validation at the point of a gun is acceptance and validation should be gained by vote, not criminal judicial decrees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I would agree with you that everyone wants to be loved, and no one really wants to be an outcast in their society, I am being honest when I say .... many (all that I know) do not want to to force you to validate them.  What they want is to force the government to stop restricting their liberty on the basis of sexual orientation.
Click to expand...


That is not what liberty means.  Liberty is the right to be left alone to live your own life.  It is not the right to demand anything of anyone else, including government.  But that someone else gets it doesn't change that.


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest, validation by the collective is a big part of it as well.  That's where I disagree with them.  I don't think validation at the point of a gun is acceptance and validation should be gained by vote, not criminal judicial decrees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I would agree with you that everyone wants to be loved, and no one really wants to be an outcast in their society, I am being honest when I say .... many (all that I know) do not want to to force you to validate them.  What they want is to force the government to stop restricting their liberty on the basis of sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what liberty means.  Liberty is the right to be left alone to live your own life.  It is not the right to demand anything of anyone else, including government.  But that someone else gets it doesn't change that.
Click to expand...


Huh?   Liberty does not include the right to demand liberty from government oppression?  HUH?  So if the government takes away all of your liberties you have no right to demand they be returned to you?  No redress of grievances? Huh?  

Which liberties are you willing to forgo to this government? Which of your liberties are you willing to not demand?


----------



## RKMBrown

Liberty -   the quality or state of being free:
a :  the power to do as one pleases
b :  freedom from physical restraint
c :  *freedom from arbitrary or despotic control*
d :  *the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges*
e :  the power of choice

Websters.


----------



## RKMBrown

Arbitrary despotic control, such as is being done to gays on the issue of gay marriage, is a restriction on the "positive enjoyment of various social, political, and economic rights and privileges" that heterosexual couples enjoy today.  It is a set of discriminatory laws punishing American citizens based on their sexual preference, as if their sexual preference is a harm on society, not unlike a felony charge.  What did they do to be punished?  Where is the harm on society that befits this punishment?  We're basing this punishment on an ancient text that said it is a sin.  Really?  It's a sin, therefore they don't deserve the same level of liberty everyone else gets?  Really?


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I would agree with you that everyone wants to be loved, and no one really wants to be an outcast in their society, I am being honest when I say .... many (all that I know) do not want to to force you to validate them.  What they want is to force the government to stop restricting their liberty on the basis of sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what liberty means.  Liberty is the right to be left alone to live your own life.  It is not the right to demand anything of anyone else, including government.  But that someone else gets it doesn't change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?   Liberty does not include the right to demand liberty from government oppression?  HUH?  So if the government takes away all of your liberties you have no right to demand they be returned to you?  No redress of grievances? Huh?
> 
> Which liberties are you willing to forgo to this government? Which of your liberties are you willing to not demand?
Click to expand...


Not giving someone a marriage license is "oppression" and taking "away all of your liberties?"  That's just stupid.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> Liberty -   the quality or state of being free:
> a :  the power to do as one pleases
> b :  freedom from physical restraint
> c :  *freedom from arbitrary or despotic control*
> d :  *the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges*
> e :  the power of choice
> 
> Websters.



LOL, not giving a marriage license is "despotic control."  You've lost it.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> Arbitrary despotic control, such as is being done to gays on the issue of gay marriage, is a restriction on the "positive enjoyment of various social, political, and economic rights and privileges" that heterosexual couples enjoy today.  It is a set of discriminatory laws punishing American citizens based on their sexual preference, as if their sexual preference is a harm on society, not unlike a felony charge.  What did they do to be punished?  Where is the harm on society that befits this punishment?  We're basing this punishment on an ancient text that said it is a sin.  Really?  It's a sin, therefore they don't deserve the same level of liberty everyone else gets?  Really?



Now not giving a marriage license is "arbitrary" despotic control being done "to" gays.  LOL, you're being a complete moon bat.

I want government to leave me alone.  If I got that, I would be in heaven.  The idea they need to give me shit to be happy is inconceivable to me.


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arbitrary despotic control, such as is being done to gays on the issue of gay marriage, is a restriction on the "positive enjoyment of various social, political, and economic rights and privileges" that heterosexual couples enjoy today.  It is a set of discriminatory laws punishing American citizens based on their sexual preference, as if their sexual preference is a harm on society, not unlike a felony charge.  What did they do to be punished?  Where is the harm on society that befits this punishment?  We're basing this punishment on an ancient text that said it is a sin.  Really?  It's a sin, therefore they don't deserve the same level of liberty everyone else gets?  Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now not giving a marriage license is "arbitrary" despotic control being done "to" gays.  LOL, you're being a complete moon bat.
> 
> I want government to leave me alone.  If I got that, I would be in heaven.  The idea they need to give me shit to be happy is inconceivable to me.
Click to expand...


So do you want to end all contract law or just marriage contracts? 

Who's the moon bat?


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arbitrary despotic control, such as is being done to gays on the issue of gay marriage, is a restriction on the "positive enjoyment of various social, political, and economic rights and privileges" that heterosexual couples enjoy today.  It is a set of discriminatory laws punishing American citizens based on their sexual preference, as if their sexual preference is a harm on society, not unlike a felony charge.  What did they do to be punished?  Where is the harm on society that befits this punishment?  We're basing this punishment on an ancient text that said it is a sin.  Really?  It's a sin, therefore they don't deserve the same level of liberty everyone else gets?  Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now not giving a marriage license is "arbitrary" despotic control being done "to" gays.  LOL, you're being a complete moon bat.
> 
> I want government to leave me alone.  If I got that, I would be in heaven.  The idea they need to give me shit to be happy is inconceivable to me.
Click to expand...


So you'd be good with government banning all marriages?  Yes or no?


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arbitrary despotic control, such as is being done to gays on the issue of gay marriage, is a restriction on the "positive enjoyment of various social, political, and economic rights and privileges" that heterosexual couples enjoy today.  It is a set of discriminatory laws punishing American citizens based on their sexual preference, as if their sexual preference is a harm on society, not unlike a felony charge.  What did they do to be punished?  Where is the harm on society that befits this punishment?  We're basing this punishment on an ancient text that said it is a sin.  Really?  It's a sin, therefore they don't deserve the same level of liberty everyone else gets?  Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now not giving a marriage license is "arbitrary" despotic control being done "to" gays.  LOL, you're being a complete moon bat.
> 
> I want government to leave me alone.  If I got that, I would be in heaven.  The idea they need to give me shit to be happy is inconceivable to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do you want to end all contract law or just marriage contracts?
> 
> Who's the moon bat?
Click to expand...


You're losing it.  Is that supposed to be a serious question?  Do you want me to talk to you like a 12 year old as the questions you are asking me?   That logic is like I'm talking to a liberal.

Marriage is not a "contract."  It is a government function, which involves government regulations, taxes, court cases as determined by government not the participants and government can change at any time for any reason because they feel like it, which again is not how a contract works.  The couple is bound by whatever government decides, whether they agree or not. 

To compare that to a voluntary contract is the level of a liberal.  In fact, that's what marriage should be, if a couple wants a contract behind their marriage, they should work it out and have a contract.  If they want a Catholic marriage, they should work it out with each other and their church.  Government should not treat it's citizens differently, like any other contract, they should just provide a venue for remediation.

To call what government does a "contract" is ridiculous, and to suggest that my wanting to end that means I want to end all actual voluntary contracts because of that government bastardization is something I expect from rdean or rightwinger, not you.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arbitrary despotic control, such as is being done to gays on the issue of gay marriage, is a restriction on the "positive enjoyment of various social, political, and economic rights and privileges" that heterosexual couples enjoy today.  It is a set of discriminatory laws punishing American citizens based on their sexual preference, as if their sexual preference is a harm on society, not unlike a felony charge.  What did they do to be punished?  Where is the harm on society that befits this punishment?  We're basing this punishment on an ancient text that said it is a sin.  Really?  It's a sin, therefore they don't deserve the same level of liberty everyone else gets?  Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now not giving a marriage license is "arbitrary" despotic control being done "to" gays.  LOL, you're being a complete moon bat.
> 
> I want government to leave me alone.  If I got that, I would be in heaven.  The idea they need to give me shit to be happy is inconceivable to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you'd be good with government banning all marriages?  Yes or no?
Click to expand...


No.  Government should not have a function called marriage.  They have no power to "ban" what citizens do between themselves.  Not recognizing something is not "banning" it.  Government should treat all it's citizens the same.  Government marriage is discriminatory whether or not gays can get in on the discrimination or not.

That was a "have you stopped beating your wife" question.


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now not giving a marriage license is "arbitrary" despotic control being done "to" gays.  LOL, you're being a complete moon bat.
> 
> I want government to leave me alone.  If I got that, I would be in heaven.  The idea they need to give me shit to be happy is inconceivable to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do you want to end all contract law or just marriage contracts?
> 
> Who's the moon bat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're losing it.  Is that supposed to be a serious question?  Do you want me to talk to you like a 12 year old as the questions you are asking me?   That logic is like I'm talking to a liberal.
> 
> Marriage is not a "contract."  It is a government function, which involves government regulations, taxes, court cases as determined by government not the participants and government can change at any time for any reason because they feel like it, which again is not how a contract works.  The couple is bound by whatever government decides, whether they agree or not.
> 
> To compare that to a voluntary contract is the level of a liberal.  In fact, that's what marriage should be, if a couple wants a contract behind their marriage, they should work it out and have a contract.  If they want a Catholic marriage, they should work it out with each other and their church.  Government should not treat it's citizens differently, like any other contract, they should just provide a venue for remediation.
> 
> To call what government does a "contract" is ridiculous, and to suggest that my wanting to end that means I want to end all actual voluntary contracts because of that government bastardization is something I expect from rdean or rightwinger, not you.
Click to expand...


You are completely wrong.  There is a religious marriage ceremony, and there is also a marriage licence, which is a contract.  The contract, aka. a marriage license that you sign when you get married has nothing to do with the marriage ceremony.  The point of the contract is to have a binding agreement regarding mutual assets.  

I did not say government does a contract.  You are being stupid.  

Government is the law, the law enforces contracts.  In this case a government provided or selected witness, certifies that the two parties agreed to the enter civil union.  It's no different than getting your documents notarized.  However, without government enforcement all contracts would be non-binding worthless pieces of paper.  Duh.


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now not giving a marriage license is "arbitrary" despotic control being done "to" gays.  LOL, you're being a complete moon bat.
> 
> I want government to leave me alone.  If I got that, I would be in heaven.  The idea they need to give me shit to be happy is inconceivable to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd be good with government banning all marriages?  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Government should not have a function called marriage.  They have no power to "ban" what citizens do between themselves.  Not recognizing something is not "banning" it.  Government should treat all it's citizens the same.  Government marriage is discriminatory whether or not gays can get in on the discrimination or not.
> 
> That was a "have you stopped beating your wife" question.
Click to expand...


You're confusing two disparate issues.  

Issue one is can gays get married by a religious institution.  The answer to that question is already yes and always has been yes. Government does not stop anyone from having a marriage ceremony or just claiming to be married, because getting married in the religious sense is merely a non-binding agreement between two people that may or may not have been witnessed.  Well non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage.

The second issue is the one of the legal matter for the civil union of two people who have agreed to enter a marriage contract, aka. marriage licence.

Legal marriage definition:

The legal union of a couple as spouses.  The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3)* a marriage contract* as required by law.

Marriage | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi        [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]:
No, that's clearly a misinterpretation of what I'm saying, Sorry.

I can try to describe it more clearly: is if someone is personally unhappy about their
situation, even their gender if they KNOW their personality/soul is the opposite, 
(like my friend who was resentful he had to present himself as male when inside his personality was born female), 
and THEY/THAT PERSON (NOT anyone or anything in society) feels their natural orientation/gender is [fill in the blank]
then the spiritual healing process is to help them make peace with
WHATEVER they need to be at peace/come out as their NATURAL selves.

This is coming from THEM and what THEY say they are, want or need in life.
That's what determines if something feels wrong or unnatural to them.
If THEY say it isn't working, they're not happy, and want things to change.

So it is NOT up to you, me, APA, Christian or political groups, media,
the Democrat or Republican party to tell anyone what process they can or 
cannot go through to come to peace with who they are naturally as a person.

It can be any form, every person is unique, I've heard just about everything.
Everyone I know struggles to come to peace with themselves in life,
so it really applies to all people but in different ways. Gender/orientation
is just one area, it can be people unhappy about their jobs or their degree.
But it's because THEY know they want something else, not anyone forcing or
guilt tripping them or telling them they can't have or be X Y Z. Most of the 
guilt they want to GET AWAY FROM is from these external sources telling
them the OPPOSITE of what they really want, feel and know inside.

it is NOT about "other people" or "society/institutions" TELLING you this is
wrong, that can't be natural, etc etc.

That is the guilt/fear based "conditioning or programming" that
the spiritual healing works to OVERCOME by forgiveness. NOT to
inject, impose or program more garbage on top of what this
person is fighting to get out of their heads and life so they can be what they want in life.

Inevitable I spent months online with my transgender friend struggling
to get "all that guilt based programming out of his head," so he could
come to peace. I had no idea he would come out as female, so I knew
that had to come from him because it sure didn't come from me!

My point was only to help him forgive and let go whatever was causing his distress fear
and resentment about judgment going on about orientation, gender, sexuality, etc.

And after he let go of all that crap, he came to peace and accepted who he was.
he felt he finally understood what it meant to be embraced and accepted in full
with "God's unconditional love" he never felt before in his life. He let go, 
became new and started all over as his real self, and forgave anything in his
past that was false and not his true being.

After coming out to his wife, family and friends,
He decided on his own to go through the counseling to reassign his gender.
All of that came from him, not from me or anything else around him that
all told him the opposite. I even urged him to finish the whole process first,
get used to his new life BEFORE making irreversible decisions. He already
knew what he wanted, and went through the professional counseling required
before any chemical or medical procedures. but he went ahead and started
on cosmetic changes he was absolutely thrilled about. So that was all him/her. 

I thought we were just discussing how to forgive the misteachings and focus
on the real love and forgiveness that Christianity means; we did talk about
spiritual gender and gender roles in that context, not the other way around.
Whatever it was that helped him let go of guilt fear resentment and unforgiveness
about Christians and judgment, it was not "conversion therapy" to try to make
him something he wasn't. it was the opposite, trying to get away from
programming that told him the opposite and causing him distress and resentment.

Inevitable, I think there is something wrong with me using the term of
therapy if it sounds like "imposing on the outside".

It's like when people argue that Buddhism is of the devil,
based on what their church pastor told them,
but they find out the teachings within Buddhism are NOT
what they were told. And they find it is consistent
with their Christian beliefs and not against them at all,
but actually help them with their beliefs.

Whatever this therapy that works is NOT the conversion/coercive crap.
Something else is going on with effective healing therapy
that is NOT those false, harmful, abusive things
that are indeed malpractice and should be stopped, I agree.

Sorry this isn't clear.

It's easier to describe what it is NOT
* it is NOT faith healing, praying to change to X Y Z, trying to become A B C, etc.
* it is NOT anyone or anything from the outside telling someone, making or forcing
anyone to become something they are not
* it is NOT people faking it to make it, trying to go along with what they are supposed to do to become what anyone or anything else expects them to be which is clearly unnatural or forced
I could list 10 million things it is not, and that is easier than describing what it is
because the process is different for each person.

It is led by THEM not anyone or anything telling them the opposite
of what is true, natural and right for THEM. So the spiritual
therapy is the OPPOSITE of the negative things you think I am saying.

I agree with you     [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] that all those negative
approaches are harmful, wrongful, abusive and disastrous.

It is clear to me we are not talking about the same thing
and that is why you are opposed. I oppose the same things you do.

I apologize in failing to clarify and communicate
so you can see we agree the same dangerous practices need to be stopped.
I totally agree!



Inevitable said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi         [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] and [MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION]
> Thanks for developing a very interesting and diverse thread with different angles.
> 
> 1. Healing still applies, WITHOUT Homosexuality being a "disease or mental illness."
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]
> What on earth is unwell or in need of healing about homosexuality? I think the best cure is for people to stop insisting there is something wrong with gay people, you can't explain thatthere is any condition that even needs healing based on sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Factoring in the studies, PROCESS, and results of effective natural healing
> DOES change the statistical data and medical findings, and the resulting conclusions.
> 
> *So Inevitable, it can make the difference between drawing a false or true conclusion.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural healing is rather meaningless to me. Not sure that phrase even has a meaning.
> 
> From what you have explained thus far, "natural healing" is hocuspocus. I recall asking you several times what natural healing was and why it should be regarded as anything only to be ignored.
> 
> What on earth does this have to do with the thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So it's NOT "faith healing" and it doesn't depend on homosexuality being a "disease."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So explain to me then why you feel it's so important to push your faith healing on the thread about homosexuality and frankly any thread regarding this topic. It's beginning to become insulting. Are you posting this as a cure for homosexuality?f
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW I'm glad to know you are Christian, if that helps you understand there is a bigger process going on. I believe science can prove the healing of other mental illness such as schizophrenia, using the same methods, and resolve a lot of these issues at the same time. That's why I see a connection. How can you research one without affecting all applications.
> 
> The mind/body follow a natural healing process that works for all people (if something is not forgiven or resolved in the past, it can build up negative memories and emotions and block the mind/body from the natural flow of life's healing energy and process; and if the blocked memory or conflict is removed by forgiveness, this unblocks that natural energy flow so the mind/body can heal as they are designed).
> 
> Conditions DON't have to be an "illness, disease or disorder" to be healed this way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is exactly what I meant when I said it's beginning to be insulting. Why do you think homosexuality is a condition or that people need to be healed from it?
Click to expand...


RE: "what needs to be healed"
"what needs to be healed" is different for each person
the PERSON choses their OWN focus of what is bothering them, not "homosexuality" as the focus.
"what needs to be healed"
can be about overcoming:
guilt
fear
anxiety/stress
grief/distress
control issues
abuse
injustice
unforgiveness
betrayal
deception
loss/separation
denial
depression
anger/rage
bullying
conflicting relations
blame
hate/resentment
negatively judging oneself or others
self hatred/destruction
communication problems
mommy issues
daddy issues
political conflicts
religious conflicts
relationship abuse
addiction
obsession
inadequacy/insecurity/low esteem
lack of peace/satisfaction/happiness/joy
etc.

The same process for healing of any negative thoughts, feelings, perceptions, memories, relationships
ACCORDING TO THE PERSON (ie what THEY are unhappy/dissatisifed about and want to see changed)
involves *FORGIVING* the negative things in order to facilitate the natural healing and resolution process

Whatever feels NEGATIVE is *forgiven* in order to fill that space with something POSITIVE

The FOCUS is finding "what is UNFORGIVEN or unresolved" and causing the negative feelings/reactions attached,
FORGIVING that cause and anything related to it, especially forgiving conflicts that cannot be resolved or changed,
so the person can be HEALED of that negativity and all its causes and effects.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd be good with government banning all marriages?  Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Government should not have a function called marriage.  They have no power to "ban" what citizens do between themselves.  Not recognizing something is not "banning" it.  Government should treat all it's citizens the same.  Government marriage is discriminatory whether or not gays can get in on the discrimination or not.
> 
> That was a "have you stopped beating your wife" question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're confusing two disparate issues.
> 
> Issue one is can gays get married by a religious institution.  The answer to that question is already yes and always has been yes. Government does not stop anyone from having a marriage ceremony or just claiming to be married, because getting married in the religious sense is merely a non-binding agreement between two people that may or may not have been witnessed.  Well non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage.
> 
> The second issue is the one of the legal matter for the civil union of two people who have agreed to enter a marriage contract, aka. marriage licence.
> 
> Legal marriage definition:
> 
> The legal union of a couple as spouses.  The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3)* a marriage contract* as required by law.
> 
> Marriage | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...


I know they use the term contract, but as I pointed out it's bogus.

A contract between two parties is something they work out between each other.  If you do this, I will do that.  If I quit my job and raise your kids and you leave me for your secretary you bastard I want half your shit.

A contract is not something that government defines, implements and changes at it's own whim.  That is just a government program.

Arguing with a libertarian that life is unbearable because someone wants things from government and government is being oppressive because they don't give it to them isn't going to ever get you anywhere.  While as a Republican you may still want government, and lots of it, I would think that would bother you less than what liberals want.


----------



## emilynghiem

kaz said:


> I know they use the term contract, but as I pointed out it's bogus.
> 
> A contract between two parties is something they work out between each other.  If you do this, I will do that.  If I quit my job and raise your kids and you leave me for your secretary you bastard I want half your shit.
> 
> A contract is not something that government defines, implements and changes at it's own whim.  That is just a government program.
> 
> Arguing with a libertarian that life is unbearable because someone wants things from government and government is being oppressive because they don't give it to them isn't going to ever get you anywhere.  While as a Republican you may still want government, and lots of it, I would think that would bother you less than what liberals want.



Dear Kaz: Especially for something as personal (and/or spiritual) as marriage,
clearly the govt has no business mandating/regulating it to the point of imposing on religious or nonreligious beliefs.

The people of a state or church would have to agree among themselves what policies on marriage and laws that do not infringe on their beliefs or those of others in that state/church, in order not to impose on people against their beliefs.

So if we had a consensus on laws/marriage first,
we would not protest govt policy, or a church policy, but those policies
WOULD reflect the views, beliefs and consent of the people affected and represented.

The PROBLEM is that when different views of people are under one group
(whether state govt or church, etc).

So either they need to agree on a policy if that is the umbrella for all that group,
or agree to SEPARATE groups under separate policies.

Marriage is going to bring up people's personal beliefs and issues
because it does concern personal relations and/or spiritual/religious beliefs.

So the laws have to be worded carefully or neutral
and the people they apply to must agree on interpretation and wording
so there is no such religious, personal or political conflict over beliefs
either being imposed or infringed upon.

As long as marriage crosses over between church and state,
you either have to have consensus so there is no unresolved conflict,
or agree to separate.

If there is not a consensus, dissenters who feel their beliefs are infringed upon
are suffering from unequal treatment and discrimination by creed or belief.

So consensus is required, even on how to separate jurisdiction and/or write laws
to be neutral and not imposing beliefs, where conflicting beliefs cannot be resolved.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you asked that. Genes or gene expression.
> 
> Your genes have no understanding of if procreation is possible.  Thanks for pointing that out.  That should let you know its hardwired into humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,  a number of different animals know when procreation is possible, humans among them. The human body, like many animals, emits signals when women are fertile, and men can detect them.
> 
> Men Can Smell Fertility, Study Says - ABC News
> 
> I actually knew the exact time when my ex wife became pregnant. She never believed me, and I know you won't, but I did. I also knew an ex girlfriend was  lying to me when she told me she was pregnant.
> 
> The funny thing is, even though I knew when to procreate, it never once stopped from having sex, because, ultimately, we aren't programmed to procreate. Despite Dawkins claims to the contrary, genes do not control behavior in any species on Earth.
> 
> So, even though we are quite capable of knowing when to procreate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some animals and very few people can tell when the optimum time is to procreate.  That has nothing to do with the genes the express this urge. You may be able to sense it but most people cant or have lost the ability to recognize it.  It wont stop you from having sex because your genes have instilled that urge to procreate regardless of it being the best time or not.  Like most procreation its a hit or miss proposition.  I thought you said on another thread you were gay?  Maybe I got you mixed up with someone else?
Click to expand...


Genes do not control behavior, therefore my genes have not given me an urge to procreate even when procreation s impossible.

Feel free to keep digging yourself a nice, deep, hole.
As for my sexual preferences, that is my business, not yours. Perhaps you should learn to stop jumping into people's business.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Delta4Embassy said:


> Something that always occurs to me about this subject is 'who's it benefitting?' Why ask the question in the first place? If it's genetic, then homosexuals and heterosexuals are blameless right? If it's a choice then they're both culpable. But who's that benefit? All the people against homosexuals probably WANT it to not be genetic since if it is then they can't condemn homosexuals for being homosexual - God made them that way. If it's a choice, they can. But until we have a scientificly sound answer one way or the other debating it is pointless. Might go wither way, we simply don't have adequate evidence yet to make a conclusion.



There is adequate evidence to make a conclusion, it is not genetic. There is actually conclusive proof of that, but many prefer to ignore it, most of them on are people who support gays. What I want to know is why are they afraid of the science.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RKMBrown said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a really lame idea - to not want the government to have a say, because they muck stuff up.
> 
> The Government has failed us before, so we don't need them? Do you refuse legal council for a lawsuit, because lawyers are crooked?
> 
> Not if you have any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History has shown that government tends to fuck most things up when it comes to social affairs, not the same for lawyers and law.  Your comparison is idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  The main reason govco is in the marriage business is because the marriage license is a legally binding contract between two individuals, thus a matter of law, thus a matter for lawyers should there be an issue with the contract.
> 
> Do you want to end contractual law entirely, or just the ones between two people.
Click to expand...


Wrong, the main reason the government is in the marriage business is so they can tell people they can't get married.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd be good with government banning all marriages?  Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Government should not have a function called marriage.  They have no power to "ban" what citizens do between themselves.  Not recognizing something is not "banning" it.  Government should treat all it's citizens the same.  Government marriage is discriminatory whether or not gays can get in on the discrimination or not.
> 
> That was a "have you stopped beating your wife" question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're confusing two disparate issues.
> 
> Issue one is can gays get married by a religious institution.  The answer to that question is already yes and always has been yes. Government does not stop anyone from having a marriage ceremony or just claiming to be married, because getting married in the religious sense is merely a non-binding agreement between two people that may or may not have been witnessed.  Well non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage.
> 
> The second issue is the one of the legal matter for the civil union of two people who have agreed to enter a marriage contract, aka. marriage licence.
> 
> Legal marriage definition:
> 
> The legal union of a couple as spouses.  The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3)* a marriage contract* as required by law.
> 
> Marriage | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...


ou realy don't know how little you know.

In Texas you can get married by introducing someone as your wife, or vice versa. This imposes a binding contract on the two people which is witnessed by the person you say it to. This all happens without getting a marriage license from the government in advance.


----------



## emilynghiem

Quantum Windbag said:


> Genes do not control behavior, therefore my genes have not given me an urge to procreate even when procreation s impossible.
> 
> Feel free to keep digging yourself a nice, deep, hole.
> As for my sexual preferences, that is my business, not yours. Perhaps you should learn to stop jumping into people's business.



I would say the "spiritual drive/element in life"
oversees BOTH the manifestation of genetic patterns
AND the person's body/mind/spirit
AND physically the parents we are born to and places/environments we live in
AND the person's relationships with others in life
so that it oversees the interactions and behaviors

If you focus on the spiritual level of life, drive, purpose and will/decisions/choices
then there is no need for conflict between
how much of this manifested as physical, genetic, psychological etc.

Those are still not the root causes
but some of these are manifestations after the fact.

You can argue day and night, which came first
did the chicken cause the egg
or did the egg cause the chicken.

by looking at it spiritually
both the chicken and egg are part of the same process in life.

They happen "in conjunction" 
Whether A or B have a causal relationship or correlation

The issue with homosexuality is whether something
"needs to change or not"
So look at the whole process of what can or cannot change.
We don't need to agree what came from where
as long as the things that are "causing problems" can be changed
and the things that "cannot change" no longer cause problems.

We don't have to agree on everything, since every situation
is different. We may never agree on the chicken/egg scenario,
but we can agree how to fix a problem with the process
of chicken laying eggs, or eggs hatching into chickens,
regardless how we see this process.

What needs to change to resolve a conflict? --> Agree what to change in each case
What cannot change --> Agree to respect those differences, and focus on what can be resolved

If something (like orientation, behavior, BELIEFS) CANNOT be changed
but we THINK they can be or should be and keep pushing to change them,
then we need to change perceptions to resolve the conflict:
* either something we thought could change cannot
* or something can change we thought could not
and the issue is more about perceptions changing, not necessarily the events themselves

If we forgive differences in beliefs that cannot change
and focus on perceptions that can, that is most of the battle.
Once we agree how to work together from there,
then all the other information is much easier to
work through to resolve what can or cannot be resolved in real life.

Most of the conflicts are about perception of change
and FEAR that other people are trying to impose.
Address that first, and the rest follows naturally.


----------



## emilynghiem

Quantum Windbag said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something that always occurs to me about this subject is 'who's it benefitting?' Why ask the question in the first place? If it's genetic, then homosexuals and heterosexuals are blameless right? If it's a choice then they're both culpable. But who's that benefit? All the people against homosexuals probably WANT it to not be genetic since if it is then they can't condemn homosexuals for being homosexual - God made them that way. If it's a choice, they can. But until we have a scientificly sound answer one way or the other debating it is pointless. Might go wither way, we simply don't have adequate evidence yet to make a conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is adequate evidence to make a conclusion, it is not genetic. There is actually conclusive proof of that, but many prefer to ignore it, most of them on are people who support gays. What I want to know is why are they afraid of the science.
Click to expand...


Maybe because they reject "Spiritual levels" of the soul
and "being born that way" based on FAITH

If the simple shortcut to argue in secular terms that
someone is naturally that way or "meant to be"
is by using genetics, then taking away this option
leaves them to explaining based on just pure
"FAITH" that life/God/nature "designed" that personality/soul
to come out that way (not by genetics but spiritually on that level).

So if people are secular and reject Christianity or religion, 
this becomes a problem and is not a choice for some to explain using "FAITH."

They don't want to admit it is faith based.
If they can use science, they can say it's the genetics causing it.

To look at spiritual ways of life, causality and purpose
gets into religious areas they may be trying to avoid.

I have a friend who has a problem with forgiveness
because he associates it with Christianity and religions he rejects.
Unless he finds his own way of coming to peace with the "natural
process" in life, he keeps rejecting this just because he hates religious people preaching judgment,
while being hypocrites, which he cannot forgive.

Because his association with groups he can't stand,
even when forgiveness is offered or explained in other terms,
he still refuses to deal with that.

The opposition to the people/groups/side
is strong enough to trump any information, proof or science
"that appears to help the other side"

Similar to the abortion issue, and ignoring anything
that is being pushed or used by the "opposing side"

The political/religious opposition is stronger
and people will follow that motivation first,
and only approve of information that does not threaten them
or appear to help the other side.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay people are born that way.  Bi sexual people or people who could possibly go both ways are born that way and so are people who are completely hetero.  A complete hetero knows they were born straight.  A complete homo knows they were born that way.  It's the bi sexuals that are confused.  They think everyone thinks the way they do.
> 
> My question, "Is religion a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?"
> 
> Because people are certainly not born religious.
Click to expand...


I believe people are spiritually born to associate with people of certain groups.
So we can have certain relationships and interactions in life 
for our spiritual growth, as individuals and collectively as society/humanity.

I have a friend born into a Catholic family who was unhappy there
and did not find God/Holy Spirit until she became Muslim.
She still thinks Christians are teaching Jesus wrong,
while Christians fault Jews/Muslims who deny Jesus
and can reconcile with Jews/Muslims who accept Jesus and work with Christianity.

I have a friend born into a Muslim family
and considers himself to be
Muslim/Buddhist/Christian and also Pagan

My parents were traditional Vietnamese Buddhists
and I am some nontraditional Constitutionalist
who believes politically in isonomy
and in the spirit of Christ Jesus as "Restorative Justice" fulfilling the
laws in Buddhism, Christianity and the Constitution (including all religions)
as well as Universal Salvation including people of all
views, tribes, nations, groups, regardless of beliefs or not.

So as for choice/birth
I believe I was spiritually meant to reach this state of
working with people and groups of all faiths,
I will always favor the SECULAR approach to language using natural laws,
rational and personal understanding in making decisions by free will 
and educated choice (which is part of my social and environmental
upbringing and influence)
but that even those physical factors of influence
were SPIRITUALLY DETERMINED before birth.
My parents were DESTINED to come to America
so I would be born in Houston, attend the schools I did
and have the teachers I had, so I would "come out this way at the end."

That part was not something I chose
by my parents would say they "chose to come to America'
when I see it as determined to happen.

As for choice, when I speak with Christians, I "choose" terms
that communicate effectively which means using the Bible.
This was NOT my first choice to learn, but it works so I use it.
Some things are "meant" to be said, taught, understood and established
using that language and laws to UNITE people so it is "meant to be."
Not my choice.

but in practice it seems like
I "choose" secular terms to speak with secular thinkers
and Christian terms for Christians and Buddhist
terms for Buddhists, etc.

All these are meant to be. I did not make up those languages,
and did not decide who responds to which ones.

So part is "meant to be" by spirit (not always by birth but may manifest later)
and some manifest as choices in life, where these can be seen as
"meant to be chosen" because they achieve the effective result
that works for the people.


----------



## kaz

emilynghiem said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know they use the term contract, but as I pointed out it's bogus.
> 
> A contract between two parties is something they work out between each other.  If you do this, I will do that.  If I quit my job and raise your kids and you leave me for your secretary you bastard I want half your shit.
> 
> A contract is not something that government defines, implements and changes at it's own whim.  That is just a government program.
> 
> Arguing with a libertarian that life is unbearable because someone wants things from government and government is being oppressive because they don't give it to them isn't going to ever get you anywhere.  While as a Republican you may still want government, and lots of it, I would think that would bother you less than what liberals want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Kaz: Especially for something as personal (and/or spiritual) as marriage,
> clearly the govt has no business mandating/regulating it to the point of imposing on religious or nonreligious beliefs.
> 
> The people of a state or church would have to agree among themselves what policies on marriage and laws that do not infringe on their beliefs or those of others in that state/church, in order not to impose on people against their beliefs.
> 
> So if we had a consensus on laws/marriage first,
> we would not protest govt policy, or a church policy, but those policies
> WOULD reflect the views, beliefs and consent of the people affected and represented.
> 
> The PROBLEM is that when different views of people are under one group
> (whether state govt or church, etc).
> 
> So either they need to agree on a policy if that is the umbrella for all that group,
> or agree to SEPARATE groups under separate policies.
> 
> Marriage is going to bring up people's personal beliefs and issues
> because it does concern personal relations and/or spiritual/religious beliefs.
> 
> So the laws have to be worded carefully or neutral
> and the people they apply to must agree on interpretation and wording
> so there is no such religious, personal or political conflict over beliefs
> either being imposed or infringed upon.
> 
> As long as marriage crosses over between church and state,
> you either have to have consensus so there is no unresolved conflict,
> or agree to separate.
> 
> If there is not a consensus, dissenters who feel their beliefs are infringed upon
> are suffering from unequal treatment and discrimination by creed or belief.
> 
> So consensus is required, even on how to separate jurisdiction and/or write laws
> to be neutral and not imposing beliefs, where conflicting beliefs cannot be resolved.
Click to expand...


You're begging the question.  That's a logical fallacy where you assume the truth of your own position.

I am saying government doesn't need to be involved in marriage at all.   Your whole argument starts with the assumption they do.  No, they don't.  There is no reason a Catholic marriage has to be the same as a Jewish marriage as a civil marriage, and there is no reason government needs any laws regulating marriage.  If people want to agree to a contract, they can do that.

And furthermore, government has no business treating any citizen differently than another.

If we did this, then government homosexual, heterosexual, bigamist or any other marriage discussion would be irrelevant in politics.  It would be between people, their church or whatever other institution they want it to be between.

Government marriage solves nothing and it creates endless problems.  Like having an idiotic public debate about whether gays should have government marriage.  Eliminate the death tax, make taxes flat, make paternity rights based on biology and not paper and reform laws like living will type decisions and the need for government marriage is gone and all citizens are treated equally by the government.


----------



## RKMBrown

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Government should not have a function called marriage.  They have no power to "ban" what citizens do between themselves.  Not recognizing something is not "banning" it.  Government should treat all it's citizens the same.  Government marriage is discriminatory whether or not gays can get in on the discrimination or not.
> 
> That was a "have you stopped beating your wife" question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing two disparate issues.
> 
> Issue one is can gays get married by a religious institution.  The answer to that question is already yes and always has been yes. Government does not stop anyone from having a marriage ceremony or just claiming to be married, because getting married in the religious sense is merely a non-binding agreement between two people that may or may not have been witnessed.  Well non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage.
> 
> The second issue is the one of the legal matter for the civil union of two people who have agreed to enter a marriage contract, aka. marriage licence.
> 
> Legal marriage definition:
> 
> The legal union of a couple as spouses.  The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3)* a marriage contract* as required by law.
> 
> Marriage | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ou realy don't know how little you know.
> 
> In Texas you can get married by introducing someone as your wife, or vice versa. This imposes a binding contract on the two people which is witnessed by the person you say it to. This all happens without getting a marriage license from the government in advance.
Click to expand...


Yeah cause when I said above, non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage. I really meant there is no such thing as common-law marriage.



Yes I am aware that I live in a common-law marriage state.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing two disparate issues.
> 
> Issue one is can gays get married by a religious institution.  The answer to that question is already yes and always has been yes. Government does not stop anyone from having a marriage ceremony or just claiming to be married, because getting married in the religious sense is merely a non-binding agreement between two people that may or may not have been witnessed.  Well non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage.
> 
> The second issue is the one of the legal matter for the civil union of two people who have agreed to enter a marriage contract, aka. marriage licence.
> 
> Legal marriage definition:
> 
> The legal union of a couple as spouses.  The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3)* a marriage contract* as required by law.
> 
> Marriage | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ou realy don't know how little you know.
> 
> In Texas you can get married by introducing someone as your wife, or vice versa. This imposes a binding contract on the two people which is witnessed by the person you say it to. This all happens without getting a marriage license from the government in advance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah cause when I said above, non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage. I really meant there is no such thing as common-law marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am aware that I live in a common-law marriage state.
Click to expand...


My apologies, I missed that.


----------



## emilynghiem

No, I didn't mean that.
I agree with you that if people can agree to keep it out of govt altogether that is best.
But even that is not up to me to decide.

It is up to the people, not just to me, like you said.

It is NOT me imposing my views or this would already be in mediation
before making any more policies or reforms/interpretations of current policies.

I recognize already there are people who "cannot separate church and state"
and because of the CURRENT situation where govt is already involved,
then OF COURSE govt is involved to get it back out of govt.

Sorry this wasn't clear!



kaz said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know they use the term contract, but as I pointed out it's bogus.
> 
> A contract between two parties is something they work out between each other.  If you do this, I will do that.  If I quit my job and raise your kids and you leave me for your secretary you bastard I want half your shit.
> 
> A contract is not something that government defines, implements and changes at it's own whim.  That is just a government program.
> 
> Arguing with a libertarian that life is unbearable because someone wants things from government and government is being oppressive because they don't give it to them isn't going to ever get you anywhere.  While as a Republican you may still want government, and lots of it, I would think that would bother you less than what liberals want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Kaz: Especially for something as personal (and/or spiritual) as marriage,
> clearly the govt has no business mandating/regulating it to the point of imposing on religious or nonreligious beliefs.
> 
> The people of a state or church would have to agree among themselves what policies on marriage and laws that do not infringe on their beliefs or those of others in that state/church, in order not to impose on people against their beliefs.
> 
> So if we had a consensus on laws/marriage first,
> we would not protest govt policy, or a church policy, but those policies
> WOULD reflect the views, beliefs and consent of the people affected and represented.
> 
> The PROBLEM is that when different views of people are under one group
> (whether state govt or church, etc).
> 
> So either they need to agree on a policy if that is the umbrella for all that group,
> or agree to SEPARATE groups under separate policies.
> 
> Marriage is going to bring up people's personal beliefs and issues
> because it does concern personal relations and/or spiritual/religious beliefs.
> 
> So the laws have to be worded carefully or neutral
> and the people they apply to must agree on interpretation and wording
> so there is no such religious, personal or political conflict over beliefs
> either being imposed or infringed upon.
> 
> As long as marriage crosses over between church and state,
> you either have to have consensus so there is no unresolved conflict,
> or agree to separate.
> 
> If there is not a consensus, dissenters who feel their beliefs are infringed upon
> are suffering from unequal treatment and discrimination by creed or belief.
> 
> So consensus is required, even on how to separate jurisdiction and/or write laws
> to be neutral and not imposing beliefs, where conflicting beliefs cannot be resolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're begging the question.  That's a logical fallacy where you assume the truth of your own position.
> 
> I am saying government doesn't need to be involved in marriage at all.   Your whole argument starts with the assumption they do.  No, they don't.  There is no reason a Catholic marriage has to be the same as a Jewish marriage as a civil marriage, and there is no reason government needs any laws regulating marriage.  If people want to agree to a contract, they can do that.
> 
> And furthermore, government has no business treating any citizen differently than another.
> 
> If we did this, then government homosexual, heterosexual, bigamist or any other marriage discussion would be irrelevant in politics.  It would be between people, their church or whatever other institution they want it to be between.
> 
> Government marriage solves nothing and it creates endless problems.  Like having an idiotic public debate about whether gays should have government marriage.  Eliminate the death tax, make taxes flat, make paternity rights based on biology and not paper and reform laws like living will type decisions and the need for government marriage is gone and all citizens are treated equally by the government.
Click to expand...


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Government should not have a function called marriage.  They have no power to "ban" what citizens do between themselves.  Not recognizing something is not "banning" it.  Government should treat all it's citizens the same.  Government marriage is discriminatory whether or not gays can get in on the discrimination or not.
> 
> That was a "have you stopped beating your wife" question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing two disparate issues.
> 
> Issue one is can gays get married by a religious institution.  The answer to that question is already yes and always has been yes. Government does not stop anyone from having a marriage ceremony or just claiming to be married, because getting married in the religious sense is merely a non-binding agreement between two people that may or may not have been witnessed.  Well non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage.
> 
> The second issue is the one of the legal matter for the civil union of two people who have agreed to enter a marriage contract, aka. marriage licence.
> 
> Legal marriage definition:
> 
> The legal union of a couple as spouses.  The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3)* a marriage contract* as required by law.
> 
> Marriage | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know they use the term contract, but as I pointed out it's bogus.
> 
> A contract between two parties is something they work out between each other.  If you do this, I will do that.  If I quit my job and raise your kids and you leave me for your secretary you bastard I want half your shit.
> 
> A contract is not something that government defines, implements and changes at it's own whim.  That is just a government program.
> 
> Arguing with a libertarian that life is unbearable because someone wants things from government and government is being oppressive because they don't give it to them isn't going to ever get you anywhere.  While as a Republican you may still want government, and lots of it, I would think that would bother you less than what liberals want.
Click to expand...


You are still not listening. Without governance of some kind, there is no means to enforce and/or arbitrate a contract between two or more individuals.  Without some means to enforce contracts you could only rely on a man's word as his bond.  The paper of a contract would be worthless without a body to provide enforcement.  

Having a body that enforces contracts without having to have people self enforce agreements is one of the corner stones of civilization since we left the trees.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> If god is perfect, why didn't he ONLY give it to gays and drug users?  Is god a fuck up?


 [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]

If bad things only happened to people we thought deserved it,
we would just let bad things happen, trusting "justice" to take care of things
"after the fact."

Instead humanity is meant to learn to PREVENT bad things from happening.
Until it affects people we KNOW did not deserve to suffer,
sometimes we don't do enough to correct problems.

But when we see innocents suffer and die, and know there was injustice,
then by conscience we study what went wrong and seek to correct/prevent the causes.

If God's will represent achieving lasting good will, good faith relations,
peace and justice in a harmonious society,
then learning to prevent injustice is clearly necessary 
and the bad consequences are part of that learning curve by
experience, by trial and error, studying problems of the past
and what caused bad outcomes in order to make better decisions in the future.

All part of how the human conscience works by nature.


----------



## RKMBrown

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> ou realy don't know how little you know.
> 
> In Texas you can get married by introducing someone as your wife, or vice versa. This imposes a binding contract on the two people which is witnessed by the person you say it to. This all happens without getting a marriage license from the government in advance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah cause when I said above, non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage. I really meant there is no such thing as common-law marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am aware that I live in a common-law marriage state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My apologies, I missed that.
Click to expand...



It's ok  I did sort of jimmy that in.  

I agree with the point that in common law states a marriage license / contract is an unnecessary step as it's there by default.  I heard the other day that Texas was looking at doing the same for civil unions.

IMO the government involvement should only be in arbitrating asset split ups when the marriage/union or common law marriage/union is dissolved.

I'd like to see govco get out of assigning special privileges and benefits to marriages. IMO that on face is a slap in the face to single people.  Does not seem right that we essentially legislate that single people are lessor citizens wrt taxes, access benefits, etc.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> If Americans really believed the jesus stories were real we would be a christian nation.  There would be no seperation of church and state.  Fact is our forefathers were smart enough to know to keep the corrupt churches/religions away from our government/democracy/freedom/nation/fill in the blank.
> 
> Most supposed christians don't even take the bible literally.
> 
> &#8220;Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory &#8211; but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine&#8212;it destroys the foundation of the gospel.&#8221; - Ken Ham



1. The concept of the secular govt and secular laws of the gentiles
IS in the Bible/Christianity also. It does NOT require rejecting Christianity.

This is natural law,  [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]

* The people under religious laws of the church (Jews, Christians, Muslims)
are under that means of authority and address each other using THOSE laws.

* the people under SECULAR laws of science, civil laws, psychology/sociology, etc.
use THOSE laws to address each other in context/language they understand

BOTH folds are part of the same flock
These are NOT in conflict but supposed to be "in harmony"
Natural laws and religious laws are all supposed to reflect Universal truths for all humanity,
just in different forms/languages/contexts that have separate jurisdiction.
This is to help organize people by affiliation so all people can be represented
either directly or indirectly through the body or system they relate to.

2. What Jesus means is Justice.
"Equal Justice Under Law" is on the Supreme Court building
So this is a secular concept also.

You cannot get away from the concept or authority of "Justice"
* whether you use scriptural/Christian terms for Jesus or Justice with Mercy,
* or you use secular laws about Peace and Justice, Restorative Justice
* or Constitutional terms of "Equal Justice or Protection of the Laws"
(see also Houston Police Logo that even states "Order through Law, Justice with Mercy")
These are universal concepts of Law and Justice for Peace.

3. Separation of church and state
means to impose neither authority over the other

It does NOT mean to "reject one for the other"
In fact, we would NOT have to "reject one for the other"
if we quit IMPOSING one on the other in the first place!

So separate and this rejection/conflict doesn't have to happen.
THAT is the point.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing two disparate issues.
> 
> Issue one is can gays get married by a religious institution.  The answer to that question is already yes and always has been yes. Government does not stop anyone from having a marriage ceremony or just claiming to be married, because getting married in the religious sense is merely a non-binding agreement between two people that may or may not have been witnessed.  Well non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage.
> 
> The second issue is the one of the legal matter for the civil union of two people who have agreed to enter a marriage contract, aka. marriage licence.
> 
> Legal marriage definition:
> 
> The legal union of a couple as spouses.  The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3)* a marriage contract* as required by law.
> 
> Marriage | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know they use the term contract, but as I pointed out it's bogus.
> 
> A contract between two parties is something they work out between each other.  If you do this, I will do that.  If I quit my job and raise your kids and you leave me for your secretary you bastard I want half your shit.
> 
> A contract is not something that government defines, implements and changes at it's own whim.  That is just a government program.
> 
> Arguing with a libertarian that life is unbearable because someone wants things from government and government is being oppressive because they don't give it to them isn't going to ever get you anywhere.  While as a Republican you may still want government, and lots of it, I would think that would bother you less than what liberals want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still not listening. Without governance of some kind, there is no means to enforce and/or arbitrate a contract between two or more individuals.  Without some means to enforce contracts you could only rely on a man's word as his bond.  The paper of a contract would be worthless without a body to provide enforcement.
> 
> Having a body that enforces contracts without having to have people self enforce agreements is one of the corner stones of civilization since we left the trees.
Click to expand...


I support having civil courts to enforce contracts, is that what you mean?  That isn't what government marriage is, but yes, I believe contracts should be legally enforcible.

I support having government police, military, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights.  Those are things that expand my liberty rather than contracting them, and they are not doable without government.  Everyone has to buy in, you can't have criminal or civil courts recognized by some and not others.  You cannot have different bodies recognizing land ownership.  I see no solution to those things but government.  

I am also saying that government marriage is not a real contract.  And I've explained why that is so.  It's a government program.  And rather than expanding liberty, government uses it to discriminate between citizens and redistribute wealth.


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know they use the term contract, but as I pointed out it's bogus.
> 
> A contract between two parties is something they work out between each other.  If you do this, I will do that.  If I quit my job and raise your kids and you leave me for your secretary you bastard I want half your shit.
> 
> A contract is not something that government defines, implements and changes at it's own whim.  That is just a government program.
> 
> Arguing with a libertarian that life is unbearable because someone wants things from government and government is being oppressive because they don't give it to them isn't going to ever get you anywhere.  While as a Republican you may still want government, and lots of it, I would think that would bother you less than what liberals want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still not listening. Without governance of some kind, there is no means to enforce and/or arbitrate a contract between two or more individuals.  Without some means to enforce contracts you could only rely on a man's word as his bond.  The paper of a contract would be worthless without a body to provide enforcement.
> 
> Having a body that enforces contracts without having to have people self enforce agreements is one of the corner stones of civilization since we left the trees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support having civil courts to enforce contracts, is that what you mean?  That isn't what government marriage is, but yes, I believe contracts should be legally enforcible.
> 
> I support having government police, military, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights.  Those are things that expand my liberty rather than contracting them, and they are not doable without government.  Everyone has to buy in, you can't have criminal or civil courts recognized by some and not others.  You cannot have different bodies recognizing land ownership.  I see no solution to those things but government.
> 
> I am also saying that government marriage is not a real contract.  And I've explained why that is so.  It's a government program.  And rather than expanding liberty, government uses it to discriminate between citizens and redistribute wealth.
Click to expand...


Not true.  The contract you sign when you get married is a real and binding contract.  Yes there are common law contracts in some states, where the contract is assumed to be signed based on mitigating factors. Nevertheless it's a real and binding contract.  Think of it like a license to use a product, you know the part where the package say's if you open this package you agree to these terms.

As to the 20k laws written regarding marriage, yes govco likes to legislate our personal relationships.  Apparently people are voting for it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing two disparate issues.
> 
> Issue one is can gays get married by a religious institution.  The answer to that question is already yes and always has been yes. Government does not stop anyone from having a marriage ceremony or just claiming to be married, because getting married in the religious sense is merely a non-binding agreement between two people that may or may not have been witnessed.  Well non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage.
> 
> The second issue is the one of the legal matter for the civil union of two people who have agreed to enter a marriage contract, aka. marriage licence.
> 
> Legal marriage definition:
> 
> The legal union of a couple as spouses.  The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3)* a marriage contract* as required by law.
> 
> Marriage | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know they use the term contract, but as I pointed out it's bogus.
> 
> A contract between two parties is something they work out between each other.  If you do this, I will do that.  If I quit my job and raise your kids and you leave me for your secretary you bastard I want half your shit.
> 
> A contract is not something that government defines, implements and changes at it's own whim.  That is just a government program.
> 
> Arguing with a libertarian that life is unbearable because someone wants things from government and government is being oppressive because they don't give it to them isn't going to ever get you anywhere.  While as a Republican you may still want government, and lots of it, I would think that would bother you less than what liberals want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still not listening. Without governance of some kind, there is no means to enforce and/or arbitrate a contract between two or more individuals.  Without some means to enforce contracts you could only rely on a man's word as his bond.  The paper of a contract would be worthless without a body to provide enforcement.
> 
> Having a body that enforces contracts without having to have people self enforce agreements is one of the corner stones of civilization since we left the trees.
Click to expand...


Ever watch Judge Judy? Did you know that she is no longer a judge, and that those cases she is ruling on are being decided without the official sanction of the government? Both parties agree to arbitration, and are paid a fee for showing up on the show, and the fines are paid out of that fee.

All without government involvement.


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> Hi        [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]:
> No, that's clearly a misinterpretation of what I'm saying, Sorry.
> 
> I can try to describe it more clearly: is if someone is personally unhappy about their
> situation, even their gender if they KNOW their personality/soul is the opposite,
> (like my friend who was resentful he had to present himself as male when inside his personality was born female),
> and THEY/THAT PERSON (NOT anyone or anything in society) feels their natural orientation/gender is [fill in the blank]
> then the spiritual healing process is to help them make peace with
> WHATEVER they need to be at peace/come out as their NATURAL selves.
> 
> This is coming from THEM and what THEY say they are, want or need in life.
> That's what determines if something feels wrong or unnatural to them.
> If THEY say it isn't working, they're not happy, and want things to change.
> 
> So it is NOT up to you, me, APA, Christian or political groups, media,
> the Democrat or Republican party to tell anyone what process they can or
> cannot go through to come to peace with who they are naturally as a person.
> 
> It can be any form, every person is unique, I've heard just about everything.
> Everyone I know struggles to come to peace with themselves in life,
> so it really applies to all people but in different ways. Gender/orientation
> is just one area, it can be people unhappy about their jobs or their degree.
> But it's because THEY know they want something else, not anyone forcing or
> guilt tripping them or telling them they can't have or be X Y Z. Most of the
> guilt they want to GET AWAY FROM is from these external sources telling
> them the OPPOSITE of what they really want, feel and know inside.
> 
> it is NOT about "other people" or "society/institutions" TELLING you this is
> wrong, that can't be natural, etc etc.
> 
> That is the guilt/fear based "conditioning or programming" that
> the spiritual healing works to OVERCOME by forgiveness. NOT to
> inject, impose or program more garbage on top of what this
> person is fighting to get out of their heads and life so they can be what they want in life.
> 
> Inevitable I spent months online with my transgender friend struggling
> to get "all that guilt based programming out of his head," so he could
> come to peace. I had no idea he would come out as female, so I knew
> that had to come from him because it sure didn't come from me!
> 
> My point was only to help him forgive and let go whatever was causing his distress fear
> and resentment about judgment going on about orientation, gender, sexuality, etc.
> 
> And after he let go of all that crap, he came to peace and accepted who he was.
> he felt he finally understood what it meant to be embraced and accepted in full
> with "God's unconditional love" he never felt before in his life. He let go,
> became new and started all over as his real self, and forgave anything in his
> past that was false and not his true being.
> 
> After coming out to his wife, family and friends,
> He decided on his own to go through the counseling to reassign his gender.
> All of that came from him, not from me or anything else around him that
> all told him the opposite. I even urged him to finish the whole process first,
> get used to his new life BEFORE making irreversible decisions. He already
> knew what he wanted, and went through the professional counseling required
> before any chemical or medical procedures. but he went ahead and started
> on cosmetic changes he was absolutely thrilled about. So that was all him/her.
> 
> I thought we were just discussing how to forgive the misteachings and focus
> on the real love and forgiveness that Christianity means; we did talk about
> spiritual gender and gender roles in that context, not the other way around.
> Whatever it was that helped him let go of guilt fear resentment and unforgiveness
> about Christians and judgment, it was not "conversion therapy" to try to make
> him something he wasn't. it was the opposite, trying to get away from
> programming that told him the opposite and causing him distress and resentment.
> 
> Inevitable, I think there is something wrong with me using the term of
> therapy if it sounds like "imposing on the outside".
> 
> It's like when people argue that Buddhism is of the devil,
> based on what their church pastor told them,
> but they find out the teachings within Buddhism are NOT
> what they were told. And they find it is consistent
> with their Christian beliefs and not against them at all,
> but actually help them with their beliefs.
> 
> Whatever this therapy that works is NOT the conversion/coercive crap.
> Something else is going on with effective healing therapy
> that is NOT those false, harmful, abusive things
> that are indeed malpractice and should be stopped, I agree.
> 
> Sorry this isn't clear.
> 
> It's easier to describe what it is NOT
> * it is NOT faith healing, praying to change to X Y Z, trying to become A B C, etc.
> * it is NOT anyone or anything from the outside telling someone, making or forcing
> anyone to become something they are not
> * it is NOT people faking it to make it, trying to go along with what they are supposed to do to become what anyone or anything else expects them to be which is clearly unnatural or forced
> I could list 10 million things it is not, and that is easier than describing what it is
> because the process is different for each person.
> 
> It is led by THEM not anyone or anything telling them the opposite
> of what is true, natural and right for THEM. So the spiritual
> therapy is the OPPOSITE of the negative things you think I am saying.
> 
> I agree with you     [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] that all those negative
> approaches are harmful, wrongful, abusive and disastrous.
> 
> It is clear to me we are not talking about the same thing
> and that is why you are opposed. I oppose the same things you do.
> 
> I apologize in failing to clarify and communicate
> so you can see we agree the same dangerous practices need to be stopped.
> I totally agree!
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi         [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] and [MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION]
> Thanks for developing a very interesting and diverse thread with different angles.
> 
> 1. Healing still applies, WITHOUT Homosexuality being a "disease or mental illness."
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]
> What on earth is unwell or in need of healing about homosexuality? I think the best cure is for people to stop insisting there is something wrong with gay people, you can't explain thatthere is any condition that even needs healing based on sexual orientation.
> 
> Natural healing is rather meaningless to me. Not sure that phrase even has a meaning.
> 
> From what you have explained thus far, "natural healing" is hocuspocus. I recall asking you several times what natural healing was and why it should be regarded as anything only to be ignored.
> 
> What on earth does this have to do with the thread?
> 
> So explain to me then why you feel it's so important to push your faith healing on the thread about homosexuality and frankly any thread regarding this topic. It's beginning to become insulting. Are you posting this as a cure for homosexuality?f
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW I'm glad to know you are Christian, if that helps you understand there is a bigger process going on. I believe science can prove the healing of other mental illness such as schizophrenia, using the same methods, and resolve a lot of these issues at the same time. That's why I see a connection. How can you research one without affecting all applications.
> 
> The mind/body follow a natural healing process that works for all people (if something is not forgiven or resolved in the past, it can build up negative memories and emotions and block the mind/body from the natural flow of life's healing energy and process; and if the blocked memory or conflict is removed by forgiveness, this unblocks that natural energy flow so the mind/body can heal as they are designed).
> 
> Conditions DON't have to be an "illness, disease or disorder" to be healed this way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is exactly what I meant when I said it's beginning to be insulting. Why do you think homosexuality is a condition or that people need to be healed from it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RE: "what needs to be healed"
> "what needs to be healed" is different for each person
> the PERSON choses their OWN focus of what is bothering them, not "homosexuality" as the focus.
> "what needs to be healed"
> can be about overcoming:
> guilt
> fear
> anxiety/stress
> grief/distress
> control issues
> abuse
> injustice
> unforgiveness
> betrayal
> deception
> loss/separation
> denial
> depression
> anger/rage
> bullying
> conflicting relations
> blame
> hate/resentment
> negatively judging oneself or others
> self hatred/destruction
> communication problems
> mommy issues
> daddy issues
> political conflicts
> religious conflicts
> relationship abuse
> addiction
> obsession
> inadequacy/insecurity/low esteem
> lack of peace/satisfaction/happiness/joy
> etc.
> 
> The same process for healing of any negative thoughts, feelings, perceptions, memories, relationships
> ACCORDING TO THE PERSON (ie what THEY are unhappy/dissatisifed about and want to see changed)
> involves *FORGIVING* the negative things in order to facilitate the natural healing and resolution process
> 
> Whatever feels NEGATIVE is *forgiven* in order to fill that space with something POSITIVE
> 
> The FOCUS is finding "what is UNFORGIVEN or unresolved" and causing the negative feelings/reactions attached,
> FORGIVING that cause and anything related to it, especially forgiving conflicts that cannot be resolved or changed,
> so the person can be HEALED of that negativity and all its causes and effects.
Click to expand...


so what you are saying than is your posts have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread?


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If god is perfect, why didn't he ONLY give it to gays and drug users?  Is god a fuck up?
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]
> 
> If bad things only happened to people we thought deserved it,
> we would just let bad things happen, trusting "justice" to take care of things
> "after the fact."
> 
> Instead humanity is meant to learn to PREVENT bad things from happening.
> Until it affects people we KNOW did not deserve to suffer,
> sometimes we don't do enough to correct problems.
> 
> But when we see innocents suffer and die, and know there was injustice,
> then by conscience we study what went wrong and seek to correct/prevent the causes.
> 
> If God's will represent achieving lasting good will, good faith relations,
> peace and justice in a harmonious society,
> then learning to prevent injustice is clearly necessary
> and the bad consequences are part of that learning curve by
> experience, by trial and error, studying problems of the past
> and what caused bad outcomes in order to make better decisions in the future.
> 
> All part of how the human conscience works by nature.
Click to expand...


If god gave gays aids then he gave kids cancer.  All I'm saying.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Americans really believed the jesus stories were real we would be a christian nation.  There would be no seperation of church and state.  Fact is our forefathers were smart enough to know to keep the corrupt churches/religions away from our government/democracy/freedom/nation/fill in the blank.
> 
> Most supposed christians don't even take the bible literally.
> 
> Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The concept of the secular govt and secular laws of the gentiles
> IS in the Bible/Christianity also. It does NOT require rejecting Christianity.
> 
> This is natural law,  [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]
> 
> * The people under religious laws of the church (Jews, Christians, Muslims)
> are under that means of authority and address each other using THOSE laws.
> 
> * the people under SECULAR laws of science, civil laws, psychology/sociology, etc.
> use THOSE laws to address each other in context/language they understand
> 
> BOTH folds are part of the same flock
> These are NOT in conflict but supposed to be "in harmony"
> Natural laws and religious laws are all supposed to reflect Universal truths for all humanity,
> just in different forms/languages/contexts that have separate jurisdiction.
> This is to help organize people by affiliation so all people can be represented
> either directly or indirectly through the body or system they relate to.
> 
> 2. What Jesus means is Justice.
> "Equal Justice Under Law" is on the Supreme Court building
> So this is a secular concept also.
> 
> You cannot get away from the concept or authority of "Justice"
> * whether you use scriptural/Christian terms for Jesus or Justice with Mercy,
> * or you use secular laws about Peace and Justice, Restorative Justice
> * or Constitutional terms of "Equal Justice or Protection of the Laws"
> (see also Houston Police Logo that even states "Order through Law, Justice with Mercy")
> These are universal concepts of Law and Justice for Peace.
> 
> 3. Separation of church and state
> means to impose neither authority over the other
> 
> It does NOT mean to "reject one for the other"
> In fact, we would NOT have to "reject one for the other"
> if we quit IMPOSING one on the other in the first place!
> 
> So separate and this rejection/conflict doesn't have to happen.
> THAT is the point.
Click to expand...


If we were all truly christians or a christian nation and if that many people really believed the bible and took the stories literally, we would only need the bible.  I suspect enough of our forefathers were atheists and insisted we separate church and state.  Thank Justice, I mean god, or whatever you are calling it today.


----------



## LittleNipper

Drunks are born that way...


----------



## emilynghiem

What?
it applies on all levels, not just to the content,
the question and answers, but the biases in research
and people in response to the OP, and the interactions
between people discussing it back and forth.

There isn't a level it DOESN'T apply to.

Did I respond too vaguely to all of this at once?
Sorry  [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] I'm a holistic processor
so it may take me more work to edit
my thoughts down to the answers you were looking for

No offense or distraction intended
I really was trying to stay on point. 
Sorry if that was a complete fail!

See below and the reply to sealybobo
under that.
I am trying to answer the question.
but it is a different answer for each person
I am trying to be fair and include all cases.



Inevitable said:


> so what you are saying than is your posts have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread?



I told you already that 
1. the research you are looking for (to explain what is going
on with homosexuality, is it a mental illness or choice or condition to be changed, etc.)
is going to be SKEWED if it leaves out effective spiritual healing that works

Understanding the process of healing that has changed people's 
perception or actions based on "orientation"
changes the whole question by changing the answers.

2. once you or other researchers understand the process
then this answers your questions, but not in the way you might pose it here

3. if you do not care for the larger process going on with this thread,
with how people interact and perceive each other's
responses and information which I BELIEVE is part of the process
of answering your question with transparency and consistency,
then if all you want is a short answer to just your OP:

A. *it's a choice for people who view their orientation or how they
act on it as a choice* (I have a friend who understands for him, his
bisexual whatever you call it was a choice, and he changed it)

B. it's naturally how people are for those who find that is true for them
*if they come to terms that it is not a choice for them, then it is not a choice*

C. *Unnatural sexual obsession or addiction (of EITHER orientation) can be treated as mental illness*
for those who find this approach more effective to help them solve their issues. 
Just like some people say their depression is not "normally" occurring,
but the serious clinical level of depression considered "mental illness."

*This isn't limited to homosexuality, and doesn't apply to all cases,
as neither do the other answers that vary for different people's situations.

It depends on the person if they find that mental illness applies or not.*

D. *I believe it is an expression of spiritual karma.*
You can say people are "spiritually determined" to have their orientations
or relationships in life.

The question of choice is like asking do we have free will in life, 
is God's will/Nature or fate/karma controlling everything or which things,
 or is there a mix of the two or what.

for some people, they are meant to experience it as a choice.
for others it is not going to be a choice.
so it is not going to be the same for all people and cases.

4. Because people are biased by how they see choices/free will in life
vs. higher laws of karma or God's will etc, this will affect how they view choices
and if they JUDGE people. If they JUDGE people for what they perceive as choices,
this affects how they answer, what they research and how they interpret it, etc.

If someone goes through the healing and forgiveness,
they can even "change their minds" and decide what they
THOUGHT WASN'T a choice IS a choice.
For some people, their spiritual process may change midstream.
*So again, it is not fair to say that it's never a choice or it's always a choice.*

The process of spiritual healing not only applies to 
the people themselves dealing with whatever issues they have
but it applies to people replying back and forth on this thread

So it applies to both the content, the research/backing that people use to respond to the thread, 
and the PROCESS of interacting to answer the question and reply back and forth.


----------



## LittleNipper

Murderers are born that way...


----------



## LittleNipper

Child molesters are born that way...


----------



## LittleNipper

Smokers are born that way...


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> If we were all truly christians or a christian nation and if that many people really believed the bible and took the stories literally, we would only need the bible.  I suspect enough of our forefathers were atheists and insisted we separate church and state.  Thank Justice, I mean god, or whatever you are calling it today.



I think it is by "divine design" we have
* natural laws given in writing through the Constitution
* secular science and teachings through Buddhism, science, social psychology etc.

I find we need ALL these systems to assimilate the knowledge and experience
for humanity to develop as a mature and sustainable society and manage
education and self-government without unnecessary conflict, abuses and waste.

If none of these religions weren't needed, including the Bible and Christianity and Islam and the Quran, they would not be here. Someone needs them and they serve some purpose.
The point is to use all available resources and means we have to organize collaboration
in effective harmonious ways.

[And yes, you can join me in white robes and hippie hair and sandals,
and we can go party after this. If RKMBrown's invitation is still open....]

As for applying to OP / thread topic:
*One reason for Homosexuality may be a "divine factor" created for the purpose of 
bringing about greater understanding.*

The Bible warns that whoever is loved shall be hated, and whoever hated shall be loved.

What if because of homosexuality debates, this truth about spiritual healing finally gets researched, proven medically, in order to save mass populations and resources currently wasted on violence, sickness, political conflict and cycles of abuse and war that could be cured. By discovering the transformation of people and relationships by divine forgiveness and healing.

Before the gay/conversion therapy issue came up
NOBODY I could find cared this much to even consider spiritual healing.

What if ONE PURPOSE of homosexuality is to bring this out as public knowledge?

So this way, it turns out to be true, that the very group the Christians hate so much,
blaming them for all the depravity and loss of family standards, etc.
turns out to be the saving grace. That brings out the true message and meaning
in forgiveness in Christ healing people and relations and restoring new life.

So that is ONE answer to is it a choice.

What if it were designed by God's will/plan or "Laws of Karma" to 
bring peace and balance the scales of justice? So all people are loved equally.


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> What?
> it applies on all levels, not just to the content,
> the question and answers, but the biases in research
> and people in response to the OP, and the interactions
> between people discussing it back and forth.
> 
> There isn't a level it DOESN'T apply to.
> 
> Did I respond too vaguely to all of this at once?
> Sorry [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] I'm a holistic processor
> so it may take me more work to edit
> my thoughts down to the answers you were looking for
> 
> No offense or distraction intended
> I really was trying to stay on point.
> Sorry if that was a complete fail!
> 
> See below and the reply to sealybobo
> under that.
> I am trying to answer the question.
> but it is a different answer for each person
> I am trying to be fair and include all cases.
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what you are saying than is your posts have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you already that
> 1. the research you are looking for (to explain what is going
> on with homosexuality, is it a mental illness or choice or condition to be changed, etc.)
> is going to be SKEWED if it leaves out effective spiritual healing that works
> 
> Understanding the process of healing that has changed people's
> perception or actions based on "orientation"
> changes the whole question by changing the answers.
> 
> 2. once you or other researchers understand the process
> then this answers your questions, but not in the way you might pose it here
> 
> 3. if you do not care for the larger process going on with this thread,
> with how people interact and perceive each other's
> responses and information which I BELIEVE is part of the process
> of answering your question with transparency and consistency,
> then if all you want is a short answer to just your OP:
> 
> A. it's a choice for people who view their orientation or how they
> act on it as a choice (I have a friend who understands for him, his
> bisexual whatever you call it was a choice, and he changed it)
> 
> B. it's naturally how people are for those who find that is true for them
> if they come to terms that it is not a choice for them, then it is not a choice
> 
> C. Unnatural sexual obsession or addiction (of EITHER orientation) can be treated as mental illness
> for those who find this approach more effective to help them solve their issues.
> Just like some people say their depression is not "normally" occurring,
> but the serious clinical level of depression considered "mental illness."
> 
> This isn't limited to homosexuality, and doesn't apply to all cases,
> as neither do the other answers that vary for different people's situations.
> 
> It depends on the person if they find that mental illness applies or not.
> 
> D. I believe it is an expression of spiritual karma.
> You can say people are "spiritually determined" to have their orientations
> or relationships in life.
> 
> The question of choice is like asking do we have free will in life,
> is God's will/Nature or fate/karma controlling everything or which things,
> or is there a mix of the two or what.
> 
> for some people, they are meant to experience it as a choice.
> for others it is not going to be a choice.
> so it is not going to be the same for all people and cases.
> 
> 4. Because people are biased by how they see choices/free will in life
> vs. higher laws of karma or God's will etc, this will affect how they view choices
> and if they JUDGE people. If they JUDGE people for what they perceive as choices,
> this affects how they answer, what they research and how they interpret it, etc.
> 
> If someone goes through the healing and forgiveness,
> they can even "change their minds" and decide what they
> THOUGHT WASN'T a choice IS a choice.
> For some people, their spiritual process may change midstream.
> So again, it is not fair to say that it's never a choice or it's always a choice.
> 
> The process of spiritual healing not only applies to
> the people themselves dealing with whatever issues they have
> but it applies to people replying back and forth on this thread
> 
> So it applies to both the content, the research/backing that people use to respond to the thread,
> and the PROCESS of interacting to answer the question and reply back and forth.
Click to expand...


Your statements have absolutely nothing to do with this topic.


----------



## emilynghiem

LittleNipper said:


> Child molesters are born that way...



Some molesters or predators are born with a criminal illness/mentality
that develops into full blown obsession/sociopathy 

Some pick up the addiction/obsession by
being physically or sexually abused where this wasn't born in them.

Some have both, inherited from the family psychologically/spiritually
and also physically repeating the cycle of abuse.

Because there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals in the population,
it makes sense to find more criminals who are heterosexual than homosexual. 



			
				Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons.
Groth AN said:
			
		

> Abstract
> A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males.
> 
> *The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male.*


----------



## emilynghiem

Inevitable said:


> Your statements have absolutely nothing to do with this topic.



What?

I explained
* WHEN it was a CHOICE
* WHEN it was NOT a choice
* WHEN it DOES involve MENTAL ILLNESS
* and how it could be a
Spiritually Determined factor

How is this NOT answering the question?
It is different for different people
and I listed a number of ways that 
people have described it for themselves!

Are you only looking for people who 
want to say it is a mental illness so you can argue with them?

Were all my answers above fair and consistent
so there is nothing to argue with?

How do these NOT apply?
Did I overexplain them and that is what is wrong?

Sorry I thought I was getting better
at answering not worse!


----------



## Inevitable

LittleNipper said:


> Murderers are born that way...





LittleNipper said:


> Child molesters are born that way...





LittleNipper said:


> Smokers are born that way...


Homosexuality isn't smoking drinking or child molesting, so what point are you making?y


----------



## RKMBrown

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know they use the term contract, but as I pointed out it's bogus.
> 
> A contract between two parties is something they work out between each other.  If you do this, I will do that.  If I quit my job and raise your kids and you leave me for your secretary you bastard I want half your shit.
> 
> A contract is not something that government defines, implements and changes at it's own whim.  That is just a government program.
> 
> Arguing with a libertarian that life is unbearable because someone wants things from government and government is being oppressive because they don't give it to them isn't going to ever get you anywhere.  While as a Republican you may still want government, and lots of it, I would think that would bother you less than what liberals want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still not listening. Without governance of some kind, there is no means to enforce and/or arbitrate a contract between two or more individuals.  Without some means to enforce contracts you could only rely on a man's word as his bond.  The paper of a contract would be worthless without a body to provide enforcement.
> 
> Having a body that enforces contracts without having to have people self enforce agreements is one of the corner stones of civilization since we left the trees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever watch Judge Judy? Did you know that she is no longer a judge, and that those cases she is ruling on are being decided without the official sanction of the government? Both parties agree to arbitration, and are paid a fee for showing up on the show, and the fines are paid out of that fee.
> 
> All without government involvement.
Click to expand...


That's really just governance on a smaller scale formed for a smaller group.


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your statements have absolutely nothing to do with this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> I explained
> * WHEN it was a CHOICE
> * WHEN it was NOT a choice
> * WHEN it DOES involve MENTAL ILLNESS
> * and how it could be a
> Spiritually Determined factor
> 
> How is this NOT answering the question?
> It is different for different people
> and I listed a number of ways that
> people have described it for themselves!
> 
> Are you only looking for people who
> want to say it is a mental illness so you can argue with them?
> 
> Were all my answers above fair and consistent
> so there is nothing to argue with?
> 
> How do these NOT apply?
> Did I overexplain them and that is what is wrong?
> 
> Sorry I thought I was getting better
> at answering not worse!
Click to expand...

Your blathering about something you fail to define, "natural healing," isn't related.


----------



## emilynghiem

LittleNipper said:


> Smokers are born that way...



When is smoking from an addiction and not a natural choice but abnormal compulsion?

When is smoking a "social choice" and can be done or not done at will?

Isn't there a DIFFERENCE between the two?

NOTE: I've never met anyone who believed they were naturally born to smoke.
Most admit they are addicted, or that they "choose to smoke," 
but none say it's part of how they naturally are "as a person."

I know plenty of people, directly or through others, who describe
themselves as naturally gay, or the opposite gender, etc.
(where it's not a choice, and it's not "unnatural" for them,
and certainly not something unhealthy or negative).

But nobody I know says this of themselves about smoking,
so I don't think it can be compared the same way.

(For the people who SAY their sexual behavior is an
unnatural, unhealthy "addiction" yes, that could be
compared, but this does not apply to all cases; 
and where it does apply, it affects more heterosexuals
than homosexuals by % of population alone)


----------



## emilynghiem

Inevitable said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your statements have absolutely nothing to do with this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> I explained
> * WHEN it was a CHOICE
> * WHEN it was NOT a choice
> * WHEN it DOES involve MENTAL ILLNESS
> * and how it could be a
> Spiritually Determined factor
> 
> How is this NOT answering the question?
> It is different for different people
> and I listed a number of ways that
> people have described it for themselves!
> 
> Are you only looking for people who
> want to say it is a mental illness so you can argue with them?
> 
> Were all my answers above fair and consistent
> so there is nothing to argue with?
> 
> How do these NOT apply?
> Did I overexplain them and that is what is wrong?
> 
> Sorry I thought I was getting better
> at answering not worse!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your blathering about something you fail to define, "natural healing," isn't related.
Click to expand...


OK that can be fixed:
1. under the answer to "is it is a choice or something inherent"
and I answered in some cases it can be "Spiritually Determined"
(ie something inherent, but more on a spiritual level)

the reason this applies is that it 
COULD BE ONE of the Purposes for Homosexuality:
to focus public attention on natural spiritual healing
for greater benefit of society to have this knowledge

So for this particular purpose Homosexuality serves,
the conflict itself is meant to force public debate and attention
to methods of HEALING that help save other people with lifethreatening diseases.

This method of HEALING would not have been brought out publicly
EXCEPT that so many people pushed for policy reform on homosexuality
and conversion therapy, that the issues escalated to national public attention.

So that is one answer as to "is it a choice or something inherent":
It is spiritual caused, with one purpose being to uncover knowledge of
spiritual healing to help more people and solve greater problems.

2. I tried to describe the process of "natural spiritual healing"
in a reply to someone else on this thread:

basically it is about identifying any areas of
"unforgiven" conflicts or issues causing negative effects
to mind/body/spirit or relationships,
and praying/agreeing to "FORGIVE" those negative areas
so that these blockages are removed and healed, and all
related emotions and events/relationships also find healing in the process.

What practitioners and recipients have found is that by removing the
blockage of unforgiven things from the past (from this lifetime or
past generations) this RESTORES the natural flow of positive life energy
so the mind/body heals itself as normal; and also people can heal
the relationships around them with the same FORGIVENESS process.

How this applies to homosexuality: 
1. in cases where people healed of unnatural abuse and/or changed
their homosexual "lifestyle/relationships/choices" or whatever they describe it as
the common factor is they went through a spiritual healing process
based on FORGIVENESS
2. however, this does not apply to ALL homosexuality
If someone is naturally the opposite gender or orientation, 
that may not change, or be something they need or want to change;
it does not apply.
3. And this does not "JUST apply to homosexuality" but all people,
whether applied to healing cancer and other physical and mental illness.

 [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
In order to "make any sense" of my answer that homosexuality may
be "spiritually created" as inherent in some cases, a choice in others,
or a disorder/illness to other people who sought and received change,
I explained the full context of spiritual healing so it is clear that
the CAUSES of homosexuality may include DIVINE PURPOSE
of helping A LOT MORE PEOPLE than just affected by homosexuality.

How can I expect you to understand this answer
if you do not understand the profound social, medical and
collective impact of spiritual healing, which can now be
brought to public attention because of the controversy
and publicity surrounding homosexuality and conversion therapy?

You will think this does not apply if I don't explain the full context.
So that is why I included that. Sorry if this isn't clear or understood.


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?



As with all threads this one seems to have wandered off in 15 different directions - 

The OP :* Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?*

Point 1 - Is it inerited ?. ] Inherent = Genetic , Something One is Born With.

A.}No Valid argument nor viable theory exists to suggest that Homosexuality is inherited or something one is born with  -nearly all factual data to date indicates it is an acquired trait - although through no fault of the victims [Gays] - it is believed to be [In most cases]  the result of Early Childhood Trauma.  Study after Study by *unbiased and objective* researchers adds weight to this argument continuoslly. 

One 1992 study found that 37% of homosexual and bisexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact before age 19 with an older or more powerful partner.  The median age of first contact was 10 years old.  - *Multiple Aspects of Sexual Orientation: Prevalence and Sociodemographic Correlates in a New Zealand National Survey*

*Self-reported childhood and adolescent sexual abuse among adult homosexual bisexual men.*

*The  Twin Studies :*

Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

*Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic*

However Geneics is quite possibly *a minor factor *in determining ones susceptibility to the Mental illness or Homosexuality.

So therefore - back to the OP  - *YES - Homosexuality is a choice* , not allways a consious choice - and certainly never an intelligent one - but a choice none the less.

Is it Inherited ? -NO - No scientific data exists that would supprot that argument *It is not INherited*  - allthough susceptibility to it may have minor genetic correlation.


Point 2.] Is it a Mental Illness .

Homosexuality is an unhealthy and self destructive mental condition- harmful not only to the homosexuals themselves, but society as a whole.  The strongest argument the gay activists have for not considering Homosexuality to be an illness is the fact that the APA removed it from their DSM - list of Menatl Illnesses back in the 70s - but that move has been proven over and over and over again to be a political move with no scientific basis of fact , nor even plausible theory to support it's no longer being considered a Mental Ilness . 

 Even the Author of the Motion to have it de-listed Dr. Nicholas Cummings, has stated that the motion he wrote back in the 70s was a grave mistake - and that data since that time has indeed proven it is a Mental Illness that can and has been treated successfully.

The APA itself has prettyy close to zero credibility in the scientific community , although their political clout is tremendous and devestating to the careers of all who oppose them or their socio-fascist political agenda.


POINT 1  - Is it Inherited -*NO*
POINT 2 -  Is it a Mental Ilness - *YES *

So long as nobody has any plausible intelligent facts to present to the contrary - I do believe we can consider this matter closed .


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> I explained
> * WHEN it was a CHOICE
> * WHEN it was NOT a choice
> * WHEN it DOES involve MENTAL ILLNESS
> * and how it could be a
> Spiritually Determined factor
> 
> How is this NOT answering the question?
> It is different for different people
> and I listed a number of ways that
> people have described it for themselves!
> 
> Are you only looking for people who
> want to say it is a mental illness so you can argue with them?
> 
> Were all my answers above fair and consistent
> so there is nothing to argue with?
> 
> How do these NOT apply?
> Did I overexplain them and that is what is wrong?
> 
> Sorry I thought I was getting better
> at answering not worse!
> 
> 
> 
> Your blathering about something you fail to define, "natural healing," isn't related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK that can be fixed:
> 1. under the answer to "is it is a choice or something inherent"
> and I answered in some cases it can be "Spiritually Determined"
> (ie something inherent, but more on a spiritual level)
> 
> the reason this applies is that it
> COULD BE ONE of the Purposes for Homosexuality:
> to focus public attention on natural spiritual healing
> for greater benefit of society to have this knowledge
> 
> So for this particular purpose Homosexuality serves,
> the conflict itself is meant to force public debate and attention
> to methods of HEALING that help save other people with lifethreatening diseases.
> 
> This method of HEALING would not have been brought out publicly
> EXCEPT that so many people pushed for policy reform on homosexuality
> and conversion therapy, that the issues escalated to national public attention.
> 
> So that is one answer as to "is it a choice or something inherent":
> It is spiritual caused, with one purpose being to uncover knowledge of
> spiritual healing to help more people and solve greater problems.
> 
> 2. I tried to describe the process of "natural spiritual healing"
> in a reply to someone else on this thread:
> 
> basically it is about identifying any areas of
> "unforgiven" conflicts or issues causing negative effects
> to mind/body/spirit or relationships,
> and praying/agreeing to "FORGIVE" those negative areas
> so that these blockages are removed and healed, and all
> related emotions and events/relationships also find healing in the process.
> 
> What practitioners and recipients have found is that by removing the
> blockage of unforgiven things from the past (from this lifetime or
> past generations) this RESTORES the natural flow of positive life energy
> so the mind/body heals itself as normal; and also people can heal
> the relationships around them with the same FORGIVENESS process.
> 
> How this applies to homosexuality:
> 1. in cases where people healed of unnatural abuse and/or changed
> their homosexual "lifestyle/relationships/choices" or whatever they describe it as
> the common factor is they went through a spiritual healing process
> based on FORGIVENESS
> 2. however, this does not apply to ALL homosexuality
> If someone is naturally the opposite gender or orientation,
> that may not change, or be something they need or want to change;
> it does not apply.
> 3. And this does not "JUST apply to homosexuality" but all people,
> whether applied to healing cancer and other physical and mental illness.
> 
> [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
> In order to "make any sense" of my answer that homosexuality may
> be "spiritually created" as inherent in some cases, a choice in others,
> or a disorder/illness to other people who sought and received change,
> I explained the full context of spiritual healing so it is clear that
> the CAUSES of homosexuality may include DIVINE PURPOSE
> of helping A LOT MORE PEOPLE than just affected by homosexuality.
> 
> How can I expect you to understand this answer
> if you do not understand the profound social, medical and
> collective impact of spiritual healing, which can now be
> brought to public attention because of the controversy
> and publicity surrounding homosexuality and conversion therapy?
> 
> You will think this does not apply if I don't explain the full context.
> So that is why I included that. Sorry if this isn't clear or understood.
Click to expand...


what is 'natural healing'?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Americans really believed the jesus stories were real we would be a christian nation.  There would be no seperation of church and state.  Fact is our forefathers were smart enough to know to keep the corrupt churches/religions away from our government/democracy/freedom/nation/fill in the blank.
> 
> Most supposed christians don't even take the bible literally.
> 
> Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The concept of the secular govt and secular laws of the gentiles
> IS in the Bible/Christianity also. It does NOT require rejecting Christianity.
> 
> This is natural law,   @sealybobo
> 
> * The people under religious laws of the church (Jews, Christians, Muslims)
> are under that means of authority and address each other using THOSE laws.
> 
> * the people under SECULAR laws of science, civil laws, psychology/sociology, etc.
> use THOSE laws to address each other in context/language they understand
> 
> BOTH folds are part of the same flock
> These are NOT in conflict but supposed to be "in harmony"
> Natural laws and religious laws are all supposed to reflect Universal truths for all humanity,
> just in different forms/languages/contexts that have separate jurisdiction.
> This is to help organize people by affiliation so all people can be represented
> either directly or indirectly through the body or system they relate to.
> 
> 2. What Jesus means is Justice.
> "Equal Justice Under Law" is on the Supreme Court building
> So this is a secular concept also.
> 
> You cannot get away from the concept or authority of "Justice"
> * whether you use scriptural/Christian terms for Jesus or Justice with Mercy,
> * or you use secular laws about Peace and Justice, Restorative Justice
> * or Constitutional terms of "Equal Justice or Protection of the Laws"
> (see also Houston Police Logo that even states "Order through Law, Justice with Mercy")
> These are universal concepts of Law and Justice for Peace.
> 
> 3. Separation of church and state
> means to impose neither authority over the other
> 
> It does NOT mean to "reject one for the other"
> In fact, we would NOT have to "reject one for the other"
> if we quit IMPOSING one on the other in the first place!
> 
> So separate and this rejection/conflict doesn't have to happen.
> THAT is the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were all truly christians or a christian nation and if that many people really believed the bible and took the stories literally, we would only need the bible.  I suspect enough of our forefathers were atheists and insisted we separate church and state.  Thank Justice, I mean god, or whatever you are calling it today.
Click to expand...


You really don't know history, do you?


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As with all threads this one seems to have wandered off in 15 different directions -
> 
> The OP :* Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?*
> 
> Point 1 - Is it inerited ?. ] Inherent = Genetic , Something One is Born With.
> 
> A.}No Valid argument nor viable theory exists to suggest that Homosexuality is inherited or something one is born with  -nearly all factual data to date indicates it is an acquired trait - although through no fault of the victims [Gays] - it is believed to be [In most cases]  the result of Early Childhood Trauma.  Study after Study by *unbiased and objective* researchers adds weight to this argument continuoslly.
> 
> One 1992 study found that 37% of homosexual and bisexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact before age 19 with an older or more powerful partner.  The median age of first contact was 10 years old.  - *Multiple Aspects of Sexual Orientation: Prevalence and Sociodemographic Correlates in a New Zealand National Survey*
> 
> *Self-reported childhood and adolescent sexual abuse among adult homosexual bisexual men.*
> 
> *The  Twin Studies :*
> 
> Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.
> 
> *Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic*
> 
> However Geneics is quite possibly *a minor factor *in determining ones susceptibility to the Mental illness or Homosexuality.
> 
> So therefore - back to the OP  - *YES - Homosexuality is a choice* , not allways a consious choice - and certainly never an intelligent one - but a choice none the less.
> 
> Is it Inherited ? -NO - No scientific data exists that would supprot that argument *It is not INherited*  - allthough susceptibility to it may have minor genetic correlation.
> 
> 
> Point 2.] Is it a Mental Illness .
> 
> Homosexuality is an unhealthy and self destructive mental condition- harmful not only to the homosexuals themselves, but society as a whole.  The strongest argument the gay activists have for not considering Homosexuality to be an illness is the fact that the APA removed it from their DSM - list of Menatl Illnesses back in the 70s - but that move has been proven over and over and over again to be a political move with no scientific basis of fact , nor even plausible theory to support it's no longer being considered a Mental Ilness .
> 
> Even the Author of the Motion to have it de-listed Dr. Nicholas Cummings, has stated that the motion he wrote back in the 70s was a grave mistake - and that data since that time has indeed proven it is a Mental Illness that can and has been treated successfully.
> 
> The APA itself has prettyy close to zero credibility in the scientific community , although their political clout is tremendous and devestating to the careers of all who oppose them or their socio-fascist political agenda.
> 
> 
> POINT 1  - Is it Inherited -*NO*
> POINT 2 -  Is it a Mental Ilness - *YES *
> 
> So long as nobody has any plausible intelligent facts to present to the contrary - I do believe we can consider this matter closed .
Click to expand...


Sorry Greeny proving your claim wrong isn't how it works.


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As with all threads this one seems to have wandered off in 15 different directions -
> 
> The OP :* Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?*
> 
> Point 1 - Is it inerited ?. ] Inherent = Genetic , Something One is Born With.
> 
> A.}No Valid argument nor viable theory exists to suggest that Homosexuality is inherited or something one is born with  -nearly all factual data to date indicates it is an acquired trait - although through no fault of the victims [Gays] - it is believed to be [In most cases]  the result of Early Childhood Trauma.  Study after Study by *unbiased and objective* researchers adds weight to this argument continuoslly.
> 
> One 1992 study found that 37% of homosexual and bisexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact before age 19 with an older or more powerful partner.  The median age of first contact was 10 years old.  - *Multiple Aspects of Sexual Orientation: Prevalence and Sociodemographic Correlates in a New Zealand National Survey*
> 
> *Self-reported childhood and adolescent sexual abuse among adult homosexual bisexual men.*
> 
> *The  Twin Studies :*
> 
> Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.
> 
> *Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic*
> 
> However Geneics is quite possibly *a minor factor *in determining ones susceptibility to the Mental illness or Homosexuality.
> 
> So therefore - back to the OP  - *YES - Homosexuality is a choice* , not allways a consious choice - and certainly never an intelligent one - but a choice none the less.
> 
> Is it Inherited ? -NO - No scientific data exists that would supprot that argument *It is not INherited*  - allthough susceptibility to it may have minor genetic correlation.
> 
> 
> Point 2.] Is it a Mental Illness .
> 
> Homosexuality is an unhealthy and self destructive mental condition- harmful not only to the homosexuals themselves, but society as a whole.  The strongest argument the gay activists have for not considering Homosexuality to be an illness is the fact that the APA removed it from their DSM - list of Menatl Illnesses back in the 70s - but that move has been proven over and over and over again to be a political move with no scientific basis of fact , nor even plausible theory to support it's no longer being considered a Mental Ilness .
> 
> Even the Author of the Motion to have it de-listed Dr. Nicholas Cummings, has stated that the motion he wrote back in the 70s was a grave mistake - and that data since that time has indeed proven it is a Mental Illness that can and has been treated successfully.
> 
> The APA itself has prettyy close to zero credibility in the scientific community , although their political clout is tremendous and devestating to the careers of all who oppose them or their socio-fascist political agenda.
> 
> 
> POINT 1  - Is it Inherited -*NO*
> POINT 2 -  Is it a Mental Ilness - *YES *
> 
> So long as nobody has any plausible intelligent facts to present to the contrary - I do believe we can consider this matter closed .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Greeny proving your claim wrong isn't how it works.
Click to expand...


Sorry Inevitable Denying reality isn't how it works


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Whast is or isn't a mental illness (in the US) is the result of popular voting (a show of hands.) Thus how homosexuality WAS a mental illness until it wasn't any more (1978 if I recall.) So I wouldn't put much stock in what is or isn't. Nor use that definition as a base for anything derived from it. Be just as accurate to say it's caused by demon-possession. Which is to say not very accurate at all. Ultimtely it comes down to wanting to do something with that information and have some kind of empirical legs to stand on.

Bottom line though is simply this: some people are homosexual, most are hetereosexual. But neither is superior to the other because of who they enjoy having sex with. 

What we should be asking and writing lengthy threads about is "Why do some people feel the need to judge another's worth because of who they fancy?"


----------



## GreenBean

Delta4Embassy said:


> Whast is or isn't a mental illness (in the US) is the result of popular voting (a show of hands.) Thus how homosexuality WAS a mental illness until it wasn't any more (1978 if I recall.) So I wouldn't put much stock in what is or isn't. Nor use that definition as a base for anything derived from it. Be just as accurate to say it's caused by demon-possession. Which is to say not very accurate at all. Ultimtely it comes down to wanting to do something with that information and have some kind of empirical legs to stand on.
> 
> Bottom line though is simply this: some people are homosexual, most are hetereosexual. But neither is superior to the other because of who they enjoy having sex with.
> 
> What we should be asking and writing lengthy threads about is "Why do some people feel the need to judge another's worth because of who they fancy?"





> Whast is or isn't a mental illness (in the US) is the result of popular voting (a show of hands.) Thus how homosexuality WAS a mental illness until it wasn't any more (1978 if I recall.) So I wouldn't put much stock in what is or isn't.



A show of hands is hardly scientific - if you were to Take a room full of crackheads and by a show of hands determine that Crack is good and natural - you could by "popular vote" legalize crack.  

Back in the 70s - that's excatly what was perpetraed by the APA - they ignored science and by a show hands [and only a very slim majority at that] they basically made the determination that "Crack is good" and the crackheads proceeded to blatanty moonshine the once sane society with their cracks .



> Nor use that definition as a base for anything derived from it. Be just as accurate to say it's caused by demon-possession.



Demonic possession huh ?  Okay - lets go with that - .  Some modern philosophers and theologians describe demons as a manifestation of the dark side of the Human Psyche.  So using that definition - yes you could conceivably say that Homosexuality is the equivalent of Demonic Possession.



> Which is to say not very accurate at all. Ultimtely it comes down to wanting to do something with that information and have some kind of empirical legs to stand on.



Please elaborate - that statement could be taken into any point on the intellectual compass .



> Bottom line though is simply this: some people are homosexual, most are hetereosexual. But neither is superior to the other



Is a crackhead or alcoholic inferior to a sober person ?  In the respect that they have no control over their substance abuse issues - Yes. 

 In other respects SOME are superior - Truman Capote, a great author whom I had the pleasure of meeting on Long Island many years ago.  He was an alocoholic as well as an abuser of other substances and he was also a rabid foaming at the mouth queer - but to try and claim myself superior to him in the writing realm would be a joke -to try and claim myself superior to him as a human being is very credible..    




> What we should be asking and writing lengthy threads about is "Why do some people feel the need to judge another's worth because of who they fancy?"



Someones worth - outside of their sexal degeneracy is hardly based on who they fancy .
Homosexuality is a self destructive mental issue - arrested sexual development .It is un natural, unhealthy and un-neccessaryact of perverted sexual gratification - no different from pedophillia, beastiality, necrophillia, or other assorted dementias .

If that's how you envision the future then perhaps they should designate a section of the planet for the esclusive use of the perverts - far away from sane people - How's Anarctica sound?


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> As with all threads this one seems to have wandered off in 15 different directions -
> 
> The OP :* Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?*
> 
> Point 1 - Is it inerited ?. ] Inherent = Genetic , Something One is Born With.
> 
> A.}No Valid argument nor viable theory exists to suggest that Homosexuality is inherited or something one is born with  -nearly all factual data to date indicates it is an acquired trait - although through no fault of the victims [Gays] - it is believed to be [In most cases]  the result of Early Childhood Trauma.  Study after Study by *unbiased and objective* researchers adds weight to this argument continuoslly.
> 
> One 1992 study found that 37% of homosexual and bisexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact before age 19 with an older or more powerful partner.  The median age of first contact was 10 years old.  - *Multiple Aspects of Sexual Orientation: Prevalence and Sociodemographic Correlates in a New Zealand National Survey*
> 
> *Self-reported childhood and adolescent sexual abuse among adult homosexual bisexual men.*
> 
> *The  Twin Studies :*
> 
> Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.
> 
> *Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic*
> 
> However Geneics is quite possibly *a minor factor *in determining ones susceptibility to the Mental illness or Homosexuality.
> 
> So therefore - back to the OP  - *YES - Homosexuality is a choice* , not allways a consious choice - and certainly never an intelligent one - but a choice none the less.
> 
> Is it Inherited ? -NO - No scientific data exists that would supprot that argument *It is not INherited*  - allthough susceptibility to it may have minor genetic correlation.
> 
> 
> Point 2.] Is it a Mental Illness .
> 
> Homosexuality is an unhealthy and self destructive mental condition- harmful not only to the homosexuals themselves, but society as a whole.  The strongest argument the gay activists have for not considering Homosexuality to be an illness is the fact that the APA removed it from their DSM - list of Menatl Illnesses back in the 70s - but that move has been proven over and over and over again to be a political move with no scientific basis of fact , nor even plausible theory to support it's no longer being considered a Mental Ilness .
> 
> Even the Author of the Motion to have it de-listed Dr. Nicholas Cummings, has stated that the motion he wrote back in the 70s was a grave mistake - and that data since that time has indeed proven it is a Mental Illness that can and has been treated successfully.
> 
> The APA itself has prettyy close to zero credibility in the scientific community , although their political clout is tremendous and devestating to the careers of all who oppose them or their socio-fascist political agenda.
> 
> 
> POINT 1  - Is it Inherited -*NO*
> POINT 2 -  Is it a Mental Ilness - *YES *
> 
> So long as nobody has any plausible intelligent facts to present to the contrary - I do believe we can consider this matter closed .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Greeny proving your claim wrong isn't how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Inevitable Denying reality isn't how it works
Click to expand...

Sorry greeny you didn't post reality


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whast is or isn't a mental illness (in the US) is the result of popular voting (a show of hands.) Thus how homosexuality WAS a mental illness until it wasn't any more (1978 if I recall.) So I wouldn't put much stock in what is or isn't. Nor use that definition as a base for anything derived from it. Be just as accurate to say it's caused by demon-possession. Which is to say not very accurate at all. Ultimtely it comes down to wanting to do something with that information and have some kind of empirical legs to stand on.
> 
> Bottom line though is simply this: some people are homosexual, most are hetereosexual. But neither is superior to the other because of who they enjoy having sex with.
> 
> What we should be asking and writing lengthy threads about is "Why do some people feel the need to judge another's worth because of who they fancy?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whast is or isn't a mental illness (in the US) is the result of popular voting (a show of hands.) Thus how homosexuality WAS a mental illness until it wasn't any more (1978 if I recall.) So I wouldn't put much stock in what is or isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A show of hands is hardly scientific - if you were to Take a room full of crackheads and by a show of hands determine that Crack is good and natural - you could by "popular vote" legalize crack.
> 
> Back in the 70s - that's excatly what was perpetraed by the APA - they ignored science and by a show hands [and only a very slim majority at that] they basically made the determination that "Crack is good" and the crackheads proceeded to blatanty moonshine the once sane society with their cracks .
> 
> 
> 
> Demonic possession huh ?  Okay - lets go with that - .  Some modern philosophers and theologians describe demons as a manifestation of the dark side of the Human Psyche.  So using that definition - yes you could conceivably say that Homosexuality is the equivalent of Demonic Possession.
> 
> 
> 
> Please elaborate - that statement could be taken into any point on the intellectual compass .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line though is simply this: some people are homosexual, most are hetereosexual. But neither is superior to the other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is a crackhead or alcoholic inferior to a sober person ?  In the respect that they have no control over their substance abuse issues - Yes.
> 
> In other respects SOME are superior - Truman Capote, a great author whom I had the pleasure of meeting on Long Island many years ago.  He was an alocoholic as well as an abuser of other substances and he was also a rabid foaming at the mouth queer - but to try and claim myself superior to him in the writing realm would be a joke -to try and claim myself superior to him as a human being is very credible..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we should be asking and writing lengthy threads about is "Why do some people feel the need to judge another's worth because of who they fancy?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someones worth - outside of their sexal degeneracy is hardly based on who they fancy .
> Homosexuality is a self destructive mental issue - arrested sexual development .It is un natural, unhealthy and un-neccessaryact of perverted sexual gratification - no different from pedophillia, beastiality, necrophillia, or other assorted dementias .
> 
> If that's how you envision the future then perhaps they should designate a section of the planet for the esclusive use of the perverts - far away from sane people - How's Anarctica sound?
Click to expand...

If a show of hands isn't an appropriate way to determine mental illness, than they were wrong in the 50s for using that method to add homosexuality to the list of mental illnesses.


----------



## GISMYS

Inevitable said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whast is or isn't a mental illness (in the US) is the result of popular voting (a show of hands.) Thus how homosexuality WAS a mental illness until it wasn't any more (1978 if I recall.) So I wouldn't put much stock in what is or isn't. Nor use that definition as a base for anything derived from it. Be just as accurate to say it's caused by demon-possession. Which is to say not very accurate at all. Ultimtely it comes down to wanting to do something with that information and have some kind of empirical legs to stand on.
> 
> Bottom line though is simply this: some people are homosexual, most are hetereosexual. But neither is superior to the other because of who they enjoy having sex with.
> 
> What we should be asking and writing lengthy threads about is "Why do some people feel the need to judge another's worth because of who they fancy?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A show of hands is hardly scientific - if you were to Take a room full of crackheads and by a show of hands determine that Crack is good and natural - you could by "popular vote" legalize crack.
> 
> Back in the 70s - that's excatly what was perpetraed by the APA - they ignored science and by a show hands [and only a very slim majority at that] they basically made the determination that "Crack is good" and the crackheads proceeded to blatanty moonshine the once sane society with their cracks .
> 
> 
> 
> Demonic possession huh ?  Okay - lets go with that - .  Some modern philosophers and theologians describe demons as a manifestation of the dark side of the Human Psyche.  So using that definition - yes you could conceivably say that Homosexuality is the equivalent of Demonic Possession.
> 
> 
> 
> Please elaborate - that statement could be taken into any point on the intellectual compass .
> 
> 
> 
> Is a crackhead or alcoholic inferior to a sober person ?  In the respect that they have no control over their substance abuse issues - Yes.
> 
> In other respects SOME are superior - Truman Capote, a great author whom I had the pleasure of meeting on Long Island many years ago.  He was an alocoholic as well as an abuser of other substances and he was also a rabid foaming at the mouth queer - but to try and claim myself superior to him in the writing realm would be a joke -to try and claim myself superior to him as a human being is very credible..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we should be asking and writing lengthy threads about is "Why do some people feel the need to judge another's worth because of who they fancy?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someones worth - outside of their sexal degeneracy is hardly based on who they fancy .
> Homosexuality is a self destructive mental issue - arrested sexual development .It is un natural, unhealthy and un-neccessaryact of perverted sexual gratification - no different from pedophillia, beastiality, necrophillia, or other assorted dementias .
> 
> If that's how you envision the future then perhaps they should designate a section of the planet for the esclusive use of the perverts - far away from sane people - How's Anarctica sound?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If a show of hands isn't an appropriate way to determine mental illness, than they were wrong in the 50s for using that method to add homosexuality to the list of mental illnesses.
Click to expand...


ALL sin is a mental lliness of poor non-thinking choice!!!


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

GISMYS said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> A show of hands is hardly scientific - if you were to Take a room full of crackheads and by a show of hands determine that Crack is good and natural - you could by "popular vote" legalize crack.
> 
> Back in the 70s - that's excatly what was perpetraed by the APA - they ignored science and by a show hands [and only a very slim majority at that] they basically made the determination that "Crack is good" and the crackheads proceeded to blatanty moonshine the once sane society with their cracks .
> 
> 
> 
> Demonic possession huh ?  Okay - lets go with that - .  Some modern philosophers and theologians describe demons as a manifestation of the dark side of the Human Psyche.  So using that definition - yes you could conceivably say that Homosexuality is the equivalent of Demonic Possession.
> 
> 
> 
> Please elaborate - that statement could be taken into any point on the intellectual compass .
> 
> 
> 
> Is a crackhead or alcoholic inferior to a sober person ?  In the respect that they have no control over their substance abuse issues - Yes.
> 
> In other respects SOME are superior - Truman Capote, a great author whom I had the pleasure of meeting on Long Island many years ago.  He was an alocoholic as well as an abuser of other substances and he was also a rabid foaming at the mouth queer - but to try and claim myself superior to him in the writing realm would be a joke -to try and claim myself superior to him as a human being is very credible..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someones worth - outside of their sexal degeneracy is hardly based on who they fancy .
> Homosexuality is a self destructive mental issue - arrested sexual development .It is un natural, unhealthy and un-neccessaryact of perverted sexual gratification - no different from pedophillia, beastiality, necrophillia, or other assorted dementias .
> 
> If that's how you envision the future then perhaps they should designate a section of the planet for the esclusive use of the perverts - far away from sane people - How's Anarctica sound?
> 
> 
> 
> If a show of hands isn't an appropriate way to determine mental illness, than they were wrong in the 50s for using that method to add homosexuality to the list of mental illnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALL sin is a mental lliness of poor non-thinking choice!!!
Click to expand...


According to you. Most people now, no longer view it that way. 

Your constant references to God are getting quite annoying.


----------



## GISMYS

Mad_Cabbie said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a show of hands isn't an appropriate way to determine mental illness, than they were wrong in the 50s for using that method to add homosexuality to the list of mental illnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALL sin is a mental lliness of poor non-thinking choice!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to you. Most people now, no longer view it that way.
> 
> Your constant references to God are getting quite annoying.
Click to expand...


YES!!! SATAN AND DEMONS hate to see anything about GOD posted anywhere,can't you hear them crying,sctreaming,cursing??they know their time is short!! and you??


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> I explained
> * WHEN it was a CHOICE
> * WHEN it was NOT a choice
> * WHEN it DOES involve MENTAL ILLNESS
> * and how it could be a
> Spiritually Determined factor
> 
> How is this NOT answering the question?
> It is different for different people
> and I listed a number of ways that
> people have described it for themselves!
> 
> Are you only looking for people who
> want to say it is a mental illness so you can argue with them?
> 
> Were all my answers above fair and consistent
> so there is nothing to argue with?
> 
> How do these NOT apply?
> Did I overexplain them and that is what is wrong?
> 
> Sorry I thought I was getting better
> at answering not worse!
> 
> 
> 
> Your blathering about something you fail to define, "natural healing," isn't related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK that can be fixed:
> 1. under the answer to "is it is a choice or something inherent"
> and I answered in some cases it can be "Spiritually Determined"
> (ie something inherent, but more on a spiritual level)
> 
> the reason this applies is that it
> COULD BE ONE of the Purposes for Homosexuality:
> to focus public attention on natural spiritual healing
> for greater benefit of society to have this knowledge
> 
> So for this particular purpose Homosexuality serves,
> the conflict itself is meant to force public debate and attention
> to methods of HEALING that help save other people with lifethreatening diseases.
> 
> This method of HEALING would not have been brought out publicly
> EXCEPT that so many people pushed for policy reform on homosexuality
> and conversion therapy, that the issues escalated to national public attention.
> 
> So that is one answer as to "is it a choice or something inherent":
> It is spiritual caused, with one purpose being to uncover knowledge of
> spiritual healing to help more people and solve greater problems.
> 
> 2. I tried to describe the process of "natural spiritual healing"
> in a reply to someone else on this thread:
> 
> basically it is about identifying any areas of
> "unforgiven" conflicts or issues causing negative effects
> to mind/body/spirit or relationships,
> and praying/agreeing to "FORGIVE" those negative areas
> so that these blockages are removed and healed, and all
> related emotions and events/relationships also find healing in the process.
> 
> What practitioners and recipients have found is that by removing the
> blockage of unforgiven things from the past (from this lifetime or
> past generations) this RESTORES the natural flow of positive life energy
> so the mind/body heals itself as normal; and also people can heal
> the relationships around them with the same FORGIVENESS process.
> 
> How this applies to homosexuality:
> 1. in cases where people healed of unnatural abuse and/or changed
> their homosexual "lifestyle/relationships/choices" or whatever they describe it as
> the common factor is they went through a spiritual healing process
> based on FORGIVENESS
> 2. however, this does not apply to ALL homosexuality
> If someone is naturally the opposite gender or orientation,
> that may not change, or be something they need or want to change;
> it does not apply.
> 3. And this does not "JUST apply to homosexuality" but all people,
> whether applied to healing cancer and other physical and mental illness.
> 
> [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
> In order to "make any sense" of my answer that homosexuality may
> be "spiritually created" as inherent in some cases, a choice in others,
> or a disorder/illness to other people who sought and received change,
> I explained the full context of spiritual healing so it is clear that
> the CAUSES of homosexuality may include DIVINE PURPOSE
> of helping A LOT MORE PEOPLE than just affected by homosexuality.
> 
> How can I expect you to understand this answer
> if you do not understand the profound social, medical and
> collective impact of spiritual healing, which can now be
> brought to public attention because of the controversy
> and publicity surrounding homosexuality and conversion therapy?
> 
> You will think this does not apply if I don't explain the full context.
> So that is why I included that. Sorry if this isn't clear or understood.
Click to expand...

  [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]
nothing can be brought to conversion therapy to make it legitimate.  I don't for one momentbelieve that people can be raped gay or abused into homosexuality so there is no way to "heal" from it.   conversion therapy is pure quackery and it serves only one purpose and that it's too torture homosexuals into confirming to dark ages versions of Christianity.

I have no problem with spiritual healing, HOW DARE YOU shove such false words into my mouth.

I asked you several times what natural healing was and you havecompletely failed to answer that question.

I have also mentioned that homosexuality isn't something anybody needs to be healed from. I don't buy for a moment that it is asymptom of abuse or rape, youhaven't made that case,  you have purposely avoided that statement.  

I am going to continue to post these statements you avoid and call you out on false claims until you adress them and stop making them.


----------



## Inevitable

Mad_Cabbie said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a show of hands isn't an appropriate way to determine mental illness, than they were wrong in the 50s for using that method to add homosexuality to the list of mental illnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALL sin is a mental lliness of poor non-thinking choice!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to you. Most people now, no longer view it that way.
> 
> Your constant references to God are getting quite annoying.
Click to expand...


Don't bother with the bible thumpers, there is no knowledge to be gained.


----------



## Inevitable

​


GISMYS said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> A show of hands is hardly scientific - if you were to Take a room full of crackheads and by a show of hands determine that Crack is good and natural - you could by "popular vote" legalize crack.
> 
> Back in the 70s - that's excatly what was perpetraed by the APA - they ignored science and by a show hands [and only a very slim majority at that] they basically made the determination that "Crack is good" and the crackheads proceeded to blatanty moonshine the once sane society with their cracks .
> 
> 
> 
> Demonic possession huh ?  Okay - lets go with that - .  Some modern philosophers and theologians describe demons as a manifestation of the dark side of the Human Psyche.  So using that definition - yes you could conceivably say that Homosexuality is the equivalent of Demonic Possession.
> 
> 
> 
> Please elaborate - that statement could be taken into any point on the intellectual compass .
> 
> 
> 
> Is a crackhead or alcoholic inferior to a sober person ?  In the respect that they have no control over their substance abuse issues - Yes.
> 
> In other respects SOME are superior - Truman Capote, a great author whom I had the pleasure of meeting on Long Island many years ago.  He was an alocoholic as well as an abuser of other substances and he was also a rabid foaming at the mouth queer - but to try and claim myself superior to him in the writing realm would be a joke -to try and claim myself superior to him as a human being is very credible..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someones worth - outside of their sexal degeneracy is hardly based on who they fancy .
> Homosexuality is a self destructive mental issue - arrested sexual development .It is un natural, unhealthy and un-neccessaryact of perverted sexual gratification - no different from pedophillia, beastiality, necrophillia, or other assorted dementias .
> 
> If that's how you envision the future then perhaps they should designate a section of the planet for the esclusive use of the perverts - far away from sane people - How's Anarctica sound?
> 
> 
> 
> If a show of hands isn't an appropriate way to determine mental illness, than they were wrong in the 50s for using that method to add homosexuality to the list of mental illnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALL sin is a mental lliness of poor non-thinking choice!!!
Click to expand...

you haven't a slightest clue what you are even talking about. Your garbage doesn't deserve to be addressed.


----------



## GISMYS

THE "RESULT" OF SIN

   A. ONE RESULT OF SIN IS "SPIRITUAL DEATH"...
      1. The death referred to by God when He warned Adam & Eve - Gen
         2:15-17
         a. Note:  "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou
            shalt surely die."
         b. They did not die "physically" in the day they ate of the
            forbidden fruit, but they did die "spiritually" in that day
      2. "Spiritual" death is "separation from God"
         a. Death of any sort involves the idea of "separation"
         b. Just as physical death is the separation of body and spirit
            - Jm 2:26
      3. "Spiritual" death is what occurs when all sin - Ro 5:12
         a. It occurs when we reach that "age of accountability" where
            we know the difference between right and wrong, and then
            violate God's law - cf. Ro 7:9
         b. This is the "death" referred to in Ep 2:1-3
            1) All who are outside of Christ are "dead in sin"
            2) Those who are "dead in sin" are separated from God and
               all the blessings that would otherwise come from union
               with Him - cf. Isa 59:1-2

   B. ANOTHER RESULT OF SIN IS "PHYSICAL DEATH"...
      1. Because of their sin, Adam and Even lost access to the "tree of
         life" - Gen 3:22-24
      2. Because access to the "tree of life" was lost, all mankind is
         subject to "physical" death - "in Adam all die" (1Co 15:22a)

   C. THE FINAL RESULT OF SIN IS THE "SECOND DEATH"...
      1. This death is referred to in Re 21:8
      2. This "death" involves eternal separation from God!
      3. This "death" Jesus often spoke of and warned about - Mt 10:28;
         25:41-46

[Truly, in more than one sense, "the wages of sin is death" (Ro 6:23);
but the same can be said about "the gift of eternal life"!  No matter
what the result of sin, the promise of eternal life more than makes up
for it!]


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear GreenBean: Thanks for the effort and post to get the thread back on topic.

I still argue it is more a SPIRITUAL manifestation, as part of the process of resolving karma.

So I agree with you it is NOT solely genetic
(though the HIGH 50% match in orientation in twins is still interpreted as showing a TENDENCY even though the lack of 100% match means it is not solely genetic)

But do NOT agree it is necessarily a "mental illness or mental disorder,"
NOT UNLESS someone has been successfully treated as such and reports it as such.

The people I know who benefited from therapy and changed their behavior/relationships
refer more to SPIRITUAL issues and changes they went through, NOT MENTAL ILLNESS.

   [MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION] if you can find such people who AGREE it is Mental Illness to them because this approach helped them "recover" then fine, 
I accept whatever description people use for their own experiences.

Can you cite cases of people who DESCRIBE THEMSELVES and THEIR EXPERIENCES as "Mental Illness"?
And who benefited from this approach? If it works for people, fine. Can you find references to people saying they have a "Mental Illness",
and compare how common this description is in relation to the number of people who describe their experiences as a "spiritual change" or as either a "choice"/"not a choice"?



GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As with all threads this one seems to have wandered off in 15 different directions -
> 
> The OP :* Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?*
> 
> Point 1 - Is it inerited ?. ] Inherent = Genetic , Something One is Born With.
> 
> A.}No Valid argument nor viable theory exists to suggest that Homosexuality is inherited or something one is born with  -nearly all factual data to date indicates it is an acquired trait - although through no fault of the victims [Gays] - it is believed to be [In most cases]  the result of Early Childhood Trauma.  Study after Study by *unbiased and objective* researchers adds weight to this argument continuoslly.
> 
> One 1992 study found that 37% of homosexual and bisexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact before age 19 with an older or more powerful partner.  The median age of first contact was 10 years old.  - *Multiple Aspects of Sexual Orientation: Prevalence and Sociodemographic Correlates in a New Zealand National Survey*
> 
> *Self-reported childhood and adolescent sexual abuse among adult homosexual bisexual men.*
> 
> *The  Twin Studies :*
> 
> Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.
> 
> *Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic*
> 
> However Geneics is quite possibly *a minor factor *in determining ones susceptibility to the Mental illness or Homosexuality.
> 
> So therefore - back to the OP  - *YES - Homosexuality is a choice* , not allways a consious choice - and certainly never an intelligent one - but a choice none the less.
> 
> Is it Inherited ? -NO - No scientific data exists that would supprot that argument *It is not INherited*  - allthough susceptibility to it may have minor genetic correlation.
> 
> 
> Point 2.] Is it a Mental Illness .
> 
> Homosexuality is an unhealthy and self destructive mental condition- harmful not only to the homosexuals themselves, but society as a whole.  The strongest argument the gay activists have for not considering Homosexuality to be an illness is the fact that the APA removed it from their DSM - list of Menatl Illnesses back in the 70s - but that move has been proven over and over and over again to be a political move with no scientific basis of fact , nor even plausible theory to support it's no longer being considered a Mental Ilness .
> 
> Even the Author of the Motion to have it de-listed Dr. Nicholas Cummings, has stated that the motion he wrote back in the 70s was a grave mistake - and that data since that time has indeed proven it is a Mental Illness that can and has been treated successfully.
> 
> The APA itself has prettyy close to zero credibility in the scientific community , although their political clout is tremendous and devestating to the careers of all who oppose them or their socio-fascist political agenda.
> 
> 
> POINT 1  - Is it Inherited -*NO*
> POINT 2 -  Is it a Mental Ilness - *YES *
> 
> So long as nobody has any plausible intelligent facts to present to the contrary - I do believe we can consider this matter closed .
Click to expand...


???? What? How can this be closed?
When the APA and other medical professionals, psychiatric and therapy practictioners,
and all the public, including the pro-gay and anti-gay communities ALL AGREE,
then MAYBE we can consider it closed.

We are not there yet. But because the controversy over "conversion therapy" pushed this issue into the public arena, we could push for a consensus using all the research and case studies out there.

I am guessing the stats will show diversity in people:
* some people report it is a "choice" to them, social lifestyle, or preference
* sometimes it is "how people are" - cannot change and not a choice
* some report having spiritual purposes to help others understand things more deeply

Not all people will give the same answers in describing themselves and relationships.

GreenBean: Why isn't it okay to have multiple answers for different people?
In some cases "math skills" or "musical skills" are inherently born as a natural gift.
In some cases they are acquired skills.

Are you okay with the concept of "spiritually" being born / incarnated in certain ways,
so that people have certain relationships in life with certain people?

Does that make you uncomfortable?
Why can't it be a spiritual process that decides these things,
who is born in what body, with which relationships or "soul-mates"
and what things change or don't change in life?

I've heard people complain that God/Religion is used to "explain" what people are afraid of or don't understand.

Is all this hangup about genetics vs. mental illness
some fear of addressing the "spiritual karma" that may be determining what's going on?
Or the fact "we don't know"?
Is that so disturbing that people must play with scientific explanations
to try to write this off as either "genetic" or a "mental disorder"
to file it in a box somewhere?

Why can't we be okay with people being different for different reasons?
Some may be natural or unnatural but not all are the same.
Anything wrong with that? Is that just too disturbing that
we HAVE to make it ALL THE SAME to file it in our brains under one blanket rule?

Thanks GreenBean but we need to be careful not to make the "equal and opposite" mistake as the people we criticize for going too far the other way, thinking it's true for everyone.


----------



## emilynghiem

Yes,  [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] "spiritual death" also includes "spiritual change" which
opens the door to "new birth and new life"

Let us put aside the old ways of conflict, of insisting our way is right and others are wrong, and open up to receive insights and solutions that show everyone can be equally right.
And all of us can help each other correct places we were equally wrong. Let us be equal, where we establish common truth by agreement, by conscience and reason.



GISMYS said:


> THE "RESULT" OF SIN
> 
> A. ONE RESULT OF SIN IS "SPIRITUAL DEATH"...
> 1. The death referred to by God when He warned Adam & Eve - Gen
> 2:15-17
> a. Note:  "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou
> shalt surely die."
> b. They did not die "physically" in the day they ate of the
> forbidden fruit, but they did die "spiritually" in that day
> 2. "Spiritual" death is "separation from God"
> a. Death of any sort involves the idea of "separation"
> b. Just as physical death is the separation of body and spirit
> - Jm 2:26
> 3. "Spiritual" death is what occurs when all sin - Ro 5:12
> a. It occurs when we reach that "age of accountability" where
> we know the difference between right and wrong, and then
> violate God's law - cf. Ro 7:9
> b. This is the "death" referred to in Ep 2:1-3
> 1) All who are outside of Christ are "dead in sin"
> 2) Those who are "dead in sin" are separated from God and
> all the blessings that would otherwise come from union
> with Him - cf. Isa 59:1-2
> 
> B. ANOTHER RESULT OF SIN IS "PHYSICAL DEATH"...
> 1. Because of their sin, Adam and Even lost access to the "tree of
> life" - Gen 3:22-24
> 2. Because access to the "tree of life" was lost, all mankind is
> subject to "physical" death - "in Adam all die" (1Co 15:22a)
> 
> C. THE FINAL RESULT OF SIN IS THE "SECOND DEATH"...
> 1. This death is referred to in Re 21:8
> 2. This "death" involves eternal separation from God!
> 3. This "death" Jesus often spoke of and warned about - Mt 10:28;
> 25:41-46
> 
> [Truly, in more than one sense, "the wages of sin is death" (Ro 6:23);
> but the same can be said about "the gift of eternal life"!  No matter
> what the result of sin, the promise of eternal life more than makes up
> for it!]


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> Yes,  [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] "spiritual death" also includes "spiritual change" which
> opens the door to "new birth and new life"
> 
> Let us put aside the old ways of conflict, of insisting our way is right and others are wrong, and open up to receive insights and solutions that show everyone can be equally right.
> And all of us can help each other correct places we were equally wrong. Let us be equal, where we establish common truth by agreement, by conscience and reason.
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE "RESULT" OF SIN
> 
> A. ONE RESULT OF SIN IS "SPIRITUAL DEATH"...
> 1. The death referred to by God when He warned Adam & Eve - Gen
> 2:15-17
> a. Note:  "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou
> shalt surely die."
> b. They did not die "physically" in the day they ate of the
> forbidden fruit, but they did die "spiritually" in that day
> 2. "Spiritual" death is "separation from God"
> a. Death of any sort involves the idea of "separation"
> b. Just as physical death is the separation of body and spirit
> - Jm 2:26
> 3. "Spiritual" death is what occurs when all sin - Ro 5:12
> a. It occurs when we reach that "age of accountability" where
> we know the difference between right and wrong, and then
> violate God's law - cf. Ro 7:9
> b. This is the "death" referred to in Ep 2:1-3
> 1) All who are outside of Christ are "dead in sin"
> 2) Those who are "dead in sin" are separated from God and
> all the blessings that would otherwise come from union
> with Him - cf. Isa 59:1-2
> 
> B. ANOTHER RESULT OF SIN IS "PHYSICAL DEATH"...
> 1. Because of their sin, Adam and Even lost access to the "tree of
> life" - Gen 3:22-24
> 2. Because access to the "tree of life" was lost, all mankind is
> subject to "physical" death - "in Adam all die" (1Co 15:22a)
> 
> C. THE FINAL RESULT OF SIN IS THE "SECOND DEATH"...
> 1. This death is referred to in Re 21:8
> 2. This "death" involves eternal separation from God!
> 3. This "death" Jesus often spoke of and warned about - Mt 10:28;
> 25:41-46
> 
> [Truly, in more than one sense, "the wages of sin is death" (Ro 6:23);
> but the same can be said about "the gift of eternal life"!  No matter
> what the result of sin, the promise of eternal life more than makes up
> for it!]
Click to expand...


"""spiritual death" also includes "spiritual change" which
opens the door to "ETERNITY IN THE LAKE OF FIRE"
""


----------



## emilynghiem

the best book on natural healing is
"The Healing Light" by Agnes Sanford

She describes natural healing energy in life as the flow of electricity through a house.
So we have to make sure the power source is turned on, and the circuit is continuous and not disrupted.

If the electricity isn't flowing, we check for what is causing that, so we can restore it.



Inevitable said:


> what is 'natural healing'?



when life energy flows through the human mind/body to "heal themselves"

if we have too much stress, or hold on to unforgiven resentment, this blocks the flow of energy
through our minds and affects our bodies, and our relationships. if we weaken our natural ability
to heal, this causes unhealthy imbalance or disease that our mind/body ideally would eliminate on its own.
(some people are able to shed cancer cells on their own, but if the body holds on to resentment or
unforgiven blockages, cancer cells can build up in areas of the body more excessively than what can be naturally shed)

to remove "blocks to healing" to open up the flow of life energy
the therapy involves identifying areas of unforgiven issues/memories or unresolved conflicts, 
in the mind or spirit (from this life or possibly inherited unconsciously from previous generations in a cycle); 
and going through whatever process the person needs to remove/forgive/let go of these blocks in their mind or spirit. 
(they can use 12 step recovery, steps to forgiveness, or for deeper rooted causes in unconscious levels,
karmic regression therapy or deliverance prayer can be used for generational issues. 

Once the causes of blockage are identified and removed by  agreeing/praying to receive forgiveness and healing,
then the natural flow of life energy is restored, and this healing is reflected in changes in the spirit, mind, body and even relationships with other people.

(What I find curious about the healing process is the connection with other people.
A mother praying to forgive and heal issues with her own mother, may lead to her child healing as a result.
My friend Olivia who prayed for a young child with cancer, was not able to help her in time to save her from dying,
but the entire family who forgave each other were healed, because they were trying to save the child, and instead healed themselves.)

Examples: I already listed references to generational/deliverance prayer (http://www.spiritual-healing.us)
     [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] if you don't related to those methods,
other related forms of healing from past influences "carried in the spirit" include:
* Buddhist past life regression therapy to identify areas of negative karma and let go
* Healing dialogue groups facilitated by the Center for the Healing of Racism which help remediate painful racial injuries, perceptions and biases deeply embedded and passed down spiritually, but using a secularized method of guided discussion to identify the root memories and sharing with the group to "release" the emotions attached to each one
* 17 steps to Forgiveness
Steps to Forgiveness

All these work by the same process, of forgiveness to facilitate the natural healing process.
(But for the DEEPLY engrained conditions, like schizophrenic people whose personalities are completely taken over by "demonic voices and obsessions," that level is addressed using exorcism and deliverance, and I do not know of any other method that works on truly demonic sickness that overtakes the mind of people where they cannot will it away. Because there are so many false faith healers and fraudulent practices out there, the ONLY people I recommend personally for deliverance/exorcism are my friend Olivia Reiner, who used this to help one of my friends get rid of demonic rages caused by child abuse and rape, and Dr. MacNutt's ministry whose book on HEALING explains the difference between personal prayer that most people do on their own, intercessory prayer, and the deliverance/exorcism prayer that is only for special cases. For those two people, I trust and refer them for formal medical research studies on this field and method of treatment.)


----------



## billyerock1991

Inevitable said:


> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?



when you first became aware of sex... did you have that funny feeling we all have  towards the person you fell for the first time or did you choose the person you fell for ... that's the real question you should ask .... nobody ever chooses what sex experiance they want


----------



## billyerock1991

emilynghiem said:


> the best book on natural healing is
> "The Healing Light" by Agnes Sanford
> 
> She describes natural healing energy in life as the flow of electricity through a house.
> So we have to make sure the power source is turned on, and the circuit is continuous and not disrupted.
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is 'natural healing'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when life energy flows through the human mind/body to "heal themselves"
> 
> if we have too much stress, or hold on to unforgiven resentment, this blocks the flow of energy
> through our minds and affects our bodies, and our relationships. if we weaken our natural ability
> to heal, this causes unhealthy imbalance or disease that our mind/body ideally would eliminate on its own.
> 
> to remove "blocks to healing" to open up the flow of life energy
> the therapy involves identifying areas of unforgiven issues/memories or unresolved conflicts,
> in the mind or spirit (from this life or possibly inherited unconsciously from previous generations in a cycle);
> and going through whatever process the person needs to remove/forgive/let go of these blocks in their mind or spirit.
> (they can use 12 step recovery, steps to forgiveness, or for deeper rooted causes in unconscious levels,
> karmic regression therapy or deliverance prayer can be used for generational issues.
> 
> Once the causes of blockage are identified and removed by  agreeing/praying to receive forgiveness and healing,
> then the natural flow of life energy is restored, and this healing is reflected in changes in the spirit, mind, body and even relationships with other people.
> 
> Examples: I already listed the references to generational/deliverance prayer.
> [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] if you don't related to those methods,
> then related forms of healing from past influences carried in the spirit include:
> * Buddhist past life regression therapy
> * Healing dialogue groups facilitated by the Center for the Healing of Racism which help remediate painful racial injuries, perceptions and biases deeply embedded and passed down spiritually, but using a secularized method of guided discussion to identify the root memories and sharing with the group to "release" the emotions attached to each one
> * 17 steps to Forgiveness
> Steps to Forgiveness
> 
> All these work by the same process, of forgiveness to facilitate the natural healing process.
> (But for the DEEPLY engrained conditions, like schizophrenic people whose personalities are completely taken over by "demonic voices and obsessions," that level is addressed using exorcism and deliverance, and I do not know of any other method that works on truly demonic sickness that overtakes the mind of people where they cannot will it away. Because there are so many false faith healers and fraudulent practices out there, the ONLY people I recommend personally for deliverance/exorcism are my friend Olivia Reiner, who used this to help one of my friends get rid of demonic rages caused by child abuse and rape, and Dr. MacNutt's ministry whose book on HEALING explains the difference between personal prayer that most people do on their own, intercessory prayer, and the deliverance/exorcism prayer that is only for special cases. For those two people, I trust and refer them for formal medical research studies on this field and method of treatment.)
Click to expand...

being gay isn't  a sickness, it isn't a problem with their mind... its what they are and there isn't any amount of steps that vwill change who they are...


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> """spiritual death" also includes "spiritual change" which
> opens the door to "ETERNITY IN THE LAKE OF FIRE"
> ""



And God uses the Lake of Fire to burn away all impurities until these are extinct.
So they are gone, and only the good remains, which is eternal.

*"He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death." Revelation 2:11*

God will use several stages including the Judgment to correct all wrongs
so that all may be saved. Jesus/Justice was sent to save the world, so God's will is done.


----------



## emilynghiem

billyerock1991 said:


> being gay isn't  a sickness, it isn't a problem with their mind... its what they are and there isn't any amount of steps that vwill change who they are...



We were talking about what is natural healing, which applies to all people and areas of life.

Of course, if people are naturally the way they are, there is nothing to heal.

I am talking about the cases where people were not happy and wanted to change.
* some go through healing prayer, remain unchanged, but come to forgiveness and peace with it so they are still healed spiritually even if they didn't change their orientation, etc.
so this helps many people to accept their natural orientation, not change it!
* some go through healing, and come out as gay or transgender after they let go of fear
and guilt about it; whatever is natural for them, that's what brings them peace.
* some go through healing and change their orientation/relationships to heterosexual, where they identify this is naturally who they are

This process isn't directly about homosexuality,
and that's why Inevitable complained it was off topic.

One higher purpose I see for homosexuality
is that it raises awareness of the power of unconditional love and forgiveness
to transform people and relationships.

It's not just about the homosexuality itself, which is used as an easy target.

What people are really gaining from discussing and debating these issues is greater
understanding life on a higher level, where it isn't just what you see on the surface.

And the SAME process of spiritual healing used to resolve gender/orientation issues,
has many more applications to healing abuse, addiction, and other conditions. So many more people can be helped who understand this process that applies to all people.

So that is another good purpose coming out of this.


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> the best book on natural healing is
> "The Healing Light" by Agnes Sanford
> 
> She describes natural healing energy in life as the flow of electricity through a house.
> So we have to make sure the power source is turned on, and the circuit is continuous and not disrupted.
> 
> If the electricity isn't flowing, we check for what is causing that, so we can restore it.
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is 'natural healing'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when life energy flows through the human mind/body to "heal themselves"
> 
> if we have too much stress, or hold on to unforgiven resentment, this blocks the flow of energy
> through our minds and affects our bodies, and our relationships. if we weaken our natural ability
> to heal, this causes unhealthy imbalance or disease that our mind/body ideally would eliminate on its own.
> (some people are able to shed cancer cells on their own, but if the body holds on to resentment or
> unforgiven blockages, cancer cells can build up in areas of the body more excessively than what can be naturally shed)
> 
> to remove "blocks to healing" to open up the flow of life energy
> the therapy involves identifying areas of unforgiven issues/memories or unresolved conflicts,
> in the mind or spirit (from this life or possibly inherited unconsciously from previous generations in a cycle);
> and going through whatever process the person needs to remove/forgive/let go of these blocks in their mind or spirit.
> (they can use 12 step recovery, steps to forgiveness, or for deeper rooted causes in unconscious levels,
> karmic regression therapy or deliverance prayer can be used for generational issues.
> 
> Once the causes of blockage are identified and removed by  agreeing/praying to receive forgiveness and healing,
> then the natural flow of life energy is restored, and this healing is reflected in changes in the spirit, mind, body and even relationships with other people.
> 
> (What I find curious about the healing process is the connection with other people.
> A mother praying to forgive and heal issues with her own mother, may lead to her child healing as a result.
> My friend Olivia who prayed for a young child with cancer, was not able to help her in time to save her from dying,
> but the entire family who forgave each other were healed, because they were trying to save the child, and instead healed themselves.)
> 
> Examples: I already listed references to generational/deliverance prayer (freespiritualhealing | Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy)
> [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] if you don't related to those methods,
> other related forms of healing from past influences "carried in the spirit" include:
> * Buddhist past life regression therapy to identify areas of negative karma and let go
> * Healing dialogue groups facilitated by the Center for the Healing of Racism which help remediate painful racial injuries, perceptions and biases deeply embedded and passed down spiritually, but using a secularized method of guided discussion to identify the root memories and sharing with the group to "release" the emotions attached to each one
> * 17 steps to Forgiveness
> Steps to Forgiveness
> 
> All these work by the same process, of forgiveness to facilitate the natural healing process.
> (But for the DEEPLY engrained conditions, like schizophrenic people whose personalities are completely taken over by "demonic voices and obsessions," that level is addressed using exorcism and deliverance, and I do not know of any other method that works on truly demonic sickness that overtakes the mind of people where they cannot will it away. Because there are so many false faith healers and fraudulent practices out there, the ONLY people I recommend personally for deliverance/exorcism are my friend Olivia Reiner, who used this to help one of my friends get rid of demonic rages caused by child abuse and rape, and Dr. MacNutt's ministry whose book on HEALING explains the difference between personal prayer that most people do on their own, intercessory prayer, and the deliverance/exorcism prayer that is only for special cases. For those two people, I trust and refer them for formal medical research studies on this field and method of treatment.)
Click to expand...

ok now back to the first question you didn't answer. what on God's green earth does this have to do with homosexuality?
  [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]


----------



## Inevitable

billyerock1991 said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when you first became aware of sex... did you have that funny feeling we all have  towards the person you fell for the first time or did you choose the person you fell for ... that's the real question you should ask .... nobody ever chooses what sex experiance they want
Click to expand...

I agree with you, I don't believe it is something somebody just chooses.


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> 
> being gay isn't  a sickness, it isn't a problem with their mind... its what they are and there isn't any amount of steps that vwill change who they are...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were talking about what is natural healing, which applies to all people and areas of life.
> 
> Of course, if people are naturally the way they are, there is nothing to heal.
> 
> I am talking about the cases where people were not happy and wanted to change.
> * some go through healing prayer, remain unchanged, but come to forgiveness and peace with it so they are still healed spiritually even if they didn't change their orientation, etc.
> so this helps many people to accept their natural orientation, not change it!
> * some go through healing, and come out as gay or transgender after they let go of fear
> and guilt about it; whatever is natural for them, that's what brings them peace.
> * some go through healing and change their orientation/relationships to heterosexual, where they identify this is naturally who they are
> 
> This process isn't directly about homosexuality,
> and that's why Inevitable complained it was off topic.
> 
> One higher purpose I see for homosexuality
> is that it raises awareness of the power of unconditional love and forgiveness
> to transform people and relationships.
> 
> It's not just about the homosexuality itself, which is used as an easy target.
> 
> What people are really gaining from discussing and debating these issues is greater
> understanding life on a higher level, where it isn't just what you see on the surface.
> 
> And the SAME process of spiritual healing used to resolve gender/orientation issues,
> has many more applications to healing abuse, addiction, and other conditions. So many more people can be helped who understand this process that applies to all people.
> 
> So that is another good purpose coming out of this.
Click to expand...


ALMIGHTY GOD says you are wrong!!!===  God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves.

25 They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not fitting. Romans 1:24-28
REPROBATE MIND AND UNCLEANNESS OF LUST AND DISHONOR'


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi    [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] I'm sorry I misunderstood

1. If you believe in spiritual healing and natural healing I am referring to the same thing.
So we both agree this approach is not a problem. Sorry for that misunderstanding.

2. If you are using "conversion therapy" to mean ONLY the abusive fraudulent coercive practices, I agree those have nothing to do with natural/spiritual healing.
so I agree with that part. However, the term cannot be used so broadly that it BANS or punishes the practice of spiritual/natural healing and the free choice of people to apply it to their own lives.
3. I do know of people who have done healing using natural/spiritual methods to help people change their lives and no longer have homosexual desires attractions or relationships.
(My friend Olivia helped a young woman heal of the cycle of abuse to end the pattern of abusing people in lesbian relationships.  Another man she helped was freed of heroin addiction and a pedophile addiction. NO, she does not go around targeting homosexuals; if someone asks for help, she helps, so it's usually cancer cases or problem/abusive relationships that she focused on the most. Her team has been working with prominent gay activists and have no problem understanding that "they are the way they are" and that's between them and God. As long as they are healed, that's God business. Maybe you are right, there ARE people lying to themselves and really not changing but covering it up. But that means they are NOT fully healed. When people are fully healed, I go by what they say because they have nothing to hide; so that's what I base my conclusions on, where I found people have different answers and paths.) 

What terms do you propose to distinguish these: the spiritual from the abusive fraud?
I totally agree to stop all fraud and abuse/malpractice
and support the spiritual/natural healing to replace and prevent that from going on.
If people have access to the effective natural therapy
that's the best way I know to totally get rid of anything to the contrary.



Inevitable said:


> [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]
> nothing can be brought to conversion therapy to make it legitimate.  I don't for one momentbelieve that people can be raped gay or abused into homosexuality so there is no way to "heal" from it.   conversion therapy is pure quackery and it serves only one purpose and that it's too torture homosexuals into confirming to dark ages versions of Christianity.
> 
> I have no problem with spiritual healing, HOW DARE YOU shove such false words into my mouth.
> 
> I asked you several times what natural healing was and you havecompletely failed to answer that question.
> 
> I have also mentioned that homosexuality isn't something anybody needs to be healed from. I don't buy for a moment that it is asymptom of abuse or rape, youhaven't made that case,  you have purposely avoided that statement.
> 
> I am going to continue to post these statements you avoid and call you out on false claims until you adress them and stop making them.



A. I don't agree with targeting homosexuality as something that needs to be healed from.
YOU kept saying that, putting words in MY MOUTH, so that's why I didn't repeat them, because I don't agree and that was coming from you.

I SAID that I listen to people and if they say it is natural for them, I believe them!
I thought I made that clear. I let and trust people to figure out for themselves what is or what is not right for them, and I support them in sticking to what is natural for them.

B. NO, I did not mean to make any false claims nor purposely avoided anything.

Where you put words into my mouth I don't believe and didn't say, of course
I'm not going to repeat that because I CAN'T EVEN RELATE TO THAT NOTION.
That is totally OUTSIDE AND FOREIGN TO my understanding to "target homosexuality as something that needs to be fixed/healed/changed or whatever"

Wasn't trying to avoid it, just don't relate to it AT ALL.
Like asking me "do you still beat your wife" when I don't even have a wife.


----------



## elektra

Homosexuality is a disease, like Alcoholism, like Obesity. 

Of course, that is just a little humor, I just hope our government defines what Homosexuality is and makes some laws and regulations to enforce the definition.  

We really do need the smart liberal people to define what a relationship is, we need the government to define what we are, sexually, we need smart liberal people to spend billions of our dollars on this subject. 

After all, homosexuality was always a benefit to society, especially primitive societies.

but in all seriousness, there are billions of people, I am sure some people are born homosexual, its the law of averages. but on the other hand some guys are simply so horny, or over-sexed, and are kind of ugly and can not meet woman so they turn to what is easy gratification. 

Some homosexuals are taught to be homosexual.

Billions of people means there is not one answer to the OP. There are many reasons why become are or choose to be homosexaul, the most basic reason is sex feels good and for some it does not matter where it comes from.


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> Hi    [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] I'm sorry I misunderstood
> 
> 1. If you believe in spiritual healing and natural healing I am referring to the same thing.
> So we both agree this approach is not a problem. Sorry for that misunderstanding.
> 
> 2. If you are using "conversion therapy" to mean ONLY the abusive fraudulent coercive practices, I agree those have nothing to do with natural/spiritual healing.
> so I agree with that part. However, the term cannot be used so broadly that it BANS or punishes the practice of spiritual/natural healing and the free choice of people to apply it to their own lives.
> 3. I do know of people who have done healing using natural/spiritual methods to help people change their lives and no longer have homosexual desires attractions or relationships.
> (My friend Olivia helped a young woman heal of the cycle of abuse to end the pattern of abusing people in lesbian relationships.  Another man she helped was freed of heroin addiction and a pedophile addiction. NO, she does not go around targeting homosexuals; if someone asks for help, she helps, so it's usually cancer cases or problem/abusive relationships that she focused on the most. Her team has been working with prominent gay activists and have no problem understanding that "they are the way they are" and that's between them and God. As long as they are healed, that's God business. Maybe you are right, there ARE people lying to themselves and really not changing but covering it up. But that means they are NOT fully healed. When people are fully healed, I go by what they say because they have nothing to hide; so that's what I base my conclusions on, where I found people have different answers and paths.)
> 
> What terms do you propose to distinguish these: the spiritual from the abusive fraud?
> I totally agree to stop all fraud and abuse/malpractice
> and support the spiritual/natural healing to replace and prevent that from going on.
> If people have access to the effective natural therapy
> that's the best way I know to totally get rid of anything to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]
> nothing can be brought to conversion therapy to make it legitimate.  I don't for one momentbelieve that people can be raped gay or abused into homosexuality so there is no way to "heal" from it.   conversion therapy is pure quackery and it serves only one purpose and that it's too torture homosexuals into confirming to dark ages versions of Christianity.
> 
> I have no problem with spiritual healing, HOW DARE YOU shove such false words into my mouth.
> 
> I asked you several times what natural healing was and you havecompletely failed to answer that question.
> 
> I have also mentioned that homosexuality isn't something anybody needs to be healed from. I don't buy for a moment that it is asymptom of abuse or rape, youhaven't made that case,  you have purposely avoided that statement.
> 
> I am going to continue to post these statements you avoid and call you out on false claims until you adress them and stop making them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. I don't agree with targeting homosexuality as something that needs to be healed from.
> YOU kept saying that, putting words in MY MOUTH, so that's why I didn't repeat them, because I don't agree and that was coming from you.
> 
> I SAID that I listen to people and if they say it is natural for them, I believe them!
> I thought I made that clear. I let and trust people to figure out for themselves what is or what is not right for them, and I support them in sticking to what is natural for them.
> 
> B. NO, I did not mean to make any false claims nor purposely avoided anything.
> 
> Where you put words into my mouth I don't believe and didn't say, of course
> I'm not going to repeat that because I CAN'T EVEN RELATE TO THAT NOTION.
> That is totally OUTSIDE AND FOREIGN TO my understanding to "target homosexuality as something that needs to be fixed/healed/changed or whatever"
> 
> Wasn't trying to avoid it, just don't relate to it AT ALL.
> Like asking me "do you still beat your wife" when I don't even have a wife.
Click to expand...


BEWARE!!! DENYING THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD IS NEXT TO DENYING GOD AS THE very worst sin of all!!!Think!


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> ALMIGHTY GOD says you are wrong!!!===  God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves.
> 
> 25 They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.
> 
> 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.
> 
> 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not fitting. Romans 1:24-28
> REPROBATE MIND AND UNCLEANNESS OF LUST AND DISHONOR'



Calm down,  [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] Please do not get excited about wrong things, but about the good things going on here!
Inevitable and I actually agree on spiritual healing!
By applying that to all situations, then we can remove and correct all these other problems.

Shall we agree to apply the correction and healing process to remove all errors and conflicts otherwise causing suffering and division?

Especially if we are all Christian here, we are called to unite in agreement, that God's truth be established and God's will be done. Thank you, GISMYS, and please pray for complete unity in understanding common truth between Inevitable, Kaz, me, you and all others joined in Christ Jesus to fulfill God's higher plans and greater purpose for all humanity. Amen!


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALMIGHTY GOD says you are wrong!!!===  God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves.
> 
> 25 They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.
> 
> 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.
> 
> 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not fitting. Romans 1:24-28
> REPROBATE MIND AND UNCLEANNESS OF LUST AND DISHONOR'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down,  [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] Please do not get excited about wrong things, but about the good things going on here!
> Inevitable and I actually agree on spiritual healing!
> By applying that to all situations, then we can remove and correct all these other problems.
> 
> Shall we agree to apply the correction and healing process to remove all errors and conflicts otherwise causing suffering and division?
> 
> Especially if we are all Christian here, we are called to unite in agreement, that God's truth be established and God's will be done. Thank you, GISMYS, and please pray for complete unity in understanding common truth between Inevitable, Kaz, me, you and all others joined in Christ Jesus to fulfill God's higher plans and greater purpose for all humanity. Amen!
Click to expand...


The choice to live in the abomination of sexual perversion is the cause of "all errors and conflicts otherwise causing suffering and division?BELIEVE AND  OBEY GOD'S WORD!!


----------



## emilynghiem

Inevitable said:


> ​
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a show of hands isn't an appropriate way to determine mental illness, than they were wrong in the 50s for using that method to add homosexuality to the list of mental illnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALL sin is a mental lliness of poor non-thinking choice!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you haven't a slightest clue what you are even talking about. Your garbage doesn't deserve to be addressed.
Click to expand...


Dear [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] I thought I made it clear I disagree with labeling homosexuality as a "mental illness" I guess you missed the other thread where I asked GreenBean: how could he say it is a "mental illness" then condemn people for "choosing" that lifestyle: since when is "mental illness" a choice, which way is it?

(As for GISMYS if his statement is affirming, in essence, all people are "sinners" and we all experience "mental illness", this actually BACKS UP what you are saying that homosexuals are no more "mentally ill" than the rest of the population -- if you equate mental illness with choosing sin, then everyone falls under that since we all sin and fall short by making imperfect choices and not having perfectly clear minds all the time.)


----------



## RKMBrown

GISMYS said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALMIGHTY GOD says you are wrong!!!===  God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves.
> 
> 25 They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.
> 
> 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.
> 
> 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not fitting. Romans 1:24-28
> REPROBATE MIND AND UNCLEANNESS OF LUST AND DISHONOR'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down,  [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] Please do not get excited about wrong things, but about the good things going on here!
> Inevitable and I actually agree on spiritual healing!
> By applying that to all situations, then we can remove and correct all these other problems.
> 
> Shall we agree to apply the correction and healing process to remove all errors and conflicts otherwise causing suffering and division?
> 
> Especially if we are all Christian here, we are called to unite in agreement, that God's truth be established and God's will be done. Thank you, GISMYS, and please pray for complete unity in understanding common truth between Inevitable, Kaz, me, you and all others joined in Christ Jesus to fulfill God's higher plans and greater purpose for all humanity. Amen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The choice to live in the abomination of sexual perversion is the cause of "all errors and conflicts otherwise causing suffering and division?BELIEVE AND  OBEY GOD'S WORD!!
Click to expand...

what's it say in there about bearing false witness and not loving others as you would have them love you?


----------



## MaryL

Acceptance IS a matter of choice. Tolerance is a matter of choice.  What causes homosexuality is moot. All the excuses, the asides, moot as well. Homosexuality is a fact of life. So is...um, other sexual dysfunctions. Mutually indulgent ones that involve adults that aren't going to be defended  by anyone else  NOW as a new class that needs their civil rights protected. So, I fear that this current obsession with providing homosexuals, AKA "gays", is leading to  additional extended rights beyond the intent of the Constitution. Does the Constitution cover sexuality other than heterosexuality? Did the founding fathers think that 250 plus years in the future, the Constitution would cover just about any alternate sexual  behavior  other male-female coupling for the purpose of procreating (in the biblical sense) ?


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> The choice to live in the abomination of sexual perversion is the cause of "all errors and conflicts otherwise causing suffering and division?BELIEVE AND  OBEY GOD'S WORD!!



1. bad choices happen where there is 
FEAR and Unforgiveness in the way of love and truth
so let
*Perfect Love cast out all Fear*
1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
and focus on Forgiveness to bring mutual correction and agreement in truth

2. God's Word also says to *REMOVE the beam from our eyes
before helping our neighbor to remove splinters from theirs*

So let's OBEY GOD'S WORD:
Matthew 7:5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
and NOT be Hypocrites but Help each other. The more we can FORGIVE problems the more we can CORRECT them.


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> The choice to live in the abomination of sexual perversion is the cause of "all errors and conflicts otherwise causing suffering and division?BELIEVE AND  OBEY GOD'S WORD!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. bad choices happen where there is
> FEAR and Unforgiveness in the way of love and truth
> so let
> *Perfect Love cast out all Fear*
> 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
> and focus on Forgiveness to bring mutual correction and agreement in truth
> 
> 2. God's Word also says to *REMOVE the beam from our eyes
> before helping our neighbor to remove splinters from theirs*
> 
> So let's OBEY GOD'S WORD:
> Matthew 7:5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
> and NOT be Hypocrites but Help each other. The more we can FORGIVE problems the more we can CORRECT them.
Click to expand...


Those that choose to reject GOD  AND the truth OF GOD'S WORD have good reason to live in fear now and on judgment day!! Only those that confess and repent and accept JESUS as their Lord AND SAVIOR have NO reason to fear as they are sons OF ALMIGHTY GOD!!


----------



## elektra

its a disease, like alcoholism.


----------



## alan1

GreenBean said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was trying to draw a paralell bewenn sexual taboos in linking homosexuality to incest - while I agree the two are not the same - his point would have been better served had he used pedophilia or beastiality as an example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was drawing a parallel about 'rights', which Luddly Neddite introduced into the conversation.
> Pedophilia or bestiality are not comparable as neither involves adult humans of the age of consent whilst my example did.  Yer just trying to stir up shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you are supporting the "rights" of homosexuals to fornicate with children and hamsters ?
> 
> Hmmmmm  ... berry berry interesting -
> Glad you brought that out in the open - that took a lot of courage - coming out like that - do you think PETA might have a thing or two to say about  that kind of activity - ya know hamsters have rights too ?  You know those PETA people they are so homophobic - don't you agree ?
Click to expand...


I don't know if you completely lack comprehension, have the actual IQ of a GreenBean, or are just a shit disturber.  Either way, I said nothing resembling your false statement poorly phrased as an attempted question.


----------



## billyerock1991

emilynghiem said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> 
> being gay isn't  a sickness, it isn't a problem with their mind... its what they are and there isn't any amount of steps that vwill change who they are...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were talking about what is natural healing, which applies to all people and areas of life.
> 
> Of course, if people are naturally the way they are, there is nothing to heal.
> 
> I am talking about the cases where people were not happy and wanted to change.
> * some go through healing prayer, remain unchanged, but come to forgiveness and peace with it so they are still healed spiritually even if they didn't change their orientation, etc.
> so this helps many people to accept their natural orientation, not change it!
> * some go through healing, and come out as gay or transgender after they let go of fear
> and guilt about it; whatever is natural for them, that's what brings them peace.
> * some go through healing and change their orientation/relationships to heterosexual, where they identify this is naturally who they are
> 
> This process isn't directly about homosexuality,
> and that's why Inevitable complained it was off topic.
> 
> One higher purpose I see for homosexuality
> is that it raises awareness of the power of unconditional love and forgiveness
> to transform people and relationships.
> 
> It's not just about the homosexuality itself, which is used as an easy target.
> 
> What people are really gaining from discussing and debating these issues is greater
> understanding life on a higher level, where it isn't just what you see on the surface.
> 
> And the SAME process of spiritual healing used to resolve gender/orientation issues,
> has many more applications to healing abuse, addiction, and other conditions. So many more people can be helped who understand this process that applies to all people.
> 
> So that is another good purpose coming out of this.
Click to expand...


you are assuning they need to be  natural  healed because you feel their behavior needs to be healed


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> Those that choose to reject GOD  AND the truth OF GOD'S WORD have good reason to live in fear now and on judgment day!! Only those that confess and repent and accept JESUS as their Lord AND SAVIOR have NO reason to fear as they are sons OF ALMIGHTY GOD!!



Yes   [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] and of all other Christians joining us here, I see Inevitable and Kaz and others called here
DO seek Justice and are committed to defend Justice and Truth as you and I are, as fellow believers. May Christ join us in fellowship and remove anything preventing perfect unity in Christ or by conscience.

What separates us is misunderstanding so that we "fear" other's intent is to mislead or cause harm.

Inevitable thought I promoted harm or falsehood. And you also thought I was trying to dissuade people from God's Word and deceive people as Satan.

How can we REMOVE this fear and all causes of such problems, so that we AGREE we are all seeking to establish and enforce Universal Truth that is one and the same with God's Word?
The more we can AGREE in spirit first, surely more correction and clarity will follow. I have no doubt we all ask this, but don't understand how our neighbor is helping when it appears the opposite!

GISMYS I believe in spiritual healing prayer to remove all obstacles, any unforgiven "stumbling blocks" from our minds, paths, and relationships separating us from God's perfect love and truth, that we may be made perfect, whole, and one with God through Christ Jesus.

May I ask you to please continue uplifting all people here in unifying prayer, in forgiving correcting and perfecting all thoughts and words and perceptions in our minds, so that God's perfect love and wisdom can flow freely to join us all as one with God's truth.

Thank you GISMYS please continue your prayers for complete unity correction and perfection that the truth may be revealed in whole, where that whole truth is greater than the sum of the parts each of us brings to the table. In Jesus name, Amen and Thanks!


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those that choose to reject GOD  AND the truth OF GOD'S WORD have good reason to live in fear now and on judgment day!! Only those that confess and repent and accept JESUS as their Lord AND SAVIOR have NO reason to fear as they are sons OF ALMIGHTY GOD!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes  [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] and of the fellow Christians joining us here, I see Inevitable and Kaz DO seek Justice and are committed to defend Justice and Truth.
> 
> What separates us is misunderstanding so we "fear" other's intent is to mislead or cause harm.
> 
> Inevitable thought I promoted harm. And you also thought I was trying to dissuade people from God's Word and deceive people as Satan.
> 
> How can we REMOVE this fear and problem, so that we AGREE we are all seeking to establish and enforce Universal Truth that is one and the same with God's Word?
> 
> GISMYS I believe in spiritual healing prayer to remove all obstacle, any unforgiven "stumbling blocks" from our minds, paths, and relationships, that we may be made
> perfect, whole, and one with God through Christ Jesus.
> 
> May I ask you to please continue uplifting all people here in unifying prayer, in forgiving correcting and perfecting all thoughts and words and perceptions in our minds, so that God's perfect love and wisdom can flow freely to join us all as one with God's truth.
> 
> Thank you GISMYS please continue your prayers for complete unity correction and perfection that the truth may be revealed in whole, where that whole truth is greater than the sum of the parts each of us brings to the table. In Jesus name, Amen and Thanks!
Click to expand...


So you are trying to make "new age" spiritual healing clap trap your god??


----------



## emilynghiem

billyerock1991 said:


> you are assuning they need to be  natural  healed because you feel their behavior needs to be healed



I think you and others are taking words out of context.
If you read all my other messages and posts
I made it clear that all cases are different for different people.

So NO there are many people I trust when they say it is natural for them,
then there is nothing to be healed. I take this position for granted as obvious,
so that's why I don't go around preaching it. Of course what is natural for people is not going to change.

Those people are completely different from the ones who
* weren't happy with their heterosexual relationships and changed
* weren't happy with their homosexuality or bisexuality and changed their minds
* weren't happy being female in a male body, so they change their body

All people are different,
so no I do not believe in targeting homosexuality as something to be changed or healed.

If you are projecting those fears, it is coming from you, not me,
because that is NOT what I said, NOT what I mean, and NOT what I believe in.

Please quit projecting things on me I don't believe in.
Sorry if this wasn't clear before, please let me know if this clarifies it now!


----------



## Katzndogz

Homosexuality is a compulsion like hand washing or hoarding.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> If a show of hands isn't an appropriate way to determine mental illness, than they were wrong in the 50s for using that method to add homosexuality to the list of mental illnesses.



Wouldn't that make them equally wrong for taking it off the list using the same method?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

billyerock1991 said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when you first became aware of sex... did you have that funny feeling we all have  towards the person you fell for the first time or did you choose the person you fell for ... that's the real question you should ask .... nobody ever chooses what sex experiance they want
Click to expand...


I know hundreds of people who would disagree with you. How do you explain them?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when you first became aware of sex... did you have that funny feeling we all have  towards the person you fell for the first time or did you choose the person you fell for ... that's the real question you should ask .... nobody ever chooses what sex experiance they want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with you, I don't believe it is something somebody just chooses.
Click to expand...


Didn't you jump all over me when I pointed out you were wrong about it not being a choice? Didn't you claim that you didn't actually hold that position?


----------



## GISMYS

ITS CHOICE!!! YOU allow lust in your heart then you choose to live in sin or you choose to obey GOD'S LAWS!! ALL YOUR CHOICE!


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> Hi    [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] I'm sorry I misunderstood
> 
> 1. If you believe in spiritual healing and natural healing I am referring to the same thing.
> So we both agree this approach is not a problem. Sorry for that misunderstanding.
> 
> 2. If you are using "conversion therapy" to mean ONLY the abusive fraudulent coercive practices, I agree those have nothing to do with natural/spiritual healing.
> so I agree with that part. However, the term cannot be used so broadly that it BANS or punishes the practice of spiritual/natural healing and the free choice of people to apply it to their own lives.
> 3. I do know of people who have done healing using natural/spiritual methods to help people change their lives and no longer have homosexual desires attractions or relationships.
> (My friend Olivia helped a young woman heal of the cycle of abuse to end the pattern of abusing people in lesbian relationships.  Another man she helped was freed of heroin addiction and a pedophile addiction. NO, she does not go around targeting homosexuals; if someone asks for help, she helps, so it's usually cancer cases or problem/abusive relationships that she focused on the most. Her team has been working with prominent gay activists and have no problem understanding that "they are the way they are" and that's between them and God. As long as they are healed, that's God business. Maybe you are right, there ARE people lying to themselves and really not changing but covering it up. But that means they are NOT fully healed. When people are fully healed, I go by what they say because they have nothing to hide; so that's what I base my conclusions on, where I found people have different answers and paths.)
> 
> What terms do you propose to distinguish these: the spiritual from the abusive fraud?
> I totally agree to stop all fraud and abuse/malpractice
> and support the spiritual/natural healing to replace and prevent that from going on.
> If people have access to the effective natural therapy
> that's the best way I know to totally get rid of anything to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]
> nothing can be brought to conversion therapy to make it legitimate.  I don't for one momentbelieve that people can be raped gay or abused into homosexuality so there is no way to "heal" from it.   conversion therapy is pure quackery and it serves only one purpose and that it's too torture homosexuals into confirming to dark ages versions of Christianity.
> 
> I have no problem with spiritual healing, HOW DARE YOU shove such false words into my mouth.
> 
> I asked you several times what natural healing was and you havecompletely failed to answer that question.
> 
> I have also mentioned that homosexuality isn't something anybody needs to be healed from. I don't buy for a moment that it is asymptom of abuse or rape, youhaven't made that case,  you have purposely avoided that statement.
> 
> I am going to continue to post these statements you avoid and call you out on false claims until you adress them and stop making them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. I don't agree with targeting homosexuality as something that needs to be healed from.
> YOU kept saying that, putting words in MY MOUTH, so that's why I didn't repeat them, because I don't agree and that was coming from you.
> 
> I SAID that I listen to people and if they say it is natural for them, I believe them!
> I thought I made that clear. I let and trust people to figure out for themselves what is or what is not right for them, and I support them in sticking to what is natural for them.
> 
> B. NO, I did not mean to make any false claims nor purposely avoided anything.
> 
> Where you put words into my mouth I don't believe and didn't say, of course
> I'm not going to repeat that because I CAN'T EVEN RELATE TO THAT NOTION.
> That is totally OUTSIDE AND FOREIGN TO my understanding to "target homosexuality as something that needs to be fixed/healed/changed or whatever"
> 
> Wasn't trying to avoid it, just don't relate to it AT ALL.
> Like asking me "do you still beat your wife" when I don't even have a wife.
Click to expand...

I was asking what natural healing was.
  [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> 
> when you first became aware of sex... did you have that funny feeling we all have  towards the person you fell for the first time or did you choose the person you fell for ... that's the real question you should ask .... nobody ever chooses what sex experiance they want
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you, I don't believe it is something somebody just chooses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't you jump all over me when I pointed out you were wrong about it not being a choice? Didn't you claim that you didn't actually hold that position?
Click to expand...


I don't believe it's a choice. No, you and I never spoke about that.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a show of hands isn't an appropriate way to determine mental illness, than they were wrong in the 50s for using that method to add homosexuality to the list of mental illnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that make them equally wrong for taking it off the list using the same method?
Click to expand...


Not necessarily if it only was added because of popularity than it was wrong for it to bethere inthe first place.


----------



## itfitzme

Inevitable said:


> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?



Personally, I don't care.  It doesn't have any relevance to my life.  

I'm guessing, though, that the reason the APA doesn't list a cause is because the APA deals with diseases and it's not and it isn't a disease.


----------



## GreenBean

emilynghiem said:


> Dear GreenBean: Thanks for the effort and post to get the thread back on topic.
> 
> I still argue it is more a SPIRITUAL manifestation, as part of the process of resolving karma.
> 
> So I agree with you it is NOT solely genetic
> (though the HIGH 50% match in orientation in twins is still interpreted as showing a TENDENCY even though the lack of 100% match means it is not solely genetic)
> 
> But do NOT agree it is necessarily a "mental illness or mental disorder,"
> NOT UNLESS someone has been successfully treated as such and reports it as such.
> 
> The people I know who benefited from therapy and changed their behavior/relationships
> refer more to SPIRITUAL issues and changes they went through, NOT MENTAL ILLNESS.
> 
> [MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION] if you can find such people who AGREE it is Mental Illness to them because this approach helped them "recover" then fine,
> I accept whatever description people use for their own experiences.
> 
> Can you cite cases of people who DESCRIBE THEMSELVES and THEIR EXPERIENCES as "Mental Illness"?
> And who benefited from this approach? If it works for people, fine. Can you find references to people saying they have a "Mental Illness",
> and compare how common this description is in relation to the number of people who describe their experiences as a "spiritual change" or as either a "choice"/"not a choice"?
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As with all threads this one seems to have wandered off in 15 different directions -
> 
> The OP :* Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?*
> 
> Point 1 - Is it inerited ?. ] Inherent = Genetic , Something One is Born With.
> 
> A.}No Valid argument nor viable theory exists to suggest that Homosexuality is inherited or something one is born with  -nearly all factual data to date indicates it is an acquired trait - although through no fault of the victims [Gays] - it is believed to be [In most cases]  the result of Early Childhood Trauma.  Study after Study by *unbiased and objective* researchers adds weight to this argument continuoslly.
> 
> One 1992 study found that 37% of homosexual and bisexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact before age 19 with an older or more powerful partner.  The median age of first contact was 10 years old.  - *Multiple Aspects of Sexual Orientation: Prevalence and Sociodemographic Correlates in a New Zealand National Survey*
> 
> *Self-reported childhood and adolescent sexual abuse among adult homosexual bisexual men.*
> 
> *The  Twin Studies :*
> 
> Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.
> 
> *Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic*
> 
> However Geneics is quite possibly *a minor factor *in determining ones susceptibility to the Mental illness or Homosexuality.
> 
> So therefore - back to the OP  - *YES - Homosexuality is a choice* , not allways a consious choice - and certainly never an intelligent one - but a choice none the less.
> 
> Is it Inherited ? -NO - No scientific data exists that would supprot that argument *It is not INherited*  - allthough susceptibility to it may have minor genetic correlation.
> 
> 
> Point 2.] Is it a Mental Illness .
> 
> Homosexuality is an unhealthy and self destructive mental condition- harmful not only to the homosexuals themselves, but society as a whole.  The strongest argument the gay activists have for not considering Homosexuality to be an illness is the fact that the APA removed it from their DSM - list of Menatl Illnesses back in the 70s - but that move has been proven over and over and over again to be a political move with no scientific basis of fact , nor even plausible theory to support it's no longer being considered a Mental Ilness .
> 
> Even the Author of the Motion to have it de-listed Dr. Nicholas Cummings, has stated that the motion he wrote back in the 70s was a grave mistake - and that data since that time has indeed proven it is a Mental Illness that can and has been treated successfully.
> 
> The APA itself has prettyy close to zero credibility in the scientific community , although their political clout is tremendous and devestating to the careers of all who oppose them or their socio-fascist political agenda.
> 
> 
> POINT 1  - Is it Inherited -*NO*
> POINT 2 -  Is it a Mental Ilness - *YES *
> 
> So long as nobody has any plausible intelligent facts to present to the contrary - I do believe we can consider this matter closed .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???? What? How can this be closed?
> When the APA and other medical professionals, psychiatric and therapy practictioners,
> and all the public, including the pro-gay and anti-gay communities ALL AGREE,
> then MAYBE we can consider it closed.
> 
> We are not there yet. But because the controversy over "conversion therapy" pushed this issue into the public arena, we could push for a consensus using all the research and case studies out there.
> 
> I am guessing the stats will show diversity in people:
> * some people report it is a "choice" to them, social lifestyle, or preference
> * sometimes it is "how people are" - cannot change and not a choice
> * some report having spiritual purposes to help others understand things more deeply
> 
> Not all people will give the same answers in describing themselves and relationships.
> 
> GreenBean: Why isn't it okay to have multiple answers for different people?
> In some cases "math skills" or "musical skills" are inherently born as a natural gift.
> In some cases they are acquired skills.
> 
> Are you okay with the concept of "spiritually" being born / incarnated in certain ways,
> so that people have certain relationships in life with certain people?
> 
> Does that make you uncomfortable?
> Why can't it be a spiritual process that decides these things,
> who is born in what body, with which relationships or "soul-mates"
> and what things change or don't change in life?
> 
> I've heard people complain that God/Religion is used to "explain" what people are afraid of or don't understand.
> 
> Is all this hangup about genetics vs. mental illness
> some fear of addressing the "spiritual karma" that may be determining what's going on?
> Or the fact "we don't know"?
> Is that so disturbing that people must play with scientific explanations
> to try to write this off as either "genetic" or a "mental disorder"
> to file it in a box somewhere?
> 
> Why can't we be okay with people being different for different reasons?
> Some may be natural or unnatural but not all are the same.
> Anything wrong with that? Is that just too disturbing that
> we HAVE to make it ALL THE SAME to file it in our brains under one blanket rule?
> 
> Thanks GreenBean but we need to be careful not to make the "equal and opposite" mistake as the people we criticize for going too far the other way, thinking it's true for everyone.
Click to expand...




> though the HIGH 50% match in orientation in twins is still interpreted as showing a TENDENCY even though the lack of 100% match means it is not solely genetic



There are a number of variables that would be involved in the 50% match in orientation , the most obvious being identical nurture / upbringing. 

The second and equally plausible factor would be the possibilty of a genetic factor that effects ones pre-disposition and susceptibilty to acquiring homosexual traits . 

It is believed that insanity runs in certain families - they have genetic deficiencies that would leave them predisposed to such ailments.  

Another example would be Native Americans and alcohol  , it is pretty well established that "fire-water"  - alcohol has a different effect on amerindians than it does on caucasians and negroes - they are more prone to alocoholism - that doesn't mean they are genetically alcoholic - just more prone to it - they make the choice to drink or not to drink , just as Gays have the choice to lead a perverted sick existence or not to.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a show of hands isn't an appropriate way to determine mental illness, than they were wrong in the 50s for using that method to add homosexuality to the list of mental illnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that make them equally wrong for taking it off the list using the same method?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily if it only was added because of popularity than it was wrong for it to bethere inthe first place.
Click to expand...


If the decision isn't based on science it is wrong, even if they were wrong in the first place. This is why I keep pointing out that the APA is not a scientific organization, and why I mock people who insist it is.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you, I don't believe it is something somebody just chooses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you jump all over me when I pointed out you were wrong about it not being a choice? Didn't you claim that you didn't actually hold that position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe it's a choice. No, you and I never spoke about that.
Click to expand...


We spent a significant part of my posts in this tread discussing it.

But feel free to pretend we didn't.


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a show of hands isn't an appropriate way to determine mental illness, than they were wrong in the 50s for using that method to add homosexuality to the list of mental illnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that make them equally wrong for taking it off the list using the same method?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily if it only was added because of popularity than it was wrong for it to bethere inthe first place.
Click to expand...


So it's right - when it suits your purposes , but wrong when it works against them !?   That's pretty Childish - don't you think ?? 

*Remaining a Teenager: Infantilism*



> The homosexual&#8217;s personality is in part that of a child (or an adolescent). This phenomenon is known as the &#8220;inner complaining child&#8221;. Some have emotionally remained teenagers in nearly all areas of behavior; in most, the &#8220;child&#8221; alternates with the adult in them, depending on place and circumstances.



So in addition to arrested sexual development , it appears they also suffer from an arrested emotional development


----------



## GreenBean

alan1 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was drawing a parallel about 'rights', which Luddly Neddite introduced into the conversation.
> Pedophilia or bestiality are not comparable as neither involves adult humans of the age of consent whilst my example did.  Yer just trying to stir up shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then you are supporting the "rights" of homosexuals to fornicate with children and hamsters ?
> 
> Hmmmmm  ... berry berry interesting -
> Glad you brought that out in the open - that took a lot of courage - coming out like that - do you think PETA might have a thing or two to say about  that kind of activity - ya know hamsters have rights too ?  You know those PETA people they are so homophobic - don't you agree ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if you completely lack comprehension, have the actual IQ of a GreenBean, or are just a shit disturber.  Either way, I said nothing resembling your false statement poorly phrased as an attempted question.
Click to expand...




> ... a shit disturber



So you like shit disturbers ?  I hear they can be very amicable and polite people - Have you had your stool pushed in by one lately ?



> Either way, I said nothing resembling your false statement poorly phrased as an attempted question



Oh , my apoloogies - I must have misunderstood you -  So you don't support inter-species intimacy - so what about inter generational intimacy , do you support the Gays on their quest to lower the age of consent ?


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Greeny proving your claim wrong isn't how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Inevitable Denying reality isn't how it works
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry greeny you didn't post reality
Click to expand...


So you're still in denial - are you also in denial of your low IQ in addition to your arrested sexual development -  *you have the opportunity to display your worth *- but can't -are you a failure in that department also - just as you are a failure at everything else in your sad little life  ??   *It must suck being you . *  but cheer up chunky - you're still young - i's not too late to get a life .  Regards and Have a pleasant night.


----------



## AntiParty

Only a gay person can answer this question..............

I think the people trying to answer this without being gay are a hoot!

"Oh, It's certainly a choice because........."  or "It's not a choice something ...."


Are you gay? Why are you answer questions for them? Why are you the professional of gay behavior? Ask a gay if it's a choice. Stop answering for them..

Unless of course you thought you were gay and you went through the religion anti-gay training camp that trains people who thought they were gay to be not gay..........etc...

You do realize that most Preists that raped young boys only did it because they were told they didn't have to "release the load". Puberty and not releasing your load makes your balls turn into your brains. 

Just rub one out! Only specific versions of the Bible said don't jack off. It's not perverted, it's necessary. There should be a pressure valve.


----------



## GreenBean

AntiParty said:


> Only a gay person can answer this question..............
> 
> I think the people trying to answer this without being gay are a hoot!
> 
> "Oh, It's certainly a choice because........."  or "It's not a choice something ...."
> 
> 
> Are you gay? Why are you answer questions for them? Why are you the professional of gay behavior? Ask a gay if it's a choice. Stop answering for them..
> 
> Unless of course you thought you were gay and you went through the religion anti-gay training camp that trains people who thought they were gay to be not gay..........etc...
> 
> You do realize that most Preists that raped young boys only did it because they were told they didn't have to "release the load". Puberty and not releasing your load makes your balls turn into your brains.
> 
> Just rub one out! Only specific versions of the Bible said don't jack off. It's not perverted, it's necessary. There should be a pressure valve.





> Just rub one out! Only specific versions of the Bible said don't jack off. It's not perverted, it's necessary. *There should be a pressure valve*



So is that what you're doing  ? releasing you pressure valve on this internet forum ?


----------



## hangover

> Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?



If it's a choice, it's constitutionally protected as the right to the pursuit of happiness. If it's mental illness, it's no different than right wing ideology. If it's inherent, it's no different that hair color.


----------



## GISMYS

hangover said:


> Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's a choice, it's constitutionally protected as the right to the pursuit of happiness. If it's mental illness, it's no different than right wing ideology. If it's inherent, it's no different that hair color.
Click to expand...


BOTTOMLINE= TO YOU! IS MAN'S LAWS MORE IMPORTANT THAN GOD'S LAWS??? GOD says sexual perversion is an abomination!!! I choose to believe GOD!!! and you??


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

GISMYS said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's a choice, it's constitutionally protected as the right to the pursuit of happiness. If it's mental illness, it's no different than right wing ideology. If it's inherent, it's no different that hair color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BOTTOMLINE= TO YOU! IS MAN'S LAWS MORE IMPORTANT THAN GOD'S LAWS??? GOD says sexual perversion is an abomination!!! I choose to believe GOD!!! and you??
Click to expand...


I guess Moses didn't have enough room to include it in with the 10 commandments, but making graven images made the cut?

Nice. My avatar just got me a place in Hadies....


----------



## GISMYS

Mad_Cabbie said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's a choice, it's constitutionally protected as the right to the pursuit of happiness. If it's mental illness, it's no different than right wing ideology. If it's inherent, it's no different that hair color.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BOTTOMLINE= TO YOU! IS MAN'S LAWS MORE IMPORTANT THAN GOD'S LAWS??? GOD says sexual perversion is an abomination!!! I choose to believe GOD!!! and you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess Moses didn't have enough room to include it in with the 10 commandments, but making graven images made the cut?
> 
> Nice. My avatar just got me a place in Hadies....
Click to expand...


YES!!! ALL OF GOD'S WORD IS GOD'S WORD, read and understand in context so you will understand what GOD is saying= sexual perversion is an ABOMINATION!!


----------



## emilynghiem

Thanks [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
Since natural healing is very broad to describe (I did try, sorry if I missed the mark on it)
please describe the spiritual healing you have no problem with.

I'd rather go with yours which I trust would only be positive and true
(or we could spend all day and night talking
about natural healing and not address any issues if you ask me to spell it out.
That will go nowhere and you are much more precise and to the point.)

So let's go with yours instead. I have no problem with that. 
(If there is some conflict
that matters, we can work it out faster starting with you
rather than with me trying to spell it out. Sorry I tried,
it's not necessary since you are ok with spiritual healing so we can go with that)



Inevitable said:


> I was asking what natural healing was.
> [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]



I tried to describe it, but there are different types and different applications.
The main thing is that it is "natural" it is based on how the mind/body work
to heal themselves by nature, so the process happens freely and is all positive.

After I answered or tried to,
I read your post that you "have no problem with spiritual healing"

So whatever the "spiritual healing" is that you "have no problem with"
that is what I mean by natural healing. Or it's close enough.

the point is that it is NOT the coercive fraudulent abusive forced conversion
that is malpractice and/or criminal.

The main point I got out of this is that
I cannot make any reference that seems to link healing, natural healing, etc.
with "anything to do" with that forced conversion crap or it confuses two unrelated things.

Once you said you had no problem with spiritual healing,
I am fine with going with the type you understand is not a problem.

Everyone I know refers to their own process in different terms
so I am not going to haggle with you or anyone on how you see this process.

The MAIN difference is between
natural/spiritual which is effective and lasting
versus fraudulent fake or forced which fails and causes harm.
(there is also a distinction from negative spiritual forces like
voodoo sorcery spells curses, etc. which CLASH with positive healing
prayer and cause greater risk of damage disrupting the life forces) 

I think it is obvious we are both OPPOSED to the negative/wrongful approaches
and only support that which is spiritually natural, positive and works freely.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> YES!!! ALL OF GOD'S WORD IS GOD'S WORD, read and understand in context so you will understand what GOD is saying= sexual perversion is an ABOMINATION!!



Good Morning    [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
And how many people have you helped overcome "sexual perversion" by this method?

Inevitable wants to compare cases documented medically in APA / psychological terms.

If you can share cases of people who overcame their "sexual perversion"
by being preached to in this manner, maybe it does work for those people.

From what I see, it turns more people away from the Bible and Christianity.
Is this what you intend?
Are you trying to be a stumbling block and cause rejection or provoke your neighbor?

GISMYS all the people I have ever heard of change their lives and lifestyles
did so by forgiveness and healing of past sins or karma. It was not by preaching at them.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND YOU ARE SPREADING AND MULTIPLYING UNFORGIVENESS?

Your method causes more people to rebel against Christianity God and the Bible. 
My friend Daron will not forgive Christians as long as people like you keep preaching this way.

You can blame that unforgiveness on Daron, and he will merely blame it on you for causing it.

Is THIS what you want to cause? Twice as many people refusing to forgive each other?

That is twice as many stumbling blocks, turning people from God by SPREADING UNFORGIVENESS.
Why would you keep doing this if it is causing more problems than it is solving?

All the cases of people healed of sexual perversion, addiction or abuse
were based on SPIRITUAL FORGIVENESS AND HEALING
(not about "preaching that the Bible condemns sexual perversion" which is not
one of the steps in the successful treatment and spiritual process).

The first step is forgiving, so all things may be resolved. So if you skip that step, people stay stuck.
Since you appear to stay stuck GISMYS I can only assume there is something you are not forgiving so you keep preaching instead. 
Thanks but no thanks, this does not help people, or anyone here.

The most I see is that you are challenging people to forgive you for preaching,
but the better way is to forgive others first so they learn to forgive you by example.
If you are trying to teach forgiveness, the opposite is happening by spreading more unforgiveness of you for preaching at people.

Please pray for another way to be more effective than this. God will always answer your prayers.
Thanks GISMYS: May you continue to receive more forgiveness healing wisdom and insights from God.


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! ALL OF GOD'S WORD IS GOD'S WORD, read and understand in context so you will understand what GOD is saying= sexual perversion is an ABOMINATION!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Morning [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
> And how many people have you helped overcome "sexual perversion" by this method?
> 
> [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] wants to compare cases documented medically in APA / psychological terms.
> 
> If you can share cases of people who overcame their "sexual perversion"
> by being preached to in this manner, maybe it does work for those people.
> 
> From what I see, it turns more people away from the Bible and Christianity.
> Is this what you intend?
> Are you trying to be a stumbling block and cause rejection or provoke your neighbor?
> 
> GISMYS all the people I have ever heard of change their lives and lifestyles
> did so by forgiveness and healing of past sins or karma. It was not by preaching at them.
> 
> Your method causes more people to rebel against Christianity God and the Bible. My friend Daron will not forgive Christians as long as people like you keep preaching this way.
> 
> You can blame that unforgiveness on Daron, and he will merely blame it on you for causing it.
> 
> Is THIS what you want to cause? Twice as many people refusing to forgive each other?
> 
> That is twice as many stumbling blocks. Why would you keep doing this if it is causing more problems than it is solving?
> 
> GISMYS can name ONE PERSON here that you have helped change their minds by preaching that "the Bible condemns sexual perversion"? Who are you trying to address?
> 
> If you are trying to address me as a "Pharisee" I do promote the type of spiritual healing that cures people of sexual abuse and addictions or "sexual perversions"
> These methods are all based on SPIRITUAL FORGIVENESS AND HEALING
> and not about "preaching that the Bible condemns sexual perversion" which is not
> one of the steps in the successful treatment.
> 
> The first step is forgiving. So if you skip that step, people stay stuck.
> Since you appear to stay stuck GISMYS I can only assume there is something you are not forgiving so you keep preaching instead. Thanks but no thanks, this does not help people.
> 
> Please pray for another way to be more effective than this. Thanks GISMYS
> May you continue to receive more forgiveness healing wisdom and insights from God.
Click to expand...


First you must WANT  to overcome sexual perversion, TURN TO GOD,GOD AND GOD'S WORD ARE THERE TO HELP YOU OVERCOME ANY SIN.


----------



## alan1

GreenBean said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then you are supporting the "rights" of homosexuals to fornicate with children and hamsters ?
> 
> Hmmmmm  ... berry berry interesting -
> Glad you brought that out in the open - that took a lot of courage - coming out like that - do you think PETA might have a thing or two to say about  that kind of activity - ya know hamsters have rights too ?  You know those PETA people they are so homophobic - don't you agree ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you completely lack comprehension, have the actual IQ of a GreenBean, or are just a shit disturber.  Either way, I said nothing resembling your false statement poorly phrased as an attempted question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... a shit disturber
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you like shit disturbers ?  I hear they can be very amicable and polite people - Have you had your stool pushed in by one lately ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either way, I said nothing resembling your false statement poorly phrased as an attempted question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh , my apoloogies - I must have misunderstood you -  So you don't support inter-species intimacy - so what about inter generational intimacy , do you support the Gays on their quest to lower the age of consent ?
Click to expand...


If two consenting adults from different generations want to get intimate with each other, that's their business.  I don't support anybody's quest to lower the age of consent, regardless of their sexual orientation.


----------



## GISMYS

GISMYS said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! ALL OF GOD'S WORD IS GOD'S WORD, read and understand in context so you will understand what GOD is saying= sexual perversion is an ABOMINATION!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Morning [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
> And how many people have you helped overcome "sexual perversion" by this method?
> 
> [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] wants to compare cases documented medically in APA / psychological terms.
> 
> If you can share cases of people who overcame their "sexual perversion"
> by being preached to in this manner, maybe it does work for those people.
> 
> From what I see, it turns more people away from the Bible and Christianity.
> Is this what you intend?
> Are you trying to be a stumbling block and cause rejection or provoke your neighbor?
> 
> GISMYS all the people I have ever heard of change their lives and lifestyles
> did so by forgiveness and healing of past sins or karma. It was not by preaching at them.
> 
> Your method causes more people to rebel against Christianity God and the Bible. My friend Daron will not forgive Christians as long as people like you keep preaching this way.
> 
> You can blame that unforgiveness on Daron, and he will merely blame it on you for causing it.
> 
> Is THIS what you want to cause? Twice as many people refusing to forgive each other?
> 
> That is twice as many stumbling blocks. Why would you keep doing this if it is causing more problems than it is solving?
> 
> GISMYS can name ONE PERSON here that you have helped change their minds by preaching that "the Bible condemns sexual perversion"? Who are you trying to address?
> 
> If you are trying to address me as a "Pharisee" I do promote the type of spiritual healing that cures people of sexual abuse and addictions or "sexual perversions"
> These methods are all based on SPIRITUAL FORGIVENESS AND HEALING
> and not about "preaching that the Bible condemns sexual perversion" which is not
> one of the steps in the successful treatment.
> 
> The first step is forgiving. So if you skip that step, people stay stuck.
> Since you appear to stay stuck GISMYS I can only assume there is something you are not forgiving so you keep preaching instead. Thanks but no thanks, this does not help people.
> 
> Please pray for another way to be more effective than this. Thanks GISMYS
> May you continue to receive more forgiveness healing wisdom and insights from God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you must WANT  to overcome sexual perversion, TURN TO GOD,GOD AND GOD'S WORD ARE THERE TO HELP YOU OVERCOME ANY SIN.
Click to expand...


Many fail in their fight against sin by attempting to overcome it by their own strength rather than relying on Gods Spirit. Paul acknowledges this human deficiency. He knew full well the impact of the law of human nature and conduct. . . . Evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good, he wrote (Romans:7:21). This scripture describes the struggle of Paulsand every Christianscorrupt nature with his new godly nature.

It is through Jesus Christ, through His sacrifice for sin and by His nature dwelling in us (Galatians:2:20), that we can live a new, godly life. We can be redeemed from every lawless deed and purified as His own special people, zealous for good works (Titus:2:14). With Gods help we can overcome.


----------



## emilynghiem

Mad_Cabbie said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's a choice, it's constitutionally protected as the right to the pursuit of happiness. If it's mental illness, it's no different than right wing ideology. If it's inherent, it's no different that hair color.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BOTTOMLINE= TO YOU! IS MAN'S LAWS MORE IMPORTANT THAN GOD'S LAWS??? GOD says sexual perversion is an abomination!!! I choose to believe GOD!!! and you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess Moses didn't have enough room to include it in with the *10 commandments*, but making graven images made the cut?
> 
> Nice. My avatar just got me a place in Hadies....
Click to expand...

  [MENTION=45886]Mad_Cabbie[/MENTION]
Any Unnatural sexual lust or acts are included in TWO commandments under
* Thou shalt not commit ADULTERY
Jesus said even having unnatural LUST in our hearts is already Adultery in spirit
* Thou shalt not COVET thy neighbor's wife .... or anything that is thy neighbor's

I always pointed out the focus should be against adultery, and that would cover any "unnatural lust" between either heterosexual or homosexual partners
 [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
The Republican Party changed the Texas platform to remove the language targeting "homosexuality" and replacing it with broader terms of "sexual sins"
to cover rape, adultery, incest, any sexual abuses in general which are really the problem. So they got this right.

Everyone is yelling about defending the choice of reparative therapy in the platform,
but what about this positive correction that I believe promotes a unified approach. 
Focus on stopping sexual abuse and relationship abuse, and that covers everything!


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

emilynghiem said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> BOTTOMLINE= TO YOU! IS MAN'S LAWS MORE IMPORTANT THAN GOD'S LAWS??? GOD says sexual perversion is an abomination!!! I choose to believe GOD!!! and you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Moses didn't have enough room to include it in with the *10 commandments*, but making graven images made the cut?
> 
> Nice. My avatar just got me a place in Hadies....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [MENTION=45886]Mad_Cabbie[/MENTION]
> Any Unnatural sexual lust or acts are included in TWO commandments under
> * Thou shalt not commit ADULTERY
> Jesus said even having unnatural LUST in our hearts is already Adultery in spirit
> * Thou shalt not COVET thy neighbor's wife .... or anything that is thy neighbor's
> 
> I always pointed out the focus should be against adultery, and that would cover any "unnatural lust" between either heterosexual or homosexual partners
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but by that logic, any sex except for between married couples, would be considered a sin. I don't have a problem understanding that, but that would make sex between unmarried gay men, no worse an offence than sex between two unmarried straight people (man and women)


----------



## GISMYS

Mad_Cabbie said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Moses didn't have enough room to include it in with the *10 commandments*, but making graven images made the cut?
> 
> Nice. My avatar just got me a place in Hadies....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=45886]Mad_Cabbie[/MENTION]
> Any Unnatural sexual lust or acts are included in TWO commandments under
> * Thou shalt not commit ADULTERY
> Jesus said even having unnatural LUST in our hearts is already Adultery in spirit
> * Thou shalt not COVET thy neighbor's wife .... or anything that is thy neighbor's
> 
> I always pointed out the focus should be against adultery, and that would cover any "unnatural lust" between either heterosexual or homosexual partners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but by that logic, any sex except for between married couples, would be considered a sin. I don't have a problem understanding that, but that would make sex between unmarried gay men, no worse an offence than sex between two unmarried straight people (man and women)
Click to expand...


YES!!! SIN IS SIN AND THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH AND HELL!!! High price to pay!!!


----------



## GreenBean

alan1 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you completely lack comprehension, have the actual IQ of a GreenBean, or are just a shit disturber.  Either way, I said nothing resembling your false statement poorly phrased as an attempted question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you like shit disturbers ?  I hear they can be very amicable and polite people - Have you had your stool pushed in by one lately ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either way, I said nothing resembling your false statement poorly phrased as an attempted question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh , my apoloogies - I must have misunderstood you -  So you don't support inter-species intimacy - so what about inter generational intimacy , do you support the Gays on their quest to lower the age of consent ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If two consenting adults from different generations want to get intimate with each other, that's their business.  I don't support anybody's quest to lower the age of consent, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Click to expand...


Cool Beans ... so what age do you consider an  "Adult"  to be  ?  In the Dark Ages  "Adulthood" was shortly after they ceased suckling their mother teats - do you believe gays should have the rights to wean them off their mothers teats with the use of a "pacifier"


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> Many fail in their fight against sin by attempting to overcome it by their own strength rather than relying on Gods Spirit. Paul acknowledges this human deficiency. He knew full well the impact of the law of human nature and conduct. . . . Evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good, he wrote (Romans:7:21). This scripture describes the struggle of Paulsand every Christianscorrupt nature with his new godly nature.
> 
> It is through Jesus Christ, through His sacrifice for sin and by His nature dwelling in us (Galatians:2:20), that we can live a new, godly life. We can be redeemed from every lawless deed and purified as His own special people, zealous for good works (Titus:2:14). With Gods help we can overcome.



Yes, agreed.
and the FIRST step to letting go so God's will can be done naturally
is to FORGIVE.
 [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] the more WE FORGIVE and let God in to correct these things,
the LESS you will feel the need to preach about it.

Please let us focus on letting God in to correct things by HIS will not ours.

Again, the scripture in Matthew that we focus on removing
the BEAMS from our own eyes BEFORE pointing out the splinter in our neighbors'

The more we work on ourselves, God helps us and takes care of others the same
way. They have to find and remove their splinters themselves their own way.

We cannot do this for others or point it out for them. That is for them to do with God.
For you and me, we focus on ourselves which is our business with God.

==========================================
Note: Nobody can change someone's mind by preaching at them.

When you let the Plumbers into the house to fix the plumbing,
you don't need to keep calling the Plumbers and yelling at all the neighbors
There's a break in the system and the houses are flooding!
There's a break in the system and the houses are flooding!
There's a break in the system and the houses are flooding!

over and over

The neighbors who already trust the Plumbers to come in and fix things
already know and do not need to hear you yell and scream about it

The neighbors who don't TRUST YOU and think you are preaching to preach
will think you are yelling for nothing and complain about you

Would you really expect neighbors who don't want to hear you yell and preach
to "change their minds" about slamming the door in your face
by YELLING AND PREACHING MORE AND MORE AND MORE

We all know this does NOT work
So let's keep asking God to find another way to fix all the houses without preaching.


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many fail in their fight against sin by attempting to overcome it by their own strength rather than relying on Gods Spirit. Paul acknowledges this human deficiency. He knew full well the impact of the law of human nature and conduct. . . . Evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good, he wrote (Romans:7:21). This scripture describes the struggle of Paulsand every Christianscorrupt nature with his new godly nature.
> 
> It is through Jesus Christ, through His sacrifice for sin and by His nature dwelling in us (Galatians:2:20), that we can live a new, godly life. We can be redeemed from every lawless deed and purified as His own special people, zealous for good works (Titus:2:14). With Gods help we can overcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, agreed.
> and the FIRST step to letting go so God's will can be done naturally
> is to FORGIVE.
> [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] the more WE FORGIVE and let God in to correct these things,
> the LESS you will feel the need to preach about it.
> 
> Please let us focus on letting God in to correct things by HIS will not ours.
> 
> Again, the scripture in Matthew that we focus on removing
> the BEAMS from our own eyes BEFORE pointing out the splinter in our neighbors'
> 
> The more we work on ourselves, God helps us and takes care of others the same
> way. They have to find and remove their splinters themselves their own way.
> 
> We cannot do this for others or point it out for them. That is for them to do with God.
> For you and me, we focus on ourselves which is our business with God.
> 
> ==========================================
> Note: Nobody can change someone's mind by preaching at them.
> 
> When you let the Plumbers into the house to fix the plumbing,
> you don't need to keep calling the Plumbers and yelling at all the neighbors
> There's a break in the system and the houses are flooding!
> There's a break in the system and the houses are flooding!
> There's a break in the system and the houses are flooding!
> 
> over and over
> 
> The neighbors who already trust the Plumbers to come in and fix things
> already know and do not need to hear you yell and scream about it
> 
> The neighbors who don't TRUST YOU and think you are preaching to preach
> will think you are yelling for nothing and complain about you
> 
> Would you really expect neighbors who don't want to hear you yell and preach
> to "change their minds" about slamming the door in your face
> by YELLING AND PREACHING MORE AND MORE AND MORE
> 
> We all know this does NOT work
> So let's keep asking God to find another way to fix all the houses without preaching.
Click to expand...


ME FORGIVE???? NO!! IT IS GOD'S forgivness that is needed by sexual perverts and GOD will forgive those that confess and repent and HE will wash them clean BUT they must first admit their sin IS sin,confess and repent and seek to stop doing evil.


----------



## emilynghiem

Mad_Cabbie said:


> I'm sorry, but by that logic, any sex except for between married couples, would be considered a sin. I don't have a problem understanding that, but that would make sex between unmarried gay men, no worse an offence than sex between two unmarried straight people (man and women)



Hi Mad_Cabbie
that's why I don't start too literally,
where people haggle legalistically over the "letter of the law" and lose the SPIRIT or meaning/point

the point is to respect committed partners and partnerships
This is on a spiritual level first
(then whatever laws or actions happen in the physical world follow from that)

If we follow the law in spirit, then the physical things follow from there, not vice versa.
the REAL issue is to make sure people are "paired up" with their "true spiritual partners"

Otherwise it causes discord if both people really belong with other partners instead
(which is adultery "in spirit" if people are having sex with someone else's spiritual partner.
it is not just based on who is legally married, but who is married in spirit as partners.)

It makes sense to me people would need to resolve this issue first
BEFORE trying to decide on sex, marriage, laws, etc after the fact 

If we can't even agree on what determines a true spiritual partner or partnership
we have no business trying to impose laws on marriage because of religious differences.
Even if we did agree, that is still a spiritual/religious concept and not for the state to decide.

so this is why I am saying it is a spiritual matter first
before it becomes a religious or legal matter after that.

We'd have to agree on the spiritual level or we will never resolve the other two levels


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> First you must WANT  to overcome sexual perversion, TURN TO GOD,GOD AND GOD'S WORD ARE THERE TO HELP YOU OVERCOME ANY SIN.


@GISMY
And how can any such person WANT to change themselves
if all they WANT is for you to "quit preaching at them?"

If your preaching distracts and sends them in the wrong direction
how is this helping to bring in God's will to make any corrections?

Isn't it adding MORE misunderstanding and conflicts that now need to be forgiven and corrected? On TOP of what was already a problem? How is this helping anyone?


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you must WANT  to overcome sexual perversion, TURN TO GOD,GOD AND GOD'S WORD ARE THERE TO HELP YOU OVERCOME ANY SIN.
> 
> 
> 
> @GISMY
> And how can any such person WANT to change themselves
> if all they WANT is for you to "quit preaching at them?"
> 
> If your preaching distracts and sends them in the wrong direction
> how is this helping to bring in God's will to make any corrections?
> 
> Isn't it adding MORE misunderstanding and conflicts that now need to be forgiven and corrected? On TOP of what was already a problem? How is this helping anyone?
Click to expand...


LOL!!! SO you are saying my posting GOD'S WORD OF TRUTH ABOUT THE ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL ,PERVERSION IS PREVENTING THE PERVERTS FROM WANTING TO STOP THEIR PERVERSION????? LOL!!!  BOTTOMLINE = THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH AND HELL!!! Seek to stop sinning,ask GOD for His help and forgivness. JESUS SAYS to the sinner,"GO AND SIN NO MORE"!!!====================LATER==ITS MY TENNIS TIME!!!


----------



## emilynghiem

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you jump all over me when I pointed out you were wrong about it not being a choice? Didn't you claim that you didn't actually hold that position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe it's a choice. No, you and I never spoke about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We spent a significant part of my posts in this tread discussing it.
> 
> But feel free to pretend we didn't.
Click to expand...


Dear [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION] and [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
It is clear to me that Inevitable's position is and always has been it is not a choice.
(I disagree also for people who "report for themselves" that their sexuality WAS a choice, I trust each person to speak for themselves without other people imposing, either way)

I also misunderstood and thought Inevitable was opposed to natural spiritual healing.

Inevitable misunderstood me and thought I either supported the mental illness approach or the abusive types of conversion /malpractice based on the assumption that homosexuality needed to be targeted, fixed cured or changed.

I can assure you that is not what I meant or believe.
Nor did Inevitable mean one thing and turn around and say something else,
especially not about choice which I could see is clearly his position it isn't a choice.

Sorry this happens online.
Clearly it happens to the best of people since I have no doubt that 
you Inevitable and I are all consistent with what we believe and mean,
and the miscommunication that happens is not our intent.

I believe we are all correct in our knowledge and assessment
and only miscommunicate where we misunderstand each other's experiences
that are outside our own. We might expand and see that
for some people it is a choice and for some people it is not.

But that will not change our original positions, just because we acknowledge other people's experiences that are different from ours. We will still believe the same thing we were saying from the beginning, and understand we are not talking about the same things that make other people answer differently. These are not in conflict with each other.

The spiritual process going on includes all these experiences as valid, and it's mostly our communication that fails because of our lack of terms to distinguish the higher spiritual changes and differences between people's perceptions and experiences. The Buddhist terms may clarify some of these distinctions, but just given English/scientific terms of "mental illness" doesn't work to describe the spiritual changes people have gone through.

Even the term "choice" can be debated theologically and spiritually on what level of choice you are talking about; some people do not believe we have free will at all but just the illusion of free will, others think all things in life are choice etc. 

Of course we are going to misunderstand and may never see things the same way.
If we stick to where we agree, we can focus and communicate on those points.
So let's focus there and forgive the rest that gets messed up online. Just happens,
even to the best most consistent of us. Thanks to both of you, please keep on
and let's not haggle over the snags that don't matter. The content is more valuable.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> LOL!!! SO you are saying my posting GOD'S WORD OF TRUTH ABOUT THE ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL ,PERVERSION IS PREVENTING THE PERVERTS FROM WANTING TO STOP THEIR PERVERSION????? LOL!!!  BOTTOMLINE = THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH AND HELL!!! Seek to stop sinning,ask GOD for His help and forgivness. JESUS SAYS to the sinner,"GO AND SIN NO MORE"!!!====================LATER==ITS MY TENNIS TIME!!!



Nope I am saying you are preaching to the wrong choir.

And the ones who do need this help respond not to preaching
but to forgiveness and counseling that heals past wrongs.

Your METHOD of preaching is the problem, the CONTENT of God's word and it's enforcement DO NOT RELY on you preaching it THIS WAY.

God's word and God's will is still unchanged.

So your preaching (not God's word) sends the wrong impression of YOU
(not God's word)

I guess the problem is you cannot distinguish the CONTENT (God's word)
from YOUR PREACHING which is YOU (not God's word)

You keep thinking I am defying or diminishing the truth of God's word
when I am addressing YOUR WAY of preaching it. Do you see the difference?


----------



## emilynghiem

RKMBrown said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> In extreme cases of trauma, people can have all sorts of reactions to it.  I would agree with that.  I think you're talking about a pretty miniscule percent of gays though here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and gays are a small % of the population (estimated 4%?)
> and yet public policy, marriage and business laws are all being debated
> on how to accommodate gays without imposing on people's beliefs either way.
> 
> Obviously size doesn't matter over principle.
> If it affects a small % it still must be accounted for to be fair.
> 
> Or else we wouldn't even be discussing this
> if that small % didn't matter because it's so minor.
> 
> Note: even if it's just a small % the same PROCESS that helps
> them also helps all people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS. On the issue of gay marriage, they are not asking for accommodation, they are asking for the bigoted laws against gay marriages to be stricken.
Click to expand...


Hi   [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]
I AGREE that laws banning gay marriage are unconstitutional.
Likewise are laws IMPOSING it; so the laws must be written neutrally
so they neither BAN nor IMPOSE on any religiously held beliefs about marriage etc.

That is NOT the process I was talking about here, sorry.

I was talking about the SPIRITUAL PROCESS of resolving and healing
conflicts and unforgiveness/division related to them.

(Yes, this same process helps all people even discussing this issue.
But that wasn't the main focus either)

The "natural spiritual healing" process that can be researched and proven
helps people heal of cancer, schizophrenia, and other diseases and conditions
not just sexual abuse, addiction etc as with homosexual people who changed.
(NOTE: not all people change to heterosexual relations after healing; the
common pattern is that people restore or make peace with their natural selves
and relationships, regardless of gender orientation religion etc and do not necessarily convert)

So I was saying there is a greater purpose than just "targeting homosexuality"
The real purpose is to resolve and heal a lot more issues and real problems.
Using the same process of forgiveness involved in "natural spiritual healing"


----------



## emilynghiem

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a show of hands isn't an appropriate way to determine mental illness, than they were wrong in the 50s for using that method to add homosexuality to the list of mental illnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that make them equally wrong for taking it off the list using the same method?
Click to expand...


In his book on "Homosexuality can it be healed" Dr. Francis MacNutt
faults the political agenda and pressure on these groups, which affected the lack of research into effective methods by which people changed freely not coerced through spiritual therapy.

On the other hand, even if spiritual changes and process do not count as "mental illness" so it is good not to confuse it with a "mental disorder",
the spiritual process changes and healing are valid and should be the focus of studies.

Dr. Scott Peck recognized the importance and impact of medical research, to define and develop a field for treating cases of spiritual afflictions 
such as schizophrenia with demonic deliverance that he observed worked effectively on otherwise incureable patients. Since this same
spiritual healing process helps with a broad range of diseases and disorder, why not study that instead of arguing over homosexuality?

Why only focus on the therapy that doesn't work or the terms that don't apply.
why not research the therapy that does work so new terms can be developed to distinguish these cases.


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> quantum windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> if a show of hands isn't an appropriate way to determine mental illness, than they were wrong in the 50s for using that method to add homosexuality to the list of mental illnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wouldn't that make them equally wrong for taking it off the list using the same method?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in his book on "homosexuality can it be healed" dr. Francis macnutt
> faults the political agenda and pressure on these groups, which affected the lack of research into effective methods by which people changed freely not coerced through spiritual therapy.
> 
> On the other hand, even if spiritual changes and process do not count as "mental illness" so it is good not to confuse it with a "mental disorder",
> the spiritual process changes and healing are valid and should be the focus of studies.
> 
> Dr. Scott peck recognized the importance and impact to define and develop a field for treating cases of spiritual afflictions such as schizophrenia with demonic deliverance that he observed worked effecgively on otherwise icureable patents
Click to expand...


all sin is a mental illiness and god says those that deny him are fools.


----------



## emilynghiem

GreenBean said:


> There are a number of variables that would be involved in the 50% match in orientation , the most obvious being identical nurture / upbringing.



You cannot isolate the nurture/upbringing from the spiritual connection between family members that could also be causing it. The spiritual factor is always present and cannot be removed from the equation to study the others by themselves.

No matter if we point to genetics or environment or even free choice,
the spiritual factor that would influence these levels is always present.
So it can cause exceptions: nothing in the genetics  or social upbringing may cause it,
but if the person is spiritually born to experience homosexual relations then it happens, and it may or may not be seen by that person as a choice. And it may or may not change.

some will say it was a choice for them and some say they tried to change but could not because it wasn't their choice. And both are true for those people.
for others it wasn't a choice but after spiritual healing they could chose otherwise. while other who go through healing still stay the same and its not their choice but at least they came to peace and forgave the conflicts over it so that part was healed.

   [MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION] can you find and post anything where someone described their process of change as a mental illness? isn't it more often described as a spiritual change?
===================================


			
				GB said:
			
		

> The second and equally plausible factor would be the possibilty of a genetic factor that effects ones pre-disposition and susceptibilty to acquiring homosexual traits .
> 
> It is believed that insanity runs in certain families - they have genetic deficiencies that would leave them predisposed to such ailments.
> 
> Another example would be Native Americans and alcohol  , it is pretty well established that "fire-water"  - alcohol has a different effect on amerindians than it does on caucasians and negroes - they are more prone to alocoholism - that doesn't mean they are genetically alcoholic - just more prone to it - they make the choice to drink or not to drink , just as Gays have the choice to lead a perverted sick existence or not to.



again both factors still occur along with the spiritual factors of why people are born to live certain experiences.
if people are not meant to have those type of spiritual relations or process
then no amount of genetics, predisposition and/or susceptibility is going to cause them to.
the genetics/predisposition/susceptibility/environment you could cite as the causes
are still caused by the spiritual level first. So that is the cause and the rest are part of the manifestation process.

as forNative Americans, the work done on spiritual healing focuses on
generational sickness and injury passed down until it is healed by forgiveness
until the spiritual injury and sickness is healed, yes, it is common to turn to
gambling or drug addictions; but the "susceptibility" is due to unforgiven issues.
If that is healed on the spiritual level, whatever is genetic is no longer the issue.

GB what you describe affects all humanity not just Natives who suffered tribal warfare curses or genocide
aslo the Black populatinos suffer from this; these generations that have genocide in their history are more pronounced and expressed.
the white populations carry karma from their ancestors but it tends to be more individualized, not generalized as a pattern
unless consider "angry white men" as a pattern.

the common factors are forgiveness or unforgiven issues/conflicts people carry
or karma/abuses past down from previous generations

that affects everyone's behavior. these laws of spiritual karma.
this is what i mean that the same process of healing applies to all people.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> all sin is a mental illiness and god says those that deny him are fools.



Yes, see msg to GreenBean that once you start picking apart what causes what,
then we all have our own sins/karma affecting our biases and behavior.

All humans are equally crazy, I can't argue with that. Agreed! ;-)


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Only a gay person can answer this question..............
> 
> I think the people trying to answer this without being gay are a hoot!
> 
> "Oh, It's certainly a choice because........."  or "It's not a choice something ...."
> 
> 
> Are you gay? Why are you answer questions for them? Why are you the professional of gay behavior? Ask a gay if it's a choice. Stop answering for them..
> 
> Unless of course you thought you were gay and you went through the religion anti-gay training camp that trains people who thought they were gay to be not gay..........etc...
> 
> You do realize that most Preists that raped young boys only did it because they were told they didn't have to "release the load". Puberty and not releasing your load makes your balls turn into your brains.
> 
> Just rub one out! Only specific versions of the Bible said don't jack off. It's not perverted, it's necessary. There should be a pressure valve.



Why can only gays answer that question? Is there something about homosexuality that makes it significantly different than heterosexuality on some fundamental level? If so, what is it?

You do realize that you have no idea what you are talking about, don't you?


----------



## emilynghiem

[MENTION=47936]AntiParty[/MENTION]
I agree with you if you mean only a gay person can answer for themselves, but
1. Even a gay person cannot speak for all other gay people.
Each person can speak for themselves, let others do the same,
and learn to deal with the fact that some answers are not going to match, even after reconciling, we can still disagree and not believe the same things.
2. If I cite what gay people said for themselves, I don't have to be gay to believe them and repeat them. As long as I don't project that as truth for "all people" (which is wrong even if a gay person makes a false generalization as well).
3. It's the projection and generalization that causes errors and conflicts.
You don't have to be gay to express the truth. 
And gay people can make errors also with generalizations.



AntiParty said:


> Only a gay person can answer this question..............
> 
> I think the people trying to answer this without being gay are a hoot!
> 
> "Oh, It's certainly a choice because........."  or "It's not a choice something ...."
> 
> 
> Are you gay? Why are you answer questions for them? Why are you the professional of gay behavior? Ask a gay if it's a choice. Stop answering for them..
> 
> Unless of course you thought you were gay and you went through the religion anti-gay training camp that trains people who thought they were gay to be not gay..........etc...
> 
> You do realize that most Preists that raped young boys only did it because they were told they didn't have to "release the load". Puberty and not releasing your load makes your balls turn into your brains.
> 
> Just rub one out! Only specific versions of the Bible said don't jack off. It's not perverted, it's necessary. There should be a pressure valve.



Priests who raped nuns in Africa because they didn't want AIDS from natives
aren't going to be helped by just rubbing one out. they need deeper therapy for their sickness  on a spiritual level not just placating symptoms.


----------



## RKMBrown

emilynghiem said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and gays are a small % of the population (estimated 4%?)
> and yet public policy, marriage and business laws are all being debated
> on how to accommodate gays without imposing on people's beliefs either way.
> 
> Obviously size doesn't matter over principle.
> If it affects a small % it still must be accounted for to be fair.
> 
> Or else we wouldn't even be discussing this
> if that small % didn't matter because it's so minor.
> 
> Note: even if it's just a small % the same PROCESS that helps
> them also helps all people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS. On the issue of gay marriage, they are not asking for accommodation, they are asking for the bigoted laws against gay marriages to be stricken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi   [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]
> I AGREE that laws banning gay marriage are unconstitutional.
> Likewise are laws IMPOSING it; so the laws must be written neutrally
> so they neither BAN nor IMPOSE on any religiously held beliefs about marriage etc.
> 
> That is NOT the process I was talking about here, sorry.
> 
> I was talking about the SPIRITUAL PROCESS of resolving and healing
> conflicts and unforgiveness/division related to them.
> 
> (Yes, this same process helps all people even discussing this issue.
> But that wasn't the main focus either)
> 
> The "natural spiritual healing" process that can be researched and proven
> helps people heal of cancer, schizophrenia, and other diseases and conditions
> not just sexual abuse, addiction etc as with homosexual people who changed.
> (NOTE: not all people change to heterosexual relations after healing; the
> common pattern is that people restore or make peace with their natural selves
> and relationships, regardless of gender orientation religion etc and do not necessarily convert)
> 
> So I was saying there is a greater purpose than just "targeting homosexuality"
> The real purpose is to resolve and heal a lot more issues and real problems.
> Using the same process of forgiveness involved in "natural spiritual healing"
Click to expand...

 [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION], repectifully, I'd like to point out that calling out homosexuals as having a some type of condition that needs to be healed, spiritually or not, is akin to me saying people like you have a condition that needs to be healed, that of using the bible as a weapon, a stone if you will, to disparage homosexuals for their sexual preference.


----------



## GreenBean

emilynghiem said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a number of variables that would be involved in the 50% match in orientation , the most obvious being identical nurture / upbringing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot isolate the nurture/upbringing from the spiritual connection between family members that could also be causing it. The spiritual factor is always present and cannot be removed from the equation to study the others by themselves.
> 
> No matter if we point to genetics or environment or even free choice,
> the spiritual factor that would influence these levels is always present.
> So it can cause exceptions: nothing in the genetics  or social upbringing may cause it,
> but if the person is spiritually born to experience homosexual relations then it happens, and it may or may not be seen by that person as a choice. And it may or may not change.
> 
> some will say it was a choice for them and some say they tried to change but could not because it wasn't their choice. And both are true for those people.
> for others it wasn't a choice but after spiritual healing they could chose otherwise. while other who go through healing still stay the same and its not their choice but at least they came to peace and forgave the conflicts over it so that part was healed.
> 
> [MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION] can you find and post anything where someone described their process of change as a mental illness? isn't it more often described as a spiritual change?
> ===================================
> 
> 
> 
> GB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second and equally plausible factor would be the possibilty of a genetic factor that effects ones pre-disposition and susceptibilty to acquiring homosexual traits .
> 
> It is believed that insanity runs in certain families - they have genetic deficiencies that would leave them predisposed to such ailments.
> 
> Another example would be Native Americans and alcohol  , it is pretty well established that "fire-water"  - alcohol has a different effect on amerindians than it does on caucasians and negroes - they are more prone to alocoholism - that doesn't mean they are genetically alcoholic - just more prone to it - they make the choice to drink or not to drink , just as Gays have the choice to lead a perverted sick existence or not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again both factors still occur along with the spiritual factors of why people are born to live certain experiences.
> if people are not meant to have those type of spiritual relations or process
> then no amount of genetics, predisposition and/or susceptibility is going to cause them to.
> the genetics/predisposition/susceptibility/environment you could cite as the causes
> are still caused by the spiritual level first. So that is the cause and the rest are part of the manifestation process.
> 
> as forNative Americans, the work done on spiritual healing focuses on
> generational sickness and injury passed down until it is healed by forgiveness
> until the spiritual injury and sickness is healed, yes, it is common to turn to
> gambling or drug addictions; but the "susceptibility" is due to unforgiven issues.
> If that is healed on the spiritual level, whatever is genetic is no longer the issue.
> 
> GB what you describe affects all humanity not just Natives who suffered tribal warfare curses or genocide
> aslo the Black populatinos suffer from this; these generations that have genocide in their history are more pronounced and expressed.
> the white populations carry karma from their ancestors but it tends to be more individualized, not generalized as a pattern
> unless consider "angry white men" as a pattern.
> 
> the common factors are forgiveness or unforgiven issues/conflicts people carry
> or karma/abuses past down from previous generations
> 
> that affects everyone's behavior. these laws of spiritual karma.
> this is what i mean that the same process of healing applies to all people.
Click to expand...




> can you find and post anything where someone described their process of change as a mental illness? isn't it more often described as a spiritual change?



Emily - *I'm sure you were perfectly capable of finding these yourself *-although I have the upmost respect for Christians and Christian Morals i do not involve myself in any way with the religion as I would find it be hypocritical in relation to my personal beliefs .  But I have listed a few cases where Ex-Gays credit what you would consider to be *Spiritual Healing* with their recovery, I hope it helps you   :> 

People Can Change

People Can Change

Testimony - Maria - OneByOne

[ame=http://youtu.be/J_cff7paPs8]Ex-gay Testimony - Melissa Fryrear - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Noomi

GISMYS said:


> First you must WANT  to overcome sexual perversion, TURN TO GOD,GOD AND GOD'S WORD ARE THERE TO HELP YOU OVERCOME ANY SIN.



That didn't help all my sinning last night.


----------



## emilynghiem

GreenBean said:


> Emily - *I'm sure you were perfectly capable of finding these yourself *-although I have the upmost respect for Christians and Christian Morals i do not involve myself in any way with the religion as I would find it be hypocritical in relation to my personal beliefs .  But I have listed a few cases where Ex-Gays credit what you would consider to be *Spiritual Healing* with their recovery, I hope it helps you   :>
> 
> People Can Change
> 
> People Can Change
> 
> Testimony - Maria - OneByOne
> 
> Ex-gay Testimony - Melissa Fryrear - YouTube



Thanks GreenBean these are very good descriptions of the process these people went through.

1. I noticed the mention of spiritual change

2. the only mention of any "mental illness" was an indirect reference to 
"sexual addiction" as ONE of three elements (and "sexual addiction"
applies to either orientation and is not uniquely tied to homosexuality)



			
				Alan Medinger said:
			
		

> Homosexuality is not an affliction like mental retardation or cancer; it is a group of problems, which together produce homosexual attractions and behavior. Each of these problems must be dealt with individually. Here are the three problems that God helped me deal with -- my three miracles.



3. the other testimonies did not have this because they did not have this same
sexual addiction. so this is not a necessary element in all people's experiences.

Thanks GreenBean
these are more effective and clear descriptions than the examples I found.
it is different for each person, so that is why I refrain from labeling them
all the same like an "addiction compulsion or illness"

if someone says it's natural and doesn't change, I believe them, too
and that should not negate these experiences from gay people who
found the opposite that it wasn't natural for them and they were able to change

the common factor I see is that people who come to terms and share
express it as a spiritual process or spiritually born and natural for them.
so spiritual references are a common term, but not mental illness, in these testimonies

4. Hey I couldn't find the testimony/article I was searching for online,
about a gay Catholic Priest who came out to his congregation, testifying
he believed he was born gay in order to serve in a celibate capacity
where it would be clear his purpose was to focus on the church and not 
pursuing a marriage and family. 

but I did find this on the website you referred:

http://peoplecanchange.com/stories/richard.php

this seems to be an example of sexual abuse
contributing to the man's reported experiences
with homosexuality and with healing the abuses
to overcome the same. he makes it clear he did
not get any help from traditional professional counseling.
so how can you expect that traditional field to quantify
and describe a process they don't know enough about to help someone like him?


----------



## emilynghiem

RKMBrown said:


> repectifully, I'd like to point out that calling out homosexuals as having a some type of condition that needs to be healed, spiritually or not, is akin to me saying people like you have a condition that needs to be healed, that of using the bible as a weapon, a stone if you will, to disparage homosexuals for their sexual preference.



Hi    [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION] this is a common misunderstanding and objection
but is not what I am saying or mean. I am talking about the spiritual process that isn't 
about homosexuality per se but applies to all people and other types of cases totally unrelated to homosexuality. 
it happens to be the same process people use who have changed and no longer consider themselves homosexual. 
But that is NOT my focus but on the general healing process that applies to all people, so the target is NOT a focus on gays.
sorry this isn't clear.

if you read GreenBean's links to the testimonies of people who have changed their lives
and their lifestyles with it, they do NOT refer to this as an "illness" to be cured either.
they speak for themselves only, and that was what I was trying to respect, sorry.

They describe it in spiritual terms as a spiritual process of changing and/or healing
of past abuses that contributed.

these experiences are NOT TRUE for all people.
I only read one person who described having a sexual addiction
but this still does not apply to others, only him.

I tried to find the testimony of a Gay Priest
who expresses his spiritual experience and process of coming out
as accepting his purpose and calling in life to be celibate
so he can serve the church as his family.

So each person is different.

Even the people whose lives were healed and changed
do not refer to themselves as mentally ill.

sorry this wasn't clear. each person is different.
I was referring to people who did change their lives.

So whatever they call it, I was trying to describe it closer to the terms they use.
This still doesn't apply to all people, who can only describe their own lives.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> ME FORGIVE???? NO!! IT IS GOD'S forgivness that is needed by sexual perverts and GOD will forgive those that confess and repent and HE will wash them clean BUT they must first admit their sin IS sin,confess and repent and seek to stop doing evil.



Dear     [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] I agree if you mean "you cannot repent on behalf of others," as only they can repent and ask forgiveness; 
however, this also explains why you should NOT harp on the sins of others you cannot change, 
but look to your OWN sins of unforgiveness that you DO answer to God for:

Matthew 6:15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
*14"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 
15"But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.*


----------



## emilynghiem

Slyhunter said:


> .



by the time we develop that,
we would already have figured out how to prevent
karmic conditions from reincarnating in the first place
so we don't NEED to play with genetics to resolve spiritual causes


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> Thanks [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
> Since natural healing is very broad to describe (I did try, sorry if I missed the mark on it)
> please describe the spiritual healing you have no problem with.
> 
> I'd rather go with yours which I trust would only be positive and true


  [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]Go with my what exactly?


----------



## I.P.Freely

I am very proud to be British. One of the reasons is that we give asylum to gays who are being persecuted.


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that make them equally wrong for taking it off the list using the same method?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily if it only was added because of popularity than it was wrong for it to bethere inthe first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it's right - when it suits your purposes , but wrong when it works against them !?   That's pretty Childish - don't you think ??
Click to expand...

They were wrong in thefirst place,they layer corrected their error.


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily if it only was added because of popularity than it was wrong for it to bethere inthe first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's right - when it suits your purposes , but wrong when it works against them !?   That's pretty Childish - don't you think ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were wrong in thefirst place,they layer corrected their error.
Click to expand...


Yes okay they "Layer" corrected it - uh hmmm  - so what else did they do in Layers ? 

Perhaps you should correct some of your errors - you seem to have them in abundance. Begginning with your *choice* of lifestyle


----------



## GreenBean

I.P.Freely said:


> I am very proud to be British. One of the reasons is that we give asylum to gays who are being persecuted.



Who needs the UK when you've got San Fran Sisco


----------



## GISMYS

GreenBean said:


> I.P.Freely said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am very proud to be British. One of the reasons is that we give asylum to gays who are being persecuted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who needs the UK when you've got San Fran Sisco
Click to expand...


YES! WE HAVE OUR OWN sodom and gomorrah here in the USA , GOD have mercy!!


----------



## Luddly Neddite

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's right - when it suits your purposes , but wrong when it works against them !?   That's pretty Childish - don't you think ??
> 
> 
> 
> They were wrong in thefirst place,they layer corrected their error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes okay they "Layer" corrected it - uh hmmm  - so what else did they do in Layers ?
> 
> Perhaps you should correct some of your errors - you seem to have them in abundance. Begginning with your *choice* of lifestyle
Click to expand...


758 posts and still going in circles. 

Gays don't choose any more than you do but bottom line is, even it were a "choice", its no one's business. 

If people would stop peeking in other people's windows, there would be a lot fewer problems in the world. 

MYOB


----------



## GISMYS

Luddly Neddite said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were wrong in thefirst place,they layer corrected their error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes okay they "Layer" corrected it - uh hmmm  - so what else did they do in Layers ?
> 
> Perhaps you should correct some of your errors - you seem to have them in abundance. Begginning with your *choice* of lifestyle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 758 posts and still going in circles.
> 
> Gays don't choose any more than you do but bottom line is, even it were a "choice", its no one's business.
> 
> If people would stop peeking in other people's windows, there would be a lot fewer problems in the world.
> 
> MYOB
Click to expand...

""ALL"" SIN IS MAN'S CHOICE= GOOD OR EVIL,RIGHT OR WRONG,BELIEVE GOD'S WORD OR TRY TO DENY THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD!!! Live in the light or live in darkness, You get to chose!


----------



## GreenBean

Luddly Neddite said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were wrong in thefirst place,they layer corrected their error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes okay they "Layer" corrected it - uh hmmm  - so what else did they do in Layers ?
> 
> Perhaps you should correct some of your errors - you seem to have them in abundance. Begginning with your *choice* of lifestyle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 758 posts and still going in circles.
> 
> Gays don't choose any more than you do but bottom line is, even it were a "choice", its no one's business.
> 
> If people would stop peeking in other people's windows, there would be a lot fewer problems in the world.
> 
> MYOB
Click to expand...


It's not about "peaking into ther peoples windows"  - who really gives a rats ass ? - It's about gay activists prying into other peoples heads , 
invading their living rooms with their constant barrages of vile propaganda, 

attacking their houses of worship because they refuse to bow down, 

destroying peoples lives and careers because they *dare to disagree *with the Lords of Perversion, 

It's about trying to pass off a mental degeneracy and sick and unhealthy anti-sexual perversion as something admirable - 

*BUT WORST OF ALL *  it's about invading our schools, our childrens entertainment and our childrens minds with their detestable agenda .   *Gay is not Okay *  and it's not an acceptable "alternative lifestyle"


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

You are born gay and it is not a mental illness...


----------



## I.P.Freely

GISMYS said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I.P.Freely said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am very proud to be British. One of the reasons is that we give asylum to gays who are being persecuted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who needs the UK when you've got San Fran Sisco
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES! WE HAVE OUR OWN sodom and gomorrah here in the USA , GOD have mercy!!
Click to expand...

does the thought make you moist?


----------



## GISMYS

BELIEVE AND FACE TRUTH!!!== For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

21 For when they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God, nor were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Romans 1:20-22 
That man is a fool who says to himself, &#8220;There is no God!&#8221; Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, &#8220;There is no God.&#8221; And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 
DAYS are comming very soon when the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains; 16and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; 17for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?" Revelation 6:16 JESUS= KING OF KINGS,LORD OF LORDS


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

I love it when someone beat their bible while condemning the sexual acts of gays, and yet my bet those that beat their bibles have also sin in their youth but now want to ignore their own sins while condemning the gay and lesbian community...

I also love those that beat their bible while worshiping a religion that was created by a Pagan Roman to control the mass public with ignorant worshiping of false words, and lie...

Also King David was bi-sexual, and some claim Jesus himself was gay because he walked around with 12 man and a whore, but who am I to judge?

Also the Bible words were to lure the close minded away from the Pagan sexual ways in the Greek and Roman society, but again keep beating your bible...


----------



## GISMYS

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> I love it when someone beat their bible while condemning the sexual acts of gays, and yet my bet those that beat their bibles have also sin in their youth but now want to ignore their own sins while condemning the gay and lesbian community...
> 
> I also love those that beat their bible while worshiping a religion that was created by a Pagan Roman to control the mass public with ignorant worshiping of false words, and lie...
> 
> Also King David was bi-sexual, and some claim Jesus himself was gay because he walked around with 12 man and a whore, but who am I to judge?
> 
> Also the Bible words were to lure the close minded away from the Pagan sexual ways in the Greek and Roman society, but again keep beating your bible...



BEWARE!!!! BEWARNED!! There is a very high cost to those that allow satan to use them as his TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET!!!


----------



## emilynghiem

Inevitable said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
> Since natural healing is very broad to describe (I did try, sorry if I missed the mark on it)
> please describe the spiritual healing you have no problem with.
> 
> I'd rather go with yours which I trust would only be positive and true
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]Go with my what exactly?
Click to expand...


Hi Inevitable
With whatever "spiritual healing" you said "you don't have a problem with"
If you don't have a problem with it I assume it is
* natural
* true and effective and right for that person to choose or use to describe their process of healing (ie not forced fake or fraud)
* effective and positive
* causes no harm or risk but freely chosen and safe

It is easier to start with your understanding of "spiritual healing"
and work from there, rather than for me to try to define the
millions of different ways people have experienced healing naturally
and try to define that without error or conflict with your experiences,
since everyone is different and understands this in a unique way

Since you and I are discussing with each other, and you are better
at narrowing things down to the common core, I say we start with
your perspective and stick with where mine agrees with yours in
order to cut out as much extra verbiage from my "talking around the points"
unnecessarily, and just get to and keep directly with the points that are on target.

(same with GreenBean instead of arguing about what he is 
calling mental illness, let's start with the type of experiences
he believes are true where people changed and look at their language
for it. i didn't see anyone call homosexuality a mental illness. in fact one
man said he got no help at all from psychiatric counselors trying to approach
it the traditional way with therapy, so that does not work. what i saw was
very forgiving and understanding language talking about their OWN
spiritual experiences and changes in life, not condemning themselves
or other people (even themselves or people who may have abused them
which they didn't blame either). so if we can agree on common language there, we don't have to argue
what is mental illness what is choice if these people don't talk that way in the first place.

I was also looking for the article about a gay priest who came to terms that
he was homosexual by birth for spiritual reasons, in order to compare the language
he uses to describe his process of coming to terms with this. by seeing the common
process I thought it would be more clear that just because they change or don't
change doesn't mean it's false or true, the common factor is the spiritual realization)


----------



## hangover

GISMYS said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> BOTTOMLINE= TO YOU! IS MAN'S LAWS MORE IMPORTANT THAN GOD'S LAWS??? GOD says sexual perversion is an abomination!!! I choose to believe GOD!!! and you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Moses didn't have enough room to include it in with the 10 commandments, but making graven images made the cut?
> 
> Nice. My avatar just got me a place in Hadies....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! ALL OF GOD'S WORD IS GOD'S WORD, read and understand in context so you will understand what GOD is saying= sexual perversion is an ABOMINATION!!
Click to expand...


God didn't write the bible, or even put it together. Your b.s. is no different than Muslims declaring Mohamed scripture as "God's word". In fact, Mohamed says the same as you.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

BEWARE!!!! BEWARNED!! There is a very high cost to those that allow satan to use them as his TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET!!![/QUOTE]

Satan is the inner demon or evil that lives within us... Just like God is the inner Good that lives within us... They're made up to excuse our good and evil deeds...

Yin and Yang but alas those that beat their Bible believe in the fairy tale of Satan to scare themselves into keeping the evil in check...


----------



## GISMYS

hangover said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Moses didn't have enough room to include it in with the 10 commandments, but making graven images made the cut?
> 
> Nice. My avatar just got me a place in Hadies....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! ALL OF GOD'S WORD IS GOD'S WORD, read and understand in context so you will understand what GOD is saying= sexual perversion is an ABOMINATION!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God didn't write the bible, or even put it together. Your b.s. is no different than Muslims declaring Mohamed scripture as "God's word". In fact, Mohamed says the same as you.
Click to expand...


LOL!!! I CHOSE TO BELIEVE GOD'S WORD and just pity the poor lost fools!=== All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

17 that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped for all good works.
 2 timothy 3:16


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> BELIEVE AND FACE TRUTH!!!== For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
> 
> 21 For when they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God, nor were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
> 
> 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
> Romans 1:20-22
> That man is a fool who says to himself, &#8220;There is no God!&#8221; Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, &#8220;There is no God.&#8221; And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1
> DAYS are comming very soon when the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains; 16and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; 17for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?" Revelation 6:16 JESUS= KING OF KINGS,LORD OF LORDS



Good Morning     [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
Arise and Shine! -- http://ariseandshine.org/

GreenBean posted testimonies of people who changed their lives
and no longer desire homosexual relations with others. If you READ their testmonies
posted on "peoplecanchange" (see his links below) :

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...something-simply-inherent-51.html#post9348982

These fellow Christian believers do NOT condemn other people
They speak in a forgiving understanding spirit, through Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit,
to SHARE their healing experiences with others, in loving words with no fear of condemnation.
All the fear and unforgiveness is gone.

Do you see the difference?

GISMYS show me where any of these people who completely transformed spiritually
use any "Bible preaching and condemnation of sexual perversions"
to change their lives or to reach out to anyone else to change. Where is this done?

Why were these people successful?
Look at how they talk about their OWN lives with Forgiveness, NOT other people with "unforgiveness and judgment."

Read the testimonies that GreenBean posted.

Can you speak that way using your OWN experiences with how you changed your OWN life?
That is more effective. Why can't you share that way and be more effective as they are?

Look at what works. not preaching not condemnation or threats of judgment.
these people ran from that and did not get help that way. look what worked for them.
and look how they share with others that worked.

they are not posting preaching on that website. no screaming about judgment and hell.

if that is what worked, GISMYS, wouldn't they be preaching as you do here
in order to help more people? look what they've posted instead:
can you do the same?

GISMYS I ask you to take up the same challenge of these brave witnesses.
to go through the same forgiveness and healing process they did,
and "come out" with your true voice you naturally speak with,
blessed by God with love and healing words of comfort not condemnation.

drop the mask of preaching judging and condemning that is
what you think society needs to hear, and speak with others with the
words God gives you to repent of your own ways, and come clean
as these other people did who "speak the truth with love" not fear.

Thank you GISMYS
if your experiences with healing do not belong on this thread
please post on your other threads in your OWN words using
your OWN experience as your own personal testimony given by God


----------



## GreenBean

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> You are born gay and it is not a mental illness...



Proof Please


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Let's sum up and go get brunch. 

- If homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, then homosexuals can't be faulted for being that way.

- If homosexuality is a choice or preference, they can be condemned for choosing what some religions consider a sin.

Choose your position and move on. Sheesh.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

It would be one thing if the words were by God, but the words on those pages were by men that wanted to control the mindless drones that need something to believe in...

You worship the words by Romans and Greeks, and in fact you worship more of a Pagan religion than the actual words of Jesus, or Moses...


----------



## GISMYS

bruce_t_laney said:


> it would be one thing if the words were by god, but the words on those pages were by men that wanted to control the mindless drones that need something to believe in...
> 
> You worship the words by romans and greeks, and in fact you worship more of a pagan religion than the actual words of jesus, or moses...



satan has you blinded and is playing you for a fool!!


----------



## I.P.Freely

GISMYS said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when someone beat their bible while condemning the sexual acts of gays, and yet my bet those that beat their bibles have also sin in their youth but now want to ignore their own sins while condemning the gay and lesbian community...
> 
> I also love those that beat their bible while worshiping a religion that was created by a Pagan Roman to control the mass public with ignorant worshiping of false words, and lie...
> 
> Also King David was bi-sexual, and some claim Jesus himself was gay because he walked around with 12 man and a whore, but who am I to judge?
> 
> Also the Bible words were to lure the close minded away from the Pagan sexual ways in the Greek and Roman society, but again keep beating your bible...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BEWARE!!!! BEWARNED!! There is a very high cost to those that allow satan to use them as his TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET!!!
Click to expand...

but your god sound such a boring twat.
Ps what was your favorite sex position.........I am assuming you have a good memory.


----------



## emilynghiem

GreenBean said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are born gay and it is not a mental illness...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof Please
Click to expand...


Hi GreenBean: if you have no friends who were naturally born gay: You can call my friend Ray Hill, a prominent gay atheist activist, and talk with him about how he is naturally how he is. He teaches the same concept of free grace in life, and forgiveness so you don't make yourself "mentally ill" keeping inventory on yourself or others. 713 523 6969. this is posted publicly on freespiritualhealing | Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy and he helps anyone who calls. He overcame alcoholic addiction by adding Buddhist meditation practice to AA, and has helped many others regardless if they are Christian or other faiths, he does not believe in a personified God or Jesus, but doesn't mind people who do as long as you can tolerate him as well. He is very fair about equal respect. He works on peace and justice alongside other Christians and people of all faiths. He memorized the Bible by the time he was 19, so he can talk with anyone about anything. He just counsels people to focus on where they place their own faith, and help the same people of a group work together and not worry about what other groups believe and put their faith in. He is very kind wise and funny; he has been through or seen just about any horrible thing people do to others, and helps them make peace with his natural sense of humor about life and the human condition. maybe he knows what you are saying about alcoholic addiction and tendencies inherited from the past. I have no doubt he is one of those specially called to be as he is to help people from his viewpoint. Please call him if you have any doubts some people are born that way for a reason. He is wonderful and I'm sure you will get more out of talking with him than you might expect! He is great!


----------



## GreenBean

Delta4Embassy said:


> Let's sum up and go get brunch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Choose your position and move on. Sheesh.





> - If homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, then homosexuals can't be faulted for being that way.



If homosexuality were a Birth Defect which it's not - we'dbe able to identify queers in the womb and that at that time - would you argue against abortion as feverently as you now argue for it ? 

Mongoloids are a birth defect - Mongoloids can not be faulted for being born with Down Syndrome - but then again Mongoloids don't run around harassing people like queers do.




> - If homosexuality is a choice or preference, they can be condemned for choosing what some religions consider a sin.



You don't have to be religous to recognize the homosexuality is an abomination - just intelligent - free thinking and unbiased


----------



## emilynghiem

hangover said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Moses didn't have enough room to include it in with the 10 commandments, but making graven images made the cut?
> 
> Nice. My avatar just got me a place in Hadies....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! ALL OF GOD'S WORD IS GOD'S WORD, read and understand in context so you will understand what GOD is saying= sexual perversion is an ABOMINATION!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God didn't write the bible, or even put it together. Your b.s. is no different than Muslims declaring Mohamed scripture as "God's word". In fact, Mohamed says the same as you.
Click to expand...


Hi     [MENTION=45484]hangover[/MENTION]     [MENTION=49278]Bruce_T_Laney[/MENTION]     [MENTION=48922]I.P.Freely[/MENTION]
Inevitable and others did request not to use this thread for Bible discussion off topic.

I asked     [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] to please post his own testimony in the style of
the links     [MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION] posted of people who overcame their own sexual issues.

If you are in agreement that this would be on topic, for GISMYS to describe
his OWN "mental illness" "choice of perversion" or "sins he overcame"
so that this can be compared with calling homosexuality these things,
I would like to see him explain using his own words from his own experiences.
If it works for those other people to change their homosexuality, it can work for him to "change" his ways
and help others to do the same as they are effective with their sharing using that method.

If he continues to post again, will you please ask him to post in this manner of self-healing
and stay on topic? I believe it will help, if we all ask in unity so the msg is consistent.

Thank you, and please post the Bible responses on GISMYS Bible threads for that. He has tons of them.
And I will do the same if we can agree to take the conversation over there where he is asking for feedback.
Not here per Inevitable and other requests, sorry I was trying to help as well.

Yours truly,  Emily


----------



## alan1

GreenBean said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you like shit disturbers ?  I hear they can be very amicable and polite people - Have you had your stool pushed in by one lately ?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh , my apoloogies - I must have misunderstood you -  So you don't support inter-species intimacy - so what about inter generational intimacy , do you support the Gays on their quest to lower the age of consent ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If two consenting adults from different generations want to get intimate with each other, that's their business.  I don't support anybody's quest to lower the age of consent, regardless of their sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool Beans ... so what age do you consider an  "Adult"  to be  ?  In the Dark Ages  "Adulthood" was shortly after they ceased suckling their mother teats - do you believe gays should have the rights to wean them off their mothers teats with the use of a "pacifier"
Click to expand...


For most of the USA, the legal age of consent is 18.  I'm comfortable with that legal definition.
The reason I say "most of the USA", is because some states do allow marriage at younger ages provided parental consent is given.
Now then, completely defining "legal consent" (as it pertains to having sex) can be a bit grey in my mind.  For example, if two 16 year old youth agree to have sex with each other I'm not going to be bothered by that.  However, if a 21 year old and 16 year old agree to have sex, I see that a bit differently (and so does the law), I would be opposed to that situation.  Then there is the really grey situation.  Suppose you have an 18 year old high school student that is dating a 17 and 9 month old high school student.  Suppose they agree to have sex with each other.  In the eyes of the law, that is statutory rape committed by the 18 year old even though they are a mere 3 months apart in age.  I sort of have a problem with charging that 18 year old with rape.  
Please note that in my examples I never the specified genders of the involved individuals because it matters not to me whether it was a heterosexual or homosexual interaction.  I view them both the same.  Also, for the purposes of my examples I am assuming that both individuals are of sound mind and do not suffer any mental deficiency or retardation.


----------



## GreenBean

alan1 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If two consenting adults from different generations want to get intimate with each other, that's their business.  I don't support anybody's quest to lower the age of consent, regardless of their sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool Beans ... so what age do you consider an  "Adult"  to be  ?  In the Dark Ages  "Adulthood" was shortly after they ceased suckling their mother teats - do you believe gays should have the rights to wean them off their mothers teats with the use of a "pacifier"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For most of the USA, the legal age of consent is 18.  I'm comfortable with that legal definition.
> The reason I say "most of the USA", is because some states do allow marriage at younger ages provided parental consent is given.
> Now then, completely defining "legal consent" (as it pertains to having sex) can be a bit grey in my mind.  For example, if two 16 year old youth agree to have sex with each other I'm not going to be bothered by that.  However, if a 21 year old and 16 year old agree to have sex, I see that a bit differently (and so does the law), I would be opposed to that situation.  Then there is the really grey situation.  Suppose you have an 18 year old high school student that is dating a 17 and 9 month old high school student.  Suppose they agree to have sex with each other.  In the eyes of the law, that is statutory rape committed by the 18 year old even though they are a mere 3 months apart in age.  I sort of have a problem with charging that 18 year old with rape.
> Please note that in my examples I never the specified genders of the involved individuals because it matters not to me whether it was a heterosexual or homosexual interaction.  I view them both the same.  Also, for the purposes of my examples I am assuming that both individuals are of sound mind and do not suffer any mental deficiency or retardation.
Click to expand...




> I am assuming that both individuals are of sound mind and do not suffer any *mental deficiency* ....



So then you exclude homosexuals from this ?


----------



## alan1

GreenBean said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool Beans ... so what age do you consider an  "Adult"  to be  ?  In the Dark Ages  "Adulthood" was shortly after they ceased suckling their mother teats - do you believe gays should have the rights to wean them off their mothers teats with the use of a "pacifier"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For most of the USA, the legal age of consent is 18.  I'm comfortable with that legal definition.
> The reason I say "most of the USA", is because some states do allow marriage at younger ages provided parental consent is given.
> Now then, completely defining "legal consent" (as it pertains to having sex) can be a bit grey in my mind.  For example, if two 16 year old youth agree to have sex with each other I'm not going to be bothered by that.  However, if a 21 year old and 16 year old agree to have sex, I see that a bit differently (and so does the law), I would be opposed to that situation.  Then there is the really grey situation.  Suppose you have an 18 year old high school student that is dating a 17 and 9 month old high school student.  Suppose they agree to have sex with each other.  In the eyes of the law, that is statutory rape committed by the 18 year old even though they are a mere 3 months apart in age.  I sort of have a problem with charging that 18 year old with rape.
> Please note that in my examples I never the specified genders of the involved individuals because it matters not to me whether it was a heterosexual or homosexual interaction.  I view them both the same.  Also, for the purposes of my examples I am assuming that both individuals are of sound mind and do not suffer any mental deficiency or retardation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am assuming that both individuals are of sound mind and do not suffer any *mental deficiency* ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you exclude homosexuals from this ?
Click to expand...


Did you not understand this part.


> Please note that in my examples I never the specified genders of the involved individuals because it matters not to me whether it was a heterosexual or homosexual interaction.


----------



## GreenBean

alan1 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For most of the USA, the legal age of consent is 18.  I'm comfortable with that legal definition.
> The reason I say "most of the USA", is because some states do allow marriage at younger ages provided parental consent is given.
> Now then, completely defining "legal consent" (as it pertains to having sex) can be a bit grey in my mind.  For example, if two 16 year old youth agree to have sex with each other I'm not going to be bothered by that.  However, if a 21 year old and 16 year old agree to have sex, I see that a bit differently (and so does the law), I would be opposed to that situation.  Then there is the really grey situation.  Suppose you have an 18 year old high school student that is dating a 17 and 9 month old high school student.  Suppose they agree to have sex with each other.  In the eyes of the law, that is statutory rape committed by the 18 year old even though they are a mere 3 months apart in age.  I sort of have a problem with charging that 18 year old with rape.
> Please note that in my examples I never the specified genders of the involved individuals because it matters not to me whether it was a heterosexual or homosexual interaction.  I view them both the same.  Also, for the purposes of my examples I am assuming that both individuals are of sound mind and do not suffer any mental deficiency or retardation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then you exclude homosexuals from this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you not understand this part.
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that in my examples I never the specified genders of the involved individuals because it matters not to me whether it was a heterosexual or homosexual interaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Did you not nderstand that I am toying with you ?  

However - you did culminate you post with the statement re: Mental Deficiencies - which by default would include homosexuals


----------



## Slyhunter

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> You are born gay and it is not a mental illness...



Thus, it's a genetic defect.


----------



## Slyhunter

Delta4Embassy said:


> Let's sum up and go get brunch.
> 
> - If homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, then homosexuals can't be faulted for being that way.



It's a genetic disorder.
Neither can Pedophiles be faulted for being that way because it's genetic.


----------



## Slyhunter

GreenBean said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's sum up and go get brunch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Choose your position and move on. Sheesh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - If homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, then homosexuals can't be faulted for being that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If homosexuality were a Birth Defect which it's not - we'dbe able to identify queers in the womb and that at that time - would you argue against abortion as feverently as you now argue for it ?
> 
> Mongoloids are a birth defect - Mongoloids can not be faulted for being born with Down Syndrome - but then again Mongoloids don't run around harassing people like queers do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - If homosexuality is a choice or preference, they can be condemned for choosing what some religions consider a sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to be religous to recognize the homosexuality is an abomination - just intelligent - free thinking and unbiased
Click to expand...

They've discovered man and women loving genes in our dna. We are on the brink of being able to detect whether a fetus is gay or not while still in the womb. Then we can abort them and solve the problem.


----------



## GISMYS

Slyhunter said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's sum up and go get brunch.
> 
> - If homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, then homosexuals can't be faulted for being that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a genetic disorder.
> Neither can Pedophiles be faulted for being that way because it's genetic.
Click to expand...


Those that burn with sick lust for perverted sex with animals use the same demon inspired excuse. and you??


----------



## alan1

GreenBean said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then you exclude homosexuals from this ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand this part.
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that in my examples I never the specified genders of the involved individuals because it matters not to me whether it was a heterosexual or homosexual interaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you not nderstand that I am toying with you ?
> 
> However - you did culminate you post with the statement re: Mental Deficiencies - which by default would include homosexuals
Click to expand...


I understand that you think you are clever and and think that you are "toying" with me.
But did you notice how I ignored this,


GreenBean said:


> I hear they can be very amicable and polite people - Have you had your stool pushed in by one lately ?


 and this,


GreenBean said:


> do you believe gays should have the rights to wean them off their mothers teats with the use of a "pacifier"


That's me not falling for your un-clever toying, or as spoken in the common tongue, Trolling.
Yer not nearly as clever as you think you are.

By the way, homosexuality has never been proven to be a mental deficiency.  Science disagrees with.


----------



## emilynghiem

Slyhunter said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's sum up and go get brunch.
> 
> - If homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, then homosexuals can't be faulted for being that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a genetic disorder.
> Neither can Pedophiles be faulted for being that way because it's genetic.
Click to expand...


Hi [MENTION=49398]Slyhunter[/MENTION]
So people whose sexual behavior came from repeated abuse rape incest or molestation
were
* genetically designed to get raped or molested?
* genetically designed to ATTRACT rapists and molesters?

How do you explain the cases of people who reclaim their HETEROSEXUAL orientation as natural for them, and who instead cite UNNATURAL abuse for past homosexual behavior 

Is this in the genes also, that some people are physically programmed
to be heterosexual, to attract molestors and get abused or raped,
and to change back to their natural orientation?

All that is genetic?
How can we tell which babies can change back so we don't abort those.
And if they have the "gene for attracting molesters," make sure they are guarded 24/7


----------



## GreenBean

alan1 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand this part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not nderstand that I am toying with you ?
> 
> However - you did culminate you post with the statement re: Mental Deficiencies - which by default would include homosexuals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that you think you are clever and and think that you are "toying" with me.
> But did you notice how I ignored this,
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear they can be very amicable and polite people - Have you had your stool pushed in by one lately ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and this,
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you believe gays should have the rights to wean them off their mothers teats with the use of a "pacifier"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's me not falling for your un-clever toying, or as spoken in the common tongue, Trolling.
> Yer not nearly as clever as you think you are.
> 
> By the way, homosexuality has never been proven to be a mental deficiency.  Science disagrees with.
Click to expand...




> homosexuality has never been proven to be a mental deficiency.



Nor has it been proven otherwise - not a mental deficiency - perhaps, but an illness - indeed.  ANyway it's a beautiful day _ I'm going out to enjoy some barbeQue - While you stay inside and roast your weaner .


----------



## emilynghiem

GreenBean said:


> I am assuming that both individuals are of sound mind and do not suffer any *mental deficiency* ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then you exclude homosexuals from this ?
Click to expand...


Dear  [MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION] where in those testimonies did anyone refer to their
past homosexual lifestyle or relations as a "mental deficiency or illness"

One who referred to a "sexual addiction" listed that with several other
areas related, but not wholly causing or describing his orientation.

The traditional approaches for "mental illness" did not help any of these people.

They describe their process and experiences as spiritual.

Why can't we talk in those same terms, of spiritual process and development
and change, if this is what worked for people who changed? Not mental illness?

Are you okay about talking about alcoholic and Native American experiences
as a spiritual process of change and growth through for spiritual healing and health?

How about the terms spiritually healthy or unhealthy? Is that better?


----------



## Slyhunter

emilynghiem said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's sum up and go get brunch.
> 
> - If homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, then homosexuals can't be faulted for being that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a genetic disorder.
> Neither can Pedophiles be faulted for being that way because it's genetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi [MENTION=49398]Slyhunter[/MENTION]
> So people whose sexual behavior came from repeated abuse rape incest or molestation
> were
> * genetically designed to get raped or molested?
> * genetically designed to ATTRACT rapists and molesters?
Click to expand...

nope, not in those cases.


emilynghiem said:


> How do you explain the cases of people who reclaim their HETEROSEXUAL orientation as natural for them, and who instead cite UNNATURAL abuse for past homosexual behavior


acceptions. Nothing is 100% true 100% of the time. Not all people with the gene for Alcoholism have trouble drinking and not everyone that doesn't have that gene can drink safely. There are always exceptions to the rules.


emilynghiem said:


> Is this in the genes also, that some people are physically programmed
> to be heterosexual, to attract molestors and get abused or raped,
> and to change back to their natural orientation?
> 
> All that is genetic?
> How can we tell which babies can change back so we don't abort those.
> And if they have the "gene for attracting molesters," make sure they are guarded 24/7


You are going for the extremes.
I'm saying that if you have the gene that makes you more prone to be sexually attracted to underage kids, it isn't your fault, just like being gay. However acting on that urge and not controlling your behavior is your fault.

Other than your appearance I don't see how it is genetic that you would be more attractive to a molester. But there are some women who draw the worse out in men who end up being spousal abusers. That doesn't make it those womens faults they are being abused. But some victims were, yes, born victims.


----------



## GISMYS

This whole homosexual thing is very disgusting and disturbing this was one of the mean reasons God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah what do these people think God will do this time the judgment will be worst . This nation is CURSED! The innocent blood of over 55 million children murdered by their own parents through abortion cries out for VENGENCE! And now homosexuals thumb their proud noses at God!! God will NOT BE MOCKED! Judgment is here and now!  Repent America.TFA.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Luddly Neddite said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were wrong in thefirst place,they layer corrected their error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes okay they "Layer" corrected it - uh hmmm  - so what else did they do in Layers ?
> 
> Perhaps you should correct some of your errors - you seem to have them in abundance. Begginning with your *choice* of lifestyle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 758 posts and still going in circles.
> 
> Gays don't choose any more than you do but bottom line is, even it were a "choice", its no one's business.
> 
> If people would stop peeking in other people's windows, there would be a lot fewer problems in the world.
> 
> MYOB
Click to expand...


What makes you think I didn't choose? Also, I have repeatedly stated that it isn't anyone' business, but you keep insisting that the government get involved in who people can sleep with. Perhaps you should rethink your position.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Delta4Embassy said:


> Let's sum up and go get brunch.
> 
> - If homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, then homosexuals can't be faulted for being that way.
> 
> - If homosexuality is a choice or preference, they can be condemned for choosing what some religions consider a sin.
> 
> Choose your position and move on. Sheesh.



And MYOB


----------



## Luddly Neddite

GISMYS said:


> bruce_t_laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> it would be one thing if the words were by god, but the words on those pages were by men that wanted to control the mindless drones that need something to believe in...
> 
> You worship the words by romans and greeks, and in fact you worship more of a pagan religion than the actual words of jesus, or moses...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satan has you blinded and is playing you for a fool!!
Click to expand...


Like homosexuality, that is none of your business. 

MYOB


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Delta4Embassy said:


> Let's sum up and go get brunch.
> 
> - If homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, then homosexuals can't be faulted for being that way.
> 
> - If homosexuality is a choice or preference, they can be condemned for choosing what some religions consider a sin.
> 
> Choose your position and move on. Sheesh.



Science has conclusively proven that homosexuality is not genetic, so your first point is moot.

Why do you believe that people can be condemned based on a religion they don't believe?


----------



## GISMYS

Luddly Neddite said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bruce_t_laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> it would be one thing if the words were by god, but the words on those pages were by men that wanted to control the mindless drones that need something to believe in...
> 
> You worship the words by romans and greeks, and in fact you worship more of a pagan religion than the actual words of jesus, or moses...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satan has you blinded and is playing you for a fool!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like homosexuality, that is none of your business.
> 
> MYOB
Click to expand...


EVIL SIN THAT HAS COST 40,000,000 DEAD FROM HIV AIDS AND RUINED MILLIONS MORE LIVES WITH SHAME AND GUILT SHOULD BE THE CONCERN OF EVERYONE!!and you??


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> ...*This nation is CURSED!*...Judgment is here and now!  Repent America.TFA.



Dear  [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
Please lead by example. GreenBean posted links of people leading by example
People Can Change - An alternative, healing response to unwanted homosexual desires.
Can you post YOUR testimony as an example of "America repenting"
(not pointing judgment at others as hypocrites do preaching in public).

Can you please demonstrate repentance for us here?
These other people did, and are VERY effective in helping others to do the same.

Yes, there are curses on the land.
But yelling about curses and judgment never broke any curses
or cast any demons out. It only reinforced them with more fear and rebellion.

What I have seen people use to break curses
is praying for Forgiveness in AGREEMENT, not division and judgment.
Asking Jesus authority to cast out the spirit of error rebellion division etc.

I have never seen any healer cast out demons by pronouncing judgment on people.
Do you need training in how this is done? See Home - Christian Healing Ministries
How can we reach AGREEMENT in Christ first, in order to invoke that authority to cast out errors causing evil.

What is causing you to yell out negative things out of fear instead of love?
Is it a choice?
Is it mental illness?
Is it something inherent?

Why are you speaking in healthy loving forgiving words as the people who
are successful in their outreach to help free people from "sexual perversion"
People Can Change - An alternative, healing response to unwanted homosexual desires.
If God is working through them, what are they doing differently from you that is working when yours is not? Why follow your way that does not work
when this way that works from God has changed these people's lives as you desire to see?

Can you follow their example and lead by your own?
Thank you GISMYS this would be more helpful and succeed.


----------



## GISMYS

AMERICA HAS NOT REPENTED!!!== speaking in healthy loving forgiving words IS NOT WHAT IS NEEDED WHEN SPEAKING TO SIN LOVING, GOD REJECTORS,THEY NEED TO HEAR GOD'S WARNING OF COMMING JUDGMENTS TO THOSE THAT WILL NOT CONFESS THEIR SIN ""IS"" SIN AND REPENT!!! Time is very short!!


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> EVIL SIN THAT HAS COST 40,000,000 DEAD FROM HIV AIDS AND RUINED MILLIONS MORE LIVES WITH SHAME AND GUILT SHOULD BE THE CONCERN OF EVERYONE!!and you??



 [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] I am going to go back and thank your other post, since that was closer to talking like a normal person, and not this one that is back to yelling in ALL CAPS. Please do not do this anymore. Luddly especially is a very sensitive person and does not respond to this yelling or Bible explanations, so you are preaching to the wrong choir again. 

Your other post was a lot closer, please stick with that style not this one! Thank you for your effort to share, and I pray you receive God's help to "change" and become more effective in how you normally speak and share that is "natural" for you, not "unnatural" as this is coming across. Thanks! The other msg is a noticeable improvement so thank you for that. Much better job!


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> EVIL SIN THAT HAS COST 40,000,000 DEAD FROM HIV AIDS AND RUINED MILLIONS MORE LIVES WITH SHAME AND GUILT SHOULD BE THE CONCERN OF EVERYONE!!and you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] I am going to go back and thank your other post, since that was closer to talking like a normal person, and not this one that is back to yelling in ALL CAPS. Please do not do this anymore. Luddly especially is a very sensitive person and does not respond to this yelling or Bible explanations, so you are preaching to the wrong choir again.
> 
> Your other post was a lot closer, please stick with that style not this one! Thank you for your effort to share, and I pray you receive God's help to "change" and become more effective in how you normally speak and share that is "natural" for you, not "unnatural" as this is coming across. Thanks! The other msg is a noticeable improvement so thank you for that. Much better job!
Click to expand...


LOL!!! Your opinion of my posts counts as zero to me!!!!=== For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet sought to please men, I should not be the servant of Christ. Galations 1:10


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> LOL!!! Your opinion of my posts counts as zero to me!!!!=== For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet sought to please men, I should not be the servant of Christ. Galations 1:10



   [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] You count as a man, too, so as long as you post in ways that please you, you are attending to man, in particular to yourself -- to what you makes YOU feel you are sharing God's Word.

Jesus said for us to love one another as he has. Let us follow Jesus example:
When he spoke to Fisherman, he used the language of Fishermen.
When Jesus spoke with Farmers, he used the language and experiences of Farmers.
When he spoke with Pharisees, yes he used Scripture but these ppl here are not of that category or calling,
Many are secular Gentiles under natural laws like the Farmers and Fishermen who learn from life's parables.

Can you please speak with us as Jesus spoke in natural terms? This will help.
And I would love to hear your personal story, if you can add it to your other threads.
That is the most meaningful and the most effective testimony you can give.

Look at the successful witnesses on GreenBean's post,
When they speak to fellow men and women to overcome "sexual issues"
they SPEAK using THEIR OWN experiences, similar to Jesus with the 
Farmers and Fishermen, using things they understood IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE.

He did not preach to illiterate fishermen and farmers citing Bible scriptures,
but used PARABLES from real life to explain spiritual process and changes.

Can you do this?
Can you use your own words to describe the Kingdom of God to share with others?

Luddly hangover and Bruce here made it clear they do not receive anything expressed using the Bible which is not their language.

GISMYS would you speak English (for YOUR convenience) to a German or Japanese person who does not process any of what you are saying?

Please be considerate and wise.

If you do not respond to people preaching Muslim or Chinese to you,
please do not preach to others using a foreign language like speaking in tongues.

Jesus debated with Pharisees in the temple over scripture as their COMMON LANGUAGE.

Please establish common language first, as the people who post their own testimonies online which WORK because they speak from Personal experience.

Can you also share with us from your personal experiences that
changed your life spiritually
and see if people understand you better. Thanks GISMYS
if it doesn't fit the topic, please direct to one of your other threads.


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Your opinion of my posts counts as zero to me!!!!=== For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet sought to please men, I should not be the servant of Christ. Galations 1:10
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] You count as a man, too, so as long as you post in ways that please you, you are attending to man, in particular to yourself -- to what you makes YOU feel you are sharing God's Word.
> 
> Jesus said for us to love one another as he has. Let us follow Jesus example:
> When he spoke to Fisherman, he used the language of Fishermen.
> When Jesus spoke with Farmers, he used the language and experiences of Farmers.
> When he spoke with Pharisees, yes he used Scripture but these ppl here are not of that category or calling,
> Many are secular Gentiles under natural laws like the Farmers and Fishermen who learn from life's parables.
> 
> Can you please speak with us as Jesus spoke in natural terms? This will help.
> And I would love to hear your personal story, if you can add it to your other threads.
> That is the most meaningful and the most effective testimony you can give.
> 
> Look at the successful witnesses on GreenBean's post,
> When they speak to fellow men and women to overcome "sexual issues"
> they SPEAK using THEIR OWN experiences, similar to Jesus with the
> Farmers and Fishermen, using things they understood IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE.
> 
> He did not preach to illiterate fishermen and farmers citing Bible scriptures,
> but used PARABLES from real life to explain spiritual process and changes.
> 
> Can you do this?
> Can you use your own words to describe the Kingdom of God to share with others?
> 
> Luddly hangover and Bruce here made it clear they do not receive anything expressed using the Bible which is not their language.
> 
> GISMYS would you speak English (for YOUR convenience) to a German or Japanese person who does not process any of what you are saying?
> 
> Please be considerate and wise.
> 
> If you do not respond to people preaching Muslim or Chinese to you,
> please do not preach to others using a foreign language like speaking in tongues.
> 
> Jesus debated with Pharisees in the temple over scripture as their COMMON LANGUAGE.
> 
> Please establish common language first, as the people who post their own testimonies online which WORK because they speak from Personal experience.
> 
> Can you also share with us from your personal experiences that
> changed your life spiritually
> and see if people understand you better. Thanks GISMYS
> if it doesn't fit the topic, please direct to one of your other threads.
Click to expand...


SO YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS SCRIPTURE VERSE???  For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet sought to please men, I should not be the servant of Christ. Galations 1:10


----------



## RKMBrown

emilynghiem said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> repectifully, I'd like to point out that calling out homosexuals as having a some type of condition that needs to be healed, spiritually or not, is akin to me saying people like you have a condition that needs to be healed, that of using the bible as a weapon, a stone if you will, to disparage homosexuals for their sexual preference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi    [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION] this is a common misunderstanding and objection
> but is not what I am saying or mean. I am talking about the spiritual process that isn't
> about homosexuality per se but applies to all people and other types of cases totally unrelated to homosexuality.
> it happens to be the same process people use who have changed and no longer consider themselves homosexual.
> But that is NOT my focus but on the general healing process that applies to all people, so the target is NOT a focus on gays.
> sorry this isn't clear.
> 
> if you read GreenBean's links to the testimonies of people who have changed their lives
> and their lifestyles with it, they do NOT refer to this as an "illness" to be cured either.
> they speak for themselves only, and that was what I was trying to respect, sorry.
> 
> They describe it in spiritual terms as a spiritual process of changing and/or healing
> of past abuses that contributed.
> 
> these experiences are NOT TRUE for all people.
> I only read one person who described having a sexual addiction
> but this still does not apply to others, only him.
> 
> I tried to find the testimony of a Gay Priest
> who expresses his spiritual experience and process of coming out
> as accepting his purpose and calling in life to be celibate
> so he can serve the church as his family.
> 
> So each person is different.
> 
> Even the people whose lives were healed and changed
> do not refer to themselves as mentally ill.
> 
> sorry this wasn't clear. each person is different.
> I was referring to people who did change their lives.
> 
> So whatever they call it, I was trying to describe it closer to the terms they use.
> This still doesn't apply to all people, who can only describe their own lives.
Click to expand...

Thx.  Touchy subjects.  Explains why prophets spoke vaguely using almost haiku like phrasing.


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's right - when it suits your purposes , but wrong when it works against them !?   That's pretty Childish - don't you think ??
> 
> 
> 
> They were wrong in thefirst place,they layer corrected their error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes okay they "Layer" corrected it - uh hmmm  - so what else did they do in Layers ?
> 
> Perhaps you should correct some of your errors - you seem to have them in abundance. Begginning with your *choice* of lifestyle
Click to expand...

Perhaps you ought to formulate a valid argument then you wouldn't have to use typos to fool yourself into thinking you are smarter than others.

So far, I have made two errors in typing, you seem to make them often.


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then you exclude homosexuals from this ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand this part.
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that in my examples I never the specified genders of the involved individuals because it matters not to me whether it was a heterosexual or homosexual interaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you not *nderstand* that I am toying with you ?
> 
> However - you did culminate you post with the statement re: Mental Deficiencies - which by default would include homosexuals
Click to expand...


"nderstand" that isn't a word. Fyi you completely suck at toying with people. So maybe give it a rest.


----------



## Inevitable

alan1 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand this part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not nderstand that I am toying with you ?
> 
> However - you did culminate you post with the statement re: Mental Deficiencies - which by default would include homosexuals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that you think you are clever and and think that you are "toying" with me.
> But did you notice how I ignored this,
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear they can be very amicable and polite people - Have you had your stool pushed in by one lately ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and this,
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you believe gays should have the rights to wean them off their mothers teats with the use of a "pacifier"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's me not falling for your un-clever toying, or as spoken in the common tongue, Trolling.
> Yer not nearly as clever as you think you are.
> 
> By the way, homosexuality has never been proven to be a mental deficiency.  Science disagrees with.
Click to expand...

His childish attempts to "toy" with people are pathetic.


----------



## MaryL

I like that, MYOB. I do. Part of my business is being true to myself. Gays never hurt me, and are no threat to me I am aware of. I am being honest. But, neither have schizophrenics or voyeurs. Neither have fetishist  for feet. I don't feel that Homosexuals either should be seen separate from the mentally ill nor should they be treated as a class of people devoid of civil rights, especially when it comes down to marriage. This makes a mockery of heterosexual unions that produce children that ACTUALY deserve sanctity.


----------



## GISMYS

GOD'S PLAN FOR MAN WITH WOMAN MARRAGE==for Adam there was not found a helper meet for him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.

22 And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made He a woman and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, &#8220;This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.&#8221;

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.
Genesis 2:20-24


----------



## MaryL

I remember when the medical profession used to endorse X-ray machines in shoe stores, and smoking. And, they still shill for whatever pharmaceutical company gets in their door, so don't give me this highly suspect  malarkey  "Med  doctors  say homosexuality isn't a mental illness" stuff.  Follow the money, homosexuals are right up there with the tobacco companies, they have all that disposable income and a lot of self promoting to do.  Please.


----------



## Inevitable

MaryL said:


> I remember when the medical profession used to endorse X-ray machines in shoe stores, and smoking. And, they still shill for whatever pharmaceutical company gets in their door, so don't give me this highly suspect  malarkey  "Med  doctors  say homosexuality isn't a mental illness" stuff.  Follow the money, homosexuals are right up there with the tobacco companies, they have all that disposable income and a lot of self promoting to do.  Please.


So you are saying that homosexuals have bought out the field of medicine and this have removed homosexuality from the lists of mental disorders even though there is clearly no psychosis caused by homosexuality, or are the homosexual shot callers suppressing that info also?


----------



## GreenBean

Inevitable said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember when the medical profession used to endorse X-ray machines in shoe stores, and smoking. And, they still shill for whatever pharmaceutical company gets in their door, so don't give me this highly suspect  malarkey  "Med  doctors  say homosexuality isn't a mental illness" stuff.  Follow the money, homosexuals are right up there with the tobacco companies, they have all that disposable income and a lot of self promoting to do.  Please.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that homosexuals have bought out the field of medicine and this have removed homosexuality from the lists of mental disorders even though there is clearly no psychosis caused by homosexuality, or are the homosexual shot callers suppressing that info also?
Click to expand...




> So you are saying that homosexuals have bought out the field of medicine



They have certainly comandeered the Mental Health field- this is well documtented - Even the US Congress has added their weight to this fact. 

.





> ..have removed homosexuality from the lists of mental disorders even though there is clearly no psychosis caused by homosexuality,



*False *- *repeatedly Refuted *


----------



## emilynghiem

Inevitable said:


> His childish attempts to "toy" with people are pathetic.



Dear    [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] thanks again for putting up with all of this and us on your thread.
if there is any therapy going on, this is what it looks like. not a pretty process.

Please let's give GreenBean some credit.
He did post links that included references to real people
who attribute some of their experiences to sexual abuse.

People Can Change - An alternative, healing response to unwanted homosexual desires.

The same way "mental illness" is NOT a general factor
but only mentioned in reference to a specific case of "sexual addiction"
neither is "sexual abuse" a prevailing causal factor
but more correlated as a contributing incident along with other abuses.

the same link GreenBean provided that clarified
more spiritual things are going on than just "mental illness"
also provided one example of how "sexual abuse" can contribute in some cases
but not as the sole cause. So I concede that as well.

Please give him SOME credit for that.

And when he compared with Native American tendency or susceptibility to alcohol
or other addiction patterns, there is a comparable process there but if so it is more of
a "spiritual process" than a mental disorder.
both AA refer to alcoholism as a disease, but it is in the spirit where it is healed
before the mind and body follow. and the Center for Healing of Racism refers to racism as a disease passed down in the spirit. they do not refer to it as a mental disorder. 
and they see all people as affected on different levels, so nobody is labeled anything.
they also focus on healing it in spirit first, then the mind, then relations in the world.
Again the links GB provided seem to follow a more "spiritual process" like these,
where each person's path is different and does not define anyone else but them.

I asked [MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION] if he could relate to the terms "healthy or unhealthy"
instead of mental illness. if we can find common terms we agree describe
what he is trying to say, we don't have to argue about terms we reject.

if he doesn't think homosexuality is healthy, that is something we could debate and why!


----------



## Inevitable

GreenBean said:


> They have certainly comandeered the Mental Health field- this is well documtented - Even the US Congress has added their weight to this fact.


When you start talking about a mysterious "they" that seems to operate outside law and reason, with no proof, evidence or rational though behind it, I tend to believe you have created a conspiracy theory.



GreenBean said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..have removed homosexuality from the lists of mental disorders even though there is clearly no psychosis caused by homosexuality,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *False *- *repeatedly Refuted *
Click to expand...

Not with verifiable facts, just convenient bits of your poorly constructed conspiracy theory. Mercy you give me a good laugh.


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> Dear    [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] thanks again for putting up with all of this and us on your thread.
> if there is any therapy going on, this is what it looks like. not a pretty process.
> 
> Please let's give GreenBean some credit.
> He did post links that included references to real people
> who attribute some of their experiences to sexual abuse.
> 
> People Can Change - An alternative, healing response to unwanted homosexual desires.


  [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]First, no, I don't give greenbean any credit. He doesn't deserve any. He doesn't seem capable of posting an argument that isn't peppered with pathetic attempts to insult and childish name calling. Second I find the link to be dubious I will explain but first:





> People Can Change exists to serve only the man who is dissatisfied with his homosexual feelings, dissatisfied with a homosexual life, and for whom pursuing change feels to him that it may be a healing path to his true self.


I don't believe sexual orientation is something that can be changed. As for those claiming to have changed, they are either one of three things: *1)* lying to themselves. *2)* they are bisexual. *3)* heterosexuals that were simply experimenting.

If a short person was dissatisfied with feeling short, dissatisfied with short life and for whom pursuing change (getting taller) feels to him to be a healing path, can these people at "People can Change" make him taller? If not, I really don't buy thatthey can alter anything else. It's fraud. 



emilynghiem said:


> The same way "mental illness" is NOT a general factor
> but only mentioned in reference to a specific case of "sexual addiction"
> neither is "sexual abuse" a prevailing causal factor
> but more correlated as a contributing incident along with other abuses.


I don't believe sexual abuse is at all a contributing factor to homosexuality in any case any more than the phase of the moon at the time of birth.



emilynghiem said:


> the same link GreenBean provided that clarified
> more spiritual things are going on than just "mental illness"
> also provided one example of how "sexual abuse" can contribute in some cases
> but not as the sole cause. So I concede that as well.


I don't buy thatsexual abuse is the slightest factor in any case with regard to sexual orientation.



emilynghiem said:


> Please give him SOME credit for that.


For what, finding a link to quacks that claim that you can Change" your sexual orientation? No, all one needs is to type that into Google.



emilynghiem said:


> And when he compared with Native American tendency or susceptibility to alcohol
> or other addiction patterns, there is a comparable process there but if so it is more of
> a "spiritual process" than a mental disorder.
> both AA refer to alcoholism as a disease, but it is in the spirit where it is healed
> before the mind and body follow.


I agree, but we aren't discussing addiction oranything at all related to addiction. I don't believe people are gay because they are addicted to being gay.  That is like saying somebody is addicted to being attracted to the opposite sex because they prefer romantic partners of the opposite sex. I don't wish to discuss sexual addiction because it in no way relates to sexual orientation.



emilynghiem said:


> and the Center for Healing of Racism refers to racism as a disease passed down in the spirit. they do not refer to it as a mental disorder.
> and they see all people as affected on different levels, so nobody is labeled anything.
> they also focus on healing it in spirit first, then the mind, then relations in the world.
> Again the links GB provided seem to follow a more "spiritual process" like these,
> where each person's path is different and does not define anyone else but them.


Racism is an idea that is taught by adults to children. I don't believe sexual orientation is taught to people any more than a tall person was taught to be tall. I don't believe spiritual healing has any effect what so ever on sexual orientation, Amy more thanspiritual healing can make a short person taller. 

I am sorry, I just don't believe that sexual orientation is a symptom of sexual abuse in any case. I find the idea rather demeaning and preposterous.  Sexual addictions, sexual proclivities, and sexual obsessions are all unrelated to sexual orientation and therefore have nothing to do with this discussion. To say somebody could spiritually heal from say a sexual obsession would not really have any effect on their orientation.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

MaryL said:


> I like that, MYOB. I do. Part of my business is being true to myself. Gays never hurt me, and are no threat to me I am aware of. I am being honest. But, neither have schizophrenics or voyeurs. Neither have fetishist  for feet. I don't feel that Homosexuals either should be seen separate from the mentally ill nor should they be treated as a class of people devoid of civil rights, especially when it comes down to marriage. This makes a mockery of heterosexual unions that produce children that ACTUALY deserve sanctity.



Injustice concerns us all. MYOB is not a valid way to go about your life. Think back to the racial injustices of the 50s. Where would minding our own business have led? 

For laws to be considered just and right they must be applied equally to all regardless of irrelevant differences. In the case of marriage, because all religious institutions (who have marriage) may perform them and those marriages be equally acknowledged under the law, a religion which may not object to same-0sex marriages must also receive that recognition by the government. To recognize some, but not all is unjust. Simple as that.


----------



## GISMYS

GOD'S PLAN FOR MAN WITH WOMAN MARRAGE==for Adam there was not found a helper meet for him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.

22 And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made He a woman and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, &#8220;This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.&#8221;

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.
Genesis 2:20-24


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi   [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]: Thanks this helps me to clarify your position.

1. I understand since   [MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION] also does not follow this "Christian healing of abuse" that is why he uses the term "mental illness" because this other way of describing the process seems to draw a blank with him.

You don't call them homosexual, and in a way that is what they are saying also. They acknowledge it is not naturally who they are, so they cannot be the same as people who report they are naturally homosexual. He sees it is working for these people, but can't define it using secular terms besides "mental illness" which clearly falls short -- as these people do not use it themselves either to describe their experiences.

Because I agree GB has such problems with his posts, that is why I VALUE his effort to clarify (which I also used to try to explain to GISMYS about his posts as well).
At least what he posted was helpful in these ways, so I am thankful for that help. 

2. I agree these experiences are TOTALLY DIFFERENT from what you are talking about with naturally born/not a choice.
These SHOULD be kept separate or it is harmful/dangerous to apply the wrong approach to the wrong people. It hurts both sides, and hurts additionally when they both blame the other for imposing.

I see you are saying the same thing from another angle: that these people are NOT the same as naturally born homosexual because they themselves AGREE they are naturally homosexual!

Inevitable I am PERFECTLY okay with you saying these people ARE heterosexual and there was "something else going on" but they were NOT "naturally homosexual."

That is close to saying the same thing, it acknowledges their NATURAL selves/orientation was always heterosexual. (The mistakes get made when anyone assumes that "all cases are like that" as GB was assuming; or saying these cases don't happen at all.)

I agree in general that you can neither take someone who is naturally homosexual and "make them or change them into heterosexual" nor can someone who is naturally heterosexual "make or change themselves into homosexual." 

What is changing is the SEXUAL BEHAVIOR or attraction (or addiction in some cases) whether it is expressed as homosexual or heterosexual. if someone describes their OWN process as "changing their orientation" they mean the same as what you said they must be referring to their natural orientation and not anything false that isn't naturally them.

What we don't agree on is the distinction, process, and language describing people who went through changes. GB kept saying ALL cases are like these, and that isn't true: they even report that doesn't apply to all. It is on some level that it is best to let people describe their own process, and not put words in their mouths, and not try to speak for others.

3. I still think GreenBean made a great improvement by posting direct links for people to describe their own changes (in place of putting his words to it that they don't use either).

So that seemed to solve part of the problem at least.

Your way of describing what they went through is close enough, too, even though that's not how they say it either; neither your way or GB way, but it is still the same process.

If we all agree "their process is valid for them" that's good enough.
If we agree NOT ALL cases are like that, that's even  better.

4. The part that neither GreenBean nor you may understand in full, are the really rare and distinct cases of "demonic" influences that cause some behaviors, and yes these can manifest as "mental illness" such as schizophrenia, but not all cases have this level of "demonic" entities. There is not LANGUAGE in the psychiatric system for that level, and Dr. Scott Peck recognized this need for a distinct diagnosis and process of managing/treating that level of demonic voices/personality that was manifesting as Schizophrenia.

Dr. Francis MacNutt denounces the "false faith healers" and others forcing judgment by assuming that "all homosexuality is caused by demons" and causing deeper injury and damage.

This level requires such discernment, that people who are not comfortable addressing that such a level exists are best to stay away.

In the meantime, it causes conflict over the language because there aren't adequate words to describe or distinguish these levels. the truly demonic cases are so rare, it is best to leave that to the experts. it is too dangerous for laypeople to think they have this knowledge and start imposing and harming people.

It really isn't fair to assume these things are all "mental illness" for lack of better terms, so that's why I prefer to pursue the research necessary to develop the spiritual therapy field in order to clarify these distinctions and reduce the risk of harm caused in the meantime.

I understand why people fault each other, because the descriptions we use are still not all inclusive of what is going on. It's close enough, I think your explanation is closer, but others here argue GB is closer. They are both in the grey area, and only the real experts in distinguishing these cases from each other can sort out black and white, including which ones are the demonic influences spread by abuse and which are something else.

That is causing so much confusion and imposed judgment, I can see why it is easier just to drop it and not try to discuss those cases, or people think all of them are like that.

Thanks to you both for your help to clarify as much as we can.
Yours truly,
Emily



Inevitable said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear       [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] thanks again for putting up with all of this and us on your thread.
> if there is any therapy going on, this is what it looks like. not a pretty process.
> 
> Please let's give GreenBean some credit.
> He did post links that included references to real people
> who attribute some of their experiences to sexual abuse.
> 
> People Can Change - An alternative, healing response to unwanted homosexual desires.
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]First, no, I don't give greenbean any credit. He doesn't deserve any. He doesn't seem capable of posting an argument that isn't peppered with pathetic attempts to insult and childish name calling. Second I find the link to be dubious I will explain but first:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People Can Change exists to serve only the man who is dissatisfied with his homosexual feelings, dissatisfied with a homosexual life, and for whom pursuing change feels to him that it may be a healing path to his true self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe sexual orientation is something that can be changed. As for those claiming to have changed, they are either one of three things: *1)* lying to themselves. *2)* they are bisexual. *3)* heterosexuals that were simply experimenting.
> 
> If a short person was dissatisfied with feeling short, dissatisfied with short life and for whom pursuing change (getting taller) feels to him to be a healing path, can these people at "People can Change" make him taller? If not, I really don't buy thatthey can alter anything else. It's fraud.
> 
> I don't believe sexual abuse is at all a contributing factor to homosexuality in any case any more than the phase of the moon at the time of birth.
> 
> I don't buy thatsexual abuse is the slightest factor in any case with regard to sexual orientation.
> 
> For what, finding a link to quacks that claim that you can Change" your sexual orientation? No, all one needs is to type that into Google.
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when he compared with Native American tendency or susceptibility to alcohol
> or other addiction patterns, there is a comparable process there but if so it is more of
> a "spiritual process" than a mental disorder.
> both AA refer to alcoholism as a disease, but it is in the spirit where it is healed
> before the mind and body follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree, but we aren't discussing addiction oranything at all related to addiction. I don't believe people are gay because they are addicted to being gay.  That is like saying somebody is addicted to being attracted to the opposite sex because they prefer romantic partners of the opposite sex. I don't wish to discuss sexual addiction because it in no way relates to sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the Center for Healing of Racism refers to racism as a disease passed down in the spirit. they do not refer to it as a mental disorder.
> and they see all people as affected on different levels, so nobody is labeled anything.
> they also focus on healing it in spirit first, then the mind, then relations in the world.
> Again the links GB provided seem to follow a more "spiritual process" like these,
> where each person's path is different and does not define anyone else but them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Racism is an idea that is taught by adults to children. I don't believe sexual orientation is taught to people any more than a tall person was taught to be tall. I don't believe spiritual healing has any effect what so ever on sexual orientation, Amy more thanspiritual healing can make a short person taller.
> 
> I am sorry, I just don't believe that sexual orientation is a symptom of sexual abuse in any case. I find the idea rather demeaning and preposterous.  Sexual addictions, sexual proclivities, and sexual obsessions are all unrelated to sexual orientation and therefore have nothing to do with this discussion. To say somebody could spiritually heal from say a sexual obsession would not really have any effect on their orientation.
Click to expand...


----------



## GISMYS

ALMIGHTY GOD'S WORD ON HOMOSEXUALS LIVING IN SEXUAL PERVERSION==do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10==Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Romans 1:24-27


----------



## emilynghiem

Delta4Embassy said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like that, MYOB. I do. Part of my business is being true to myself. Gays never hurt me, and are no threat to me I am aware of. I am being honest. But, neither have schizophrenics or voyeurs. Neither have fetishist  for feet. I don't feel that Homosexuals either should be seen separate from the mentally ill nor should they be treated as a class of people devoid of civil rights, especially when it comes down to marriage. This makes a mockery of heterosexual unions that produce children that ACTUALY deserve sanctity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Injustice concerns us all. MYOB is not a valid way to go about your life. Think back to the racial injustices of the 50s. Where would minding our own business have led?
> 
> For laws to be considered just and right they must be applied equally to all regardless of irrelevant differences. In the case of marriage, because all religious institutions (who have marriage) may perform them and those marriages be equally acknowledged under the law, *a religion which may not object to same-0sex marriages must also receive that recognition by the government. To recognize some, but not all is unjust. Simple as that.*
Click to expand...


Hi  [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION] this is a VERY Fair statement, but i see both sides think it applies to them and not to the other side.
the problem is if people with beliefs for gay marriage and the people with beliefs against gay marriage do not respect and include both beliefs equally, 
then the laws written and voted on in this spirit do not respect equal inclusion.

I see both sides trying to INVALIDATE the other's beliefs as wrongful.

So either the laws need to be written by people who can respect and include all beliefs equally, or keep this out of govt altogether if they just cannot separate their beliefs from govt any other way.

For mediation to be neutral and all inclusive, it may need to be taken out of state hands,
worked out in an open all  inclusive environment without the political pressures,
and then after agreements are reached that satisfy all sides on how to write or interpret laws then take those consensual solutions and implement those as policy.

Trying to decide the laws when both sides are fighting for political power to invalidate or overrule the other is as distracting and detrimental to the democratic process as two parents fighting over custody with guns in their hands, trying to force judges and legislators to favor their way. That is not going to lead to any orderly solution.

Going into the process, we already have extra problems and pressures where people on both sides do not see the other beliefs as valid, but only see their side is being imposed upon or discriminated against by the other. Of course each feels threatened, but to exclude the other views as invalid is not the solution either but makes the problem twice the mess!

A consensus is needed to resolve all conflicts and respect all views; but given the political and emotional pressures, that needs to be addressed and resolved first before the issues of law can be worked out in a mutually respecting and inclusive environment. We don't even have that right now, because of the entanglements causing such breach of trust.


----------



## GISMYS

little man's ideas,opinions,beliefs about sexual perversion count for nothing. ALMIGHTY GOD  has the first and last WORD=ALMIGHTY GOD'S WORD ON HOMOSEXUALS LIVING IN SEXUAL PERVERSION==do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10==Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Romans 1:24-27


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Gismys, this thread is not about the bible, thanks.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

GreenBean said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..have removed homosexuality from the lists of mental disorders even though there is clearly no psychosis caused by homosexuality,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *False *- *repeatedly Refuted *
Click to expand...


Good one! Next time someone tries to pin me down ... and I REALLY don't feel like proving to folks that I JUST DON'T know - I'm using that puppy!

Thanks!


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> Hi   [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]: Thanks this helps me to clarify your position.
> 
> 1. I understand since   [MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION] also does not follow this "Christian healing of abuse" that is why he uses the term "mental illness" because this other way of describing the process seems to draw a blank with him.
> 
> You don't call them homosexual, and in a way that is what they are saying also. They acknowledge it is not naturally who they are, so they cannot be the same as people who report they are naturally homosexual. He sees it is working for these people, but can't define it using secular terms besides "mental illness" which clearly falls short -- as these people do not use it themselves either to describe their experiences.
> 
> Because I agree GB has such problems with his posts, that is why I VALUE his effort to clarify (which I also used to try to explain to GISMYS about his posts as well).
> At least what he posted was helpful in these ways, so I am thankful for that help.
> 
> 2. I agree these experiences are TOTALLY DIFFERENT from what you are talking about with naturally born/not a choice.
> These SHOULD be kept separate or it is harmful/dangerous to apply the wrong approach to the wrong people. It hurts both sides, and hurts additionally when they both blame the other for imposing.
> 
> I see you are saying the same thing from another angle: that these people are NOT the same as naturally born homosexual because they themselves AGREE they are naturally homosexual!
> 
> Inevitable I am PERFECTLY okay with you saying these people ARE heterosexual and there was "something else going on" but they were NOT "naturally homosexual."
> 
> That is close to saying the same thing, it acknowledges their NATURAL selves/orientation was always heterosexual. (The mistakes get made when anyone assumes that "all cases are like that" as GB was assuming; or saying these cases don't happen at all.)
> 
> I agree in general that you can neither take someone who is naturally homosexual and "make them or change them into heterosexual" nor can someone who is naturally heterosexual "make or change themselves into homosexual."
> 
> What is changing is the SEXUAL BEHAVIOR or attraction (or addiction in some cases) whether it is expressed as homosexual or heterosexual. if someone describes their OWN process as "changing their orientation" they mean the same as what you said they must be referring to their natural orientation and not anything false that isn't naturally them.
> 
> What we don't agree on is the distinction, process, and language describing people who went through changes. GB kept saying ALL cases are like these, and that isn't true: they even report that doesn't apply to all. It is on some level that it is best to let people describe their own process, and not put words in their mouths, and not try to speak for others.
> 
> 3. I still think GreenBean made a great improvement by posting direct links for people to describe their own changes (in place of putting his words to it that they don't use either).
> 
> So that seemed to solve part of the problem at least.
> 
> Your way of describing what they went through is close enough, too, even though that's not how they say it either; neither your way or GB way, but it is still the same process.
> 
> If we all agree "their process is valid for them" that's good enough.
> If we agree NOT ALL cases are like that, that's even  better.
> 
> 4. The part that neither GreenBean nor you may understand in full, are the really rare and distinct cases of "demonic" influences that cause some behaviors, and yes these can manifest as "mental illness" such as schizophrenia, but not all cases have this level of "demonic" entities. There is not LANGUAGE in the psychiatric system for that level, and Dr. Scott Peck recognized this need for a distinct diagnosis and process of managing/treating that level of demonic voices/personality that was manifesting as Schizophrenia.
> 
> Dr. Francis MacNutt denounces the "false faith healers" and others forcing judgment by assuming that "all homosexuality is caused by demons" and causing deeper injury and damage.
> 
> This level requires such discernment, that people who are not comfortable addressing that such a level exists are best to stay away.
> 
> In the meantime, it causes conflict over the language because there aren't adequate words to describe or distinguish these levels. the truly demonic cases are so rare, it is best to leave that to the experts. it is too dangerous for laypeople to think they have this knowledge and start imposing and harming people.
> 
> It really isn't fair to assume these things are all "mental illness" for lack of better terms, so that's why I prefer to pursue the research necessary to develop the spiritual therapy field in order to clarify these distinctions and reduce the risk of harm caused in the meantime.
> 
> I understand why people fault each other, because the descriptions we use are still not all inclusive of what is going on. It's close enough, I think your explanation is closer, but others here argue GB is closer. They are both in the grey area, and only the real experts in distinguishing these cases from each other can sort out black and white, including which ones are the demonic influences spread by abuse and which are something else.
> 
> That is causing so much confusion and imposed judgment, I can see why it is easier just to drop it and not try to discuss those cases, or people think all of them are like that.
> 
> Thanks to you both for your help to clarify as much as we can.
> Yours truly,
> Emily
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear       [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] thanks again for putting up with all of this and us on your thread.
> if there is any therapy going on, this is what it looks like. not a pretty process.
> 
> Please let's give GreenBean some credit.
> He did post links that included references to real people
> who attribute some of their experiences to sexual abuse.
> 
> People Can Change - An alternative, healing response to unwanted homosexual desires.
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]First, no, I don't give greenbean any credit. He doesn't deserve any. He doesn't seem capable of posting an argument that isn't peppered with pathetic attempts to insult and childish name calling. Second I find the link to be dubious I will explain but first:I don't believe sexual orientation is something that can be changed. As for those claiming to have changed, they are either one of three things: *1)* lying to themselves. *2)* they are bisexual. *3)* heterosexuals that were simply experimenting.
> 
> If a short person was dissatisfied with feeling short, dissatisfied with short life and for whom pursuing change (getting taller) feels to him to be a healing path, can these people at "People can Change" make him taller? If not, I really don't buy thatthey can alter anything else. It's fraud.
> 
> I don't believe sexual abuse is at all a contributing factor to homosexuality in any case any more than the phase of the moon at the time of birth.
> 
> I don't buy thatsexual abuse is the slightest factor in any case with regard to sexual orientation.
> 
> For what, finding a link to quacks that claim that you can Change" your sexual orientation? No, all one needs is to type that into Google.
> 
> I agree, but we aren't discussing addiction oranything at all related to addiction. I don't believe people are gay because they are addicted to being gay.  That is like saying somebody is addicted to being attracted to the opposite sex because they prefer romantic partners of the opposite sex. I don't wish to discuss sexual addiction because it in no way relates to sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the Center for Healing of Racism refers to racism as a disease passed down in the spirit. they do not refer to it as a mental disorder.
> and they see all people as affected on different levels, so nobody is labeled anything.
> they also focus on healing it in spirit first, then the mind, then relations in the world.
> Again the links GB provided seem to follow a more "spiritual process" like these,
> where each person's path is different and does not define anyone else but them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Racism is an idea that is taught by adults to children. I don't believe sexual orientation is taught to people any more than a tall person was taught to be tall. I don't believe spiritual healing has any effect what so ever on sexual orientation, Amy more thanspiritual healing can make a short person taller.
> 
> I am sorry, I just don't believe that sexual orientation is a symptom of sexual abuse in any case. I find the idea rather demeaning and preposterous.  Sexual addictions, sexual proclivities, and sexual obsessions are all unrelated to sexual orientation and therefore have nothing to do with this discussion. To say somebody could spiritually heal from say a sexual obsession would not really have any effect on their orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

  [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]
I don't think there is a such thing as a homosexual person who isn't naturally homosexual.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

I don't think anyone's homosexual. Or heterosexual, or anything else. I think we all simply have sex with agreeable persons when they're agreeable. When we find things we like having sex we seek that again. For "homosexual" people, they discovered they liked that early on and seek repeat experiences. For heterosexual same thing. But no gene is gonna short circuit our conscious minds and turn us into automotons forcing into a behaviour of any kind. Who we do things with be they sexual or otherwise is always the result of deliberate choice. 

Until we see zoos and aquariums looking to buy heterosexual animals for breeding and get insurance against picking up homosexual ones I think sexuality thought of that way is inaccurate. Everyone's simply 'sexual.' None of us seeks sex that we don't enjoy, but let's face it, every man can do 2 of the 3 things women can in bed. So for some of us those two may well suffice.   And others of us like that 3rd thing. And still others like it all and aren't overly interested in whether it's with men or women. 

The 'sexual preference' is purely psychological. You're making yourself feel the attraction as in, if you closed your eyes or otherwise didn't know the sex, everyone's mouth and anus would feel identical. It's only when you know who you're with that your own preference and biases comes into play. How many assaults and murders have occured when 'heterosexual' men discovered the 'female' they were having sex with were in fact males? Until that discovery, everything was fine. Wasn't until the conscious mind realized who they were with that things took another shape.


----------



## RKMBrown

Delta4Embassy said:


> I don't think anyone's homosexual. Or heterosexual, or anything else. I think we all simply have sex with agreeable persons when they're agreeable. When we find things we like having sex we seek that again. For "homosexual" people, they discovered they liked that early on and seek repeat experiences. For heterosexual same thing. But no gene is gonna short circuit our conscious minds and turn us into automotons forcing into a behaviour of any kind. Who we do things with be they sexual or otherwise is always the result of deliberate choice.
> 
> Until we see zoos and aquariums looking to buy heterosexual animals for breeding and get insurance against picking up homosexual ones I think sexuality thought of that way is inaccurate. Everyone's simply 'sexual.' None of us seeks sex that we don't enjoy, but let's face it, every man can do 2 of the 3 things women can in bed. So for some of us those two may well suffice.   And others of us like that 3rd thing. And still others like it all and aren't overly interested in whether it's with men or women.
> 
> The 'sexual preference' is purely psychological. You're making yourself feel the attraction as in, if you closed your eyes or otherwise didn't know the sex, everyone's mouth and anus would feel identical. It's only when you know who you're with that your own preference and biases comes into play. How many assaults and murders have occured when 'heterosexual' men discovered the 'female' they were having sex with were in fact males? Until that discovery, everything was fine. Wasn't until the conscious mind realized who they were with that things took another shape.



You are only partially correct. The physical body also reacts to stimuli irregardless of input from it's owner.  For example, see autonomic nervous system. As another example see glands that excrete particular hormones in response to particular types of chemical stimuli.

Some decisions are made by the body for us.  Some of which we can override.


----------



## emilynghiem

Inevitable said:


> I don't think there is a such thing as a homosexual person who isn't naturally homosexual.



  [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
1. Yes, that's fine for me, I can see you are saying close enough to the same thing as others. The ones who changed, also say they are "naturally heterosexual." so that is why they are successful in healing because they are restoring their natural state, not changing into some orientation they are not. The ones who change are NOT homosexual and just "choosing not to act on it" or lying/suppressing what is natural for them, or "changing their orientation to heterosexual."

So I can see you and they agree on some level, even if the language for it varies.

2. When you speak with others who only argue this as "either/or, their way or your way":
Either all cases are natural and not a choice
or all cases are unnatural and a choice.

It sounds to me you DO believe in people dropping homosexual behavior "as a choice" but to you that means they weren't naturally born homosexual to begin with but heterosexual.

I think it would help to specify that kind of homosexual behavior you agree "is a choice" happens when the person is naturally born heterosexual even though they are acting otherwise.

At least you could find one area where you agree a choice is going on,
and then clarify what you mean. The other person can keep believing that
all cases are heterosexuals choosing behavior or relationships, but at least you are not excluding the cases where people did change their lives. You just explain it differently, but it seems to be consistent with the very people who changed who also say they were born to be heterosexual and that's how they were able to change.

Thanks Inevitable and good job with this thread!


----------



## GISMYS

Many people do not understand God , nor his holy Scriptures. Yes, to God sin is sin, and all manner of sin is all the same as it is Death.(James 1:15) But what we all must realize and respect is that God himself has spoken out concerning this type of sin(Homosexuality/gay) and has declared it as an Abomination! This means he hates all sin but this one is a sin that makes him very angry and displeased, to God it is detestable. God is the only one that can elevate the worstness of one sin over another.

Why does the bible say the words "natural and unnatural", if it doesnt mean anything to God. Dont fool yourselves, God has created all things by his divine will. He alone determines what is good and what is evil, also the same for what is natural and what is unnatural. These people that commit and live a unnatural lifestyle of this transgression need to be saved, so they can be free inside to live unto God the creator. They need salvation, they need to be delivered from these demons inside of them, thats leading them to their destruction, and are not in the body of Christ. They are the world that lies in wickedness, whose end is the Lake of Fire! The true church of Jesus Christ will NEVER accept nor agree with these demons or of any kind. Christ and satan are not one. You will either love God and obey his word or you will love satan and obey the inspirations of his devils! The bible says " Woe unto him that calleth good evil and evil good ". Woe is right and frightening. Salvation is the only solution, God has called all men everywhere to REPENT! AND TURN FROM HIS WICKED WAYS! Forsake all ungodliness and obey the gospel of Jesus Christ.


----------



## emilynghiem

I also believe we are meant to connect with certain soulmates in life,
and will be attracted or repelled by certain people.

The relationships are unique to those souls, like a unique line connecting two unique points,
so the labels come afterwards where the generalizations are getting made based on those external labels.

Some spiritual attractions involve family and romantic relations, so that is where the sexual attractions come in. 
(Some labels ARE important to identify karmic patterns in process of being resolved, like race relations between cultures
or religious issues between groups, so this is ALSO part of the spiritual process affecting certain souls.)

What I notice with all people is any patterns or issues we carry from our parents,
if we do not resolve conflicts there, we can repeat or project them onto other relations, particular romantic relations. This spiritual process ensures we resolve them since they affect our closest relationships. Whatever we don't resolve there can be projected collectively onto religious and political conflicts with "church state" authorities.

These projections are like collective reflections of "mommy issues" and "daddy issues" on a public scale. So we either clean up our laundry in private, in our own personal lives or relationships, or if we don't, our dirty laundry gets hung out in public until everyone agrees to clean up their own piles. (And when we don't agree whose pile is whose to clean up first, we all jump on the internet and use that for group therapy and networking to get help to sort out the laundry before it stinks up the place.)



Delta4Embassy said:


> I don't think anyone's homosexual. Or heterosexual, or anything else. I think we all simply have sex with agreeable persons when they're agreeable. When we find things we like having sex we seek that again. For "homosexual" people, they discovered they liked that early on and seek repeat experiences. For heterosexual same thing. But no gene is gonna short circuit our conscious minds and turn us into automotons forcing into a behaviour of any kind. Who we do things with be they sexual or otherwise is always the result of deliberate choice.
> 
> Until we see zoos and aquariums looking to buy heterosexual animals for breeding and get insurance against picking up homosexual ones I think sexuality thought of that way is inaccurate. Everyone's simply 'sexual.' None of us seeks sex that we don't enjoy, but let's face it, every man can do 2 of the 3 things women can in bed. So for some of us those two may well suffice.   And others of us like that 3rd thing. And still others like it all and aren't overly interested in whether it's with men or women.
> 
> The 'sexual preference' is purely psychological. You're making yourself feel the attraction as in, if you closed your eyes or otherwise didn't know the sex, everyone's mouth and anus would feel identical. It's only when you know who you're with that your own preference and biases comes into play. How many assaults and murders have occured when 'heterosexual' men discovered the 'female' they were having sex with were in fact males? Until that discovery, everything was fine. Wasn't until the conscious mind realized who they were with that things took another shape.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> *Many people do not understand God *, nor his holy Scriptures. Yes, to God sin is sin, and all manner of sin is all the same as it is Death.(James 1:15) But what we all must realize and respect is that God himself has spoken out concerning this type of sin(Homosexuality/gay) and has declared it as an Abomination! This means he hates all sin but this one is a sin that makes him very angry and displeased, to God it is detestable. God is the only one that can elevate the worstness of one sin over another.
> 
> Why does the bible say the words "natural and unnatural", if it doesnt mean anything to God. Dont fool yourselves, God has created all things by his divine will. He alone determines what is good and what is evil, also the same for what is natural and what is unnatural. These people that commit and live a unnatural lifestyle of this transgression need to be saved, so they can be free inside to live unto God the creator. They need salvation, they need to be delivered from these demons inside of them, thats leading them to their destruction, and are not in the body of Christ. They are the world that lies in wickedness, whose end is the Lake of Fire! The true church of Jesus Christ will *NEVER accept nor agree with these demons or of any kind.* Christ and satan are not one. You will either love God and obey his word or you will love satan and obey the inspirations of his devils! The bible says " Woe unto him that calleth good evil and evil good ". Woe is right and frightening. Salvation is the only solution, God has called all men everywhere to REPENT! AND TURN FROM HIS WICKED WAYS! Forsake all ungodliness and obey the gospel of Jesus Christ.



Yes, as we cast out demonic spirit of fear, then more of God's love and truth
can be heard and received.

Thank you [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] I can hear you much better now. I can hear more of your natural voice and the love of God when you do not yell unnaturally. Amen and keep praying that all demons of doubt and fear, unbelief and division, are removed from this thread so we can all hear what each other is saying in our natural voices and love of God's truth. Thanks


----------



## Misty

I think homosexuality is sometimes born in people and sometimes people choose it. 

One thing I do think is a stereotype is that gays are funny. 

They are hilarious. Great sense of humor. They truly are gay.


----------



## Mathbud1

There are more options than "It is a choice" and "They are born that way." A lot of people seem to think those are the only two options. Just because you are not "born that way" does not mean that you consciously chose to be that way. You are the product of a LOT of external and internal influences. The complexity of those influences makes it virtually impossible to predict how an individual will develop. One single experience in our lives can change our lives completely. That's why I lean towards environmental being the largest deciding factor in our behavior.


----------



## RKMBrown

Mathbud1 said:


> There are more options than "It is a choice" and "They are born that way." A lot of people seem to think those are the only two options. Just because you are not "born that way" does not mean that you consciously chose to be that way. You are the product of a LOT of external and internal influences. The complexity of those influences makes it virtually impossible to predict how an individual will develop. One single experience in our lives can change our lives completely. That's why I lean towards environmental being the largest deciding factor in our behavior.



Given that humans do not have the ability to reproduce a-sexually, I would argue genetics through natural selection as the largest factor in our sexual behavior.


----------



## Mathbud1

RKMBrown said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are more options than "It is a choice" and "They are born that way." A lot of people seem to think those are the only two options. Just because you are not "born that way" does not mean that you consciously chose to be that way. You are the product of a LOT of external and internal influences. The complexity of those influences makes it virtually impossible to predict how an individual will develop. One single experience in our lives can change our lives completely. That's why I lean towards environmental being the largest deciding factor in our behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that humans do not have the ability to reproduce a-sexually, I would argue genetics through natural selection as the largest factor in our sexual behavior.
Click to expand...

Please explain how you think genetics would affect behavior.


----------



## brandonisi

Inevitable said:


> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?



Well, I can tell you from first hand experience that whatever "causes" it is something that can't be prevented. I'm gay. I never made the choice to "be gay". I just never had an attraction to women.


----------



## GISMYS

brandonisi said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can tell you from first hand experience that whatever "causes" it is something that can't be prevented. I'm gay. I never made the choice to "be gay". I just never had an attraction to women.
Click to expand...


THE CHOICE IS WILL YOU DO ACTS OF SEXUAL PERVERSION OR NOT =THAT IS THE CHOICE!!and you??


----------



## RKMBrown

Mathbud1 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are more options than "It is a choice" and "They are born that way." A lot of people seem to think those are the only two options. Just because you are not "born that way" does not mean that you consciously chose to be that way. You are the product of a LOT of external and internal influences. The complexity of those influences makes it virtually impossible to predict how an individual will develop. One single experience in our lives can change our lives completely. That's why I lean towards environmental being the largest deciding factor in our behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that humans do not have the ability to reproduce a-sexually, I would argue genetics through natural selection as the largest factor in our sexual behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please explain how you think genetics would affect behavior.
Click to expand...


For example, pheromone induced behavior. 

Human Physiology/The endocrine system - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

There are genetically encoded reasons, or biases if you will, that most men are sexually attracted to women and vice verse.  Additionally, when a man and a woman sleep together there are chemicals exchanged that aid in said attraction so they will stay together.


----------



## brandonisi

GISMYS said:


> brandonisi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can tell you from first hand experience that whatever "causes" it is something that can't be prevented. I'm gay. I never made the choice to "be gay". I just never had an attraction to women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THE CHOICE IS WILL YOU DO ACTS OF SEXUAL PERVERSION OR NOT =THAT IS THE CHOICE!!and you??
Click to expand...


Yikes. Okay, let me break this down so that you can better understand.

Yes, I "choose" to have sex with my boyfriend of nine years...but of course I do. What you're doing is making sex the whole of me, as if I'm incapable of human emotions. I "choose" to have sex with my boyfriend because I am attracted to him both sexually and romantically.

Now let's get to attraction. That is not a choice. No one chooses to be attracted to someone sexually or have romantic feelings for them. I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you prefer the opposite sex. That is what you are attracted to, therefore that is what you CHOOSE to have sex with and pursue romantic relationships with. 

So,

Sexual ACTS - a choice
Sexual ATTRACTION - not a choice

I mean, this isn't rocket science, right? 

As for it being a "perversion"...well, okay. According to....?


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
> 1. Yes, that's fine for me, I can see you are saying close enough to the same thing as others. The ones who changed, also say they are "naturally heterosexual." so that is why they are successful in healing because they are restoring their natural state, not changing into some orientation they are not. The ones who change are NOT homosexual and just "choosing not to act on it" or lying/suppressing what is natural for them, or "changing their orientation to heterosexual."
> 
> So I can see you and they agree on some level, even if the language for it varies.


 [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION], I don't think we agree on any level. "The ones that change" don't exist.



emilynghiem said:


> 2. When you speak with others who only argue this as "either/or, their way or your way":
> Either all cases are natural and not a choice
> or all cases are unnatural and a choice.
> 
> It sounds to me you DO believe in people dropping homosexual behavior "as a choice" but to you that means they weren't naturally born homosexual to begin with but heterosexual.


No, you are mixing up my words. People can alter their behavior to fit any character they wish. Behavior is often a compulsion. 



emilynghiem said:


> I think it would help to specify that kind of homosexual behavior you agree "is a choice" happens when the person is naturally born heterosexual even though they are acting otherwise.


I personally don't believe thereis a such thing as "homosexual behavior." Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Behavior is just behavior. 



emilynghiem said:


> At least you could find one area where you agree a choice is going on, and then clarify what you mean. The other person can keep believing that
> all cases are heterosexuals choosing behavior or relationships, but at least you are not excluding the cases where people did change their lives.


People that can't help their behavior are either behaving appropriately or they are compulsive. I don't believe there is a choice involved. 



emilynghiem said:


> You just explain it differently, but it seems to be consistent with the very people who changed who also say they were born to be heterosexual and that's how they were able to change.
> 
> Thanks Inevitable and good job with this thread!


Not so sure about that one.


----------



## emilynghiem

1. 





Inevitable said:


> I don't think we agree on any level. "The ones that change" don't exist.



I am referring to the people like on that website who
engaged in homosexual relations/lifestyle, then like you said 
recognized they were "naturally born heterosexual."
So these are not "homosexual" to you, I understand that.

I understand SOME people think this means "homosexual people changing
to be heterosexual people" and you do not.

I understand YOU are saying if they are homosexual they are born that way,
and the others were never homosexual (but were lying/experimenting etc.)

But we are still talking about the same set of people.
So they do exist, these "ones who change their lifestyles"
even though you do NOT consider it "changing their orientation"
because if they were real homosexual/natural born they could not change
and only if they were naturally born heterosexual can they change their behavior.

It's still the same physical people, just not using the same terms to describe the
"change" they went through. I get it. And I am okay with that difference in terms.
Thank you [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION].

2. 





			
				Inevitable said:
			
		

> No, you are mixing up my words. People can alter their behavior to fit any character they wish. Behavior is often a compulsion.
> 
> I personally don't believe thereis a such thing as "homosexual behavior." Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Behavior is just behavior.



Yes this is fine also. You do not call that "change of behavior" to be a "change of orientation". That's fine. I agree it still describes the same people who call their experience as leaving their homosexual lifestyles or desires/attractions behind. 

3. 





			
				Inevitable said:
			
		

> Not so sure about that one.


You are modest and not in it for yourself.

This is a difficult issue for people to talk about and get the concepts/terms 
on the same page as each other.

When it gets to the point where people can see where our differences are,
and getting it, that we are not going to see or say it the same way,
that to me is success. The differences are going to remain,
and the process is how to manage that so we can still communicate.


----------



## GISMYS

brandonisi said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brandonisi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can tell you from first hand experience that whatever "causes" it is something that can't be prevented. I'm gay. I never made the choice to "be gay". I just never had an attraction to women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE CHOICE IS WILL YOU DO ACTS OF SEXUAL PERVERSION OR NOT =THAT IS THE CHOICE!!and you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yikes. Okay, let me break this down so that you can better understand.
> 
> Yes, I "choose" to have sex with my boyfriend of nine years...but of course I do. What you're doing is making sex the whole of me, as if I'm incapable of human emotions. I "choose" to have sex with my boyfriend because I am attracted to him both sexually and romantically.
> 
> Now let's get to attraction. That is not a choice. No one chooses to be attracted to someone sexually or have romantic feelings for them. I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you prefer the opposite sex. That is what you are attracted to, therefore that is what you CHOOSE to have sex with and pursue romantic relationships with.
> 
> So,
> 
> Sexual ACTS - a choice
> Sexual ATTRACTION - not a choice
> 
> I mean, this isn't rocket science, right?
> 
> As for it being a "perversion"...well, okay. According to....?
Click to expand...


ATTRACTION IS CHOICE!!!! I AM NOT ATTRACTED TO SOME WOMEN,500 LB WOMEN, 6'4"+ WOMEN ,STUPID BIMBO BARFLY WOMEN,WILD WOMEN, DRUNK OR DRUGGIEE WOMEN OFFER I CHOSE TO HAVE NO ATTRACTION FOR!!!  my choice!!


----------



## brandonisi

GISMYS said:


> brandonisi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE CHOICE IS WILL YOU DO ACTS OF SEXUAL PERVERSION OR NOT =THAT IS THE CHOICE!!and you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes. Okay, let me break this down so that you can better understand.
> 
> Yes, I "choose" to have sex with my boyfriend of nine years...but of course I do. What you're doing is making sex the whole of me, as if I'm incapable of human emotions. I "choose" to have sex with my boyfriend because I am attracted to him both sexually and romantically.
> 
> Now let's get to attraction. That is not a choice. No one chooses to be attracted to someone sexually or have romantic feelings for them. I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you prefer the opposite sex. That is what you are attracted to, therefore that is what you CHOOSE to have sex with and pursue romantic relationships with.
> 
> So,
> 
> Sexual ACTS - a choice
> Sexual ATTRACTION - not a choice
> 
> I mean, this isn't rocket science, right?
> 
> As for it being a "perversion"...well, okay. According to....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ATTRACTION IS CHOICE!!!! I AM NOT ATTRACTED TO SOME WOMEN,500 LB WOMEN, 6'4"+ WOMEN ,STUPID BIMBO BARFLY WOMEN,WILD WOMEN, DRUNK OR DRUGGIEE WOMEN OFFER I CHOSE TO HAVE NO ATTRACTION FOR!!!  my choice!!
Click to expand...


I'm going to go ahead and assume you're a troll or something until someone else tells me you're actually serious.


----------



## GISMYS

brandonisi said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brandonisi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes. Okay, let me break this down so that you can better understand.
> 
> Yes, I "choose" to have sex with my boyfriend of nine years...but of course I do. What you're doing is making sex the whole of me, as if I'm incapable of human emotions. I "choose" to have sex with my boyfriend because I am attracted to him both sexually and romantically.
> 
> Now let's get to attraction. That is not a choice. No one chooses to be attracted to someone sexually or have romantic feelings for them. I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you prefer the opposite sex. That is what you are attracted to, therefore that is what you CHOOSE to have sex with and pursue romantic relationships with.
> 
> So,
> 
> Sexual ACTS - a choice
> Sexual ATTRACTION - not a choice
> 
> I mean, this isn't rocket science, right?
> 
> As for it being a "perversion"...well, okay. According to....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ATTRACTION IS CHOICE!!!! I AM NOT ATTRACTED TO SOME WOMEN,500 LB WOMEN, 6'4"+ WOMEN ,STUPID BIMBO BARFLY WOMEN,WILD WOMEN, DRUNK OR DRUGGIEE WOMEN OFFER I CHOSE TO HAVE NO ATTRACTION FOR!!!  my choice!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to go ahead and assume you're a troll or something until someone else tells me you're actually serious.
Click to expand...


I'm going to go ahead and assume you're a SEXUAL PERVERT DOING SEXUAL PERVERSION ACTS OF ABOMINATION WHICH GOD CONDEMNS!!!


----------



## GISMYS

Truth is Hate to those that Hate Truth!! ==God must not and will not be mocked!...Heed his judgments with fear(respect), and to remember God said in Gen.6:5-God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. God destroy the first world time period, and because man cannot naturally see God with his eyes, he has no fear, and believes he is his own self god, yet one day to every man all things will be made clear by God. His judgment will open all eyes to know that he is God and a true God of his word! Also some people are deceived by Satan to look at nature as a lawful guide for homosexuality. Just because same sex acts are done by animals(mammals) of different kinds is no rightful reason ,that mankind should behave and do as animals do. Animals don't go to "Hell and Fire",after they die, but perverted mankind does according to the judgement of God's word. God didn't speak his word against the animals,God spoke unto mankind, and that they must not commit the acts of homosexuality. Animals aren't made in the "image of God", but man is. Therefore, man is required to give account of the things he has done. Eccl.12:13-Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.14. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> I am referring to the people like on that website who
> engaged in homosexual relations/lifestyle, then like you said
> recognized they were "naturally born heterosexual."
> So these are not "homosexual" to you, I understand that.
> 
> I understand SOME people think this means "homosexual people changing
> to be heterosexual people" and you do not.
> 
> I understand YOU are saying if they are homosexual they are born that way,
> and the others were never homosexual (but were lying/experimenting etc.)
> 
> But we are still talking about the same set of people.
> So they do exist, these "ones who change their lifestyles"
> even though you do NOT consider it "changing their orientation"
> because if they were real homosexual/natural born they could not change
> and only if they were naturally born heterosexual can they change their behavior.
> 
> It's still the same physical people, just not using the same terms to describe the
> "change" they went through. I get it. And I am okay with that difference in terms.
> Thank you [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION].


See here is a problem, there is no way to tell that the "people that wish to change" are actually afflicted or that people frankly are capable of being afflicted by "unnatural sexual orientation." This is an opening, a gaping one at that, for abuse. In our society is isn't socially acceptable to be homosexual, thus homosexuals are taught to despise their sexuality. They need spiritual healing as well, but not really to fight their sexuality. This group called change creates a "one size fits all" treatment. It's frankly quite sinister. They are effectively attempting to remove something that we don't fully understand in order to remove something that they have a rather backward religious objection to, and nothing more.

It's essentially psychological eugenics.




> Yes this is fine also. You do not call that "change of behavior" to be a "change of orientation". That's fine. I agree it still describes the same people who call their experience as leaving their homosexual lifestyles or desires/attractions behind.


Changing behavior doesn't effect the orientation. There also is no so called "homosexual lifestyle" just for the future reference it is rather insulting to suggest just because somebodyis homosexualthey live a different lifestyle.  

3. 





			
				Inevitable said:
			
		

> Not so sure about that one.


You are modest and not in it for yourself.

This is a difficult issue for people to talk about and get the concepts/terms 
on the same page as each other.

When it gets to the point where people can see where our differences are,
and getting it, that we are not going to see or say it the same way,
that to me is success. The differences are going to remain,
and the process is how to manage that so we can still communicate.[/QUOTE]
It's important to be respectful and level headed when discussing things like this. It's the only way an understanding can be reached.


----------



## brandonisi

Ah, okay. So you're serious? 



GISMYS said:


> ATTRACTION IS CHOICE!!!! I AM NOT ATTRACTED TO SOME WOMEN,500 LB WOMEN, 6'4"+ WOMEN ,STUPID BIMBO BARFLY WOMEN,WILD WOMEN, DRUNK OR DRUGGIEE WOMEN OFFER I CHOSE TO HAVE NO ATTRACTION FOR!!!  my choice!!



You actually didn't explain at all how it is you've come to the conclusion that you've "chosen" not to be attracted to "stupid bimbo barfy women". You simply gave me a list of "traits" (?) that you are not attracted to. So, according to you, you could (if you wanted to) become sexually aroused by said "barfy woman" or a woman weighing in at 500lbs. This is a major scientific breakthrough. You've apparently stumbled on to some kind of undiscovered natural human skill.

You're actually claiming you can CONTROL what sexually attracts you. So, if you wanted to, you could be attracted to men? That's amazing. 



> I'm going to go ahead and assume you're a SEXUAL PERVERT DOING SEXUAL PERVERSION ACTS OF ABOMINATION WHICH GOD CONDEMNS!!!



Ah. God. Alright. 



> Truth is Hate to those that Hate Truth!! ==God must not and will not be mocked!...Heed his judgments with fear(respect), and to remember God said in Gen.6:5-God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. God destroy the first world time period, and because man cannot naturally see God with his eyes, he has no fear, and believes he is his own self god, yet one day to every man all things will be made clear by God. His judgment will open all eyes to know that he is God and a true God of his word! Also some people are deceived by Satan to look at nature as a lawful guide for homosexuality. Just because same sex acts are done by animals(mammals) of different kinds is no rightful reason ,that mankind should behave and do as animals do. Animals don't go to "Hell and Fire",after they die, but perverted mankind does according to the judgement of God's word. God didn't speak his word against the animals,God spoke unto mankind, and that they must not commit the acts of homosexuality. Animals aren't made in the "image of God", but man is. Therefore, man is required to give account of the things he has done. Eccl.12:13-Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.14. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.



Throwing bible verses at a non-christian is like trying to convince someone that their dog is actually a cat. They KNOW it's a dog. But you KNOW it's a cat.

I'm not a christian. The United States is not officially Christian. The laws are not derived from the Bible. Therefore, while you may spout out your religious rhetoric until kingdom come (as is your right), it doesn't hold any water in politics or public debate...at least not rational debate.


----------



## GISMYS

brandonisi said:


> Ah, okay. So you're serious?
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ATTRACTION IS CHOICE!!!! I AM NOT ATTRACTED TO SOME WOMEN,500 LB WOMEN, 6'4"+ WOMEN ,STUPID BIMBO BARFLY WOMEN,WILD WOMEN, DRUNK OR DRUGGIEE WOMEN OFFER I CHOSE TO HAVE NO ATTRACTION FOR!!!  my choice!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually didn't explain at all how it is you've come to the conclusion that you've "chosen" not to be attracted to "stupid bimbo barfy women". You simply gave me a list of "traits" (?) that you are not attracted to. So, according to you, you could (if you wanted to) become sexually aroused by said "barfy woman" or a woman weighing in at 500lbs. This is a major scientific breakthrough. You've apparently stumbled on to some kind of undiscovered natural human skill.
> 
> You're actually claiming you can CONTROL what sexually attracts you. So, if you wanted to, you could be attracted to men? That's amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to go ahead and assume you're a SEXUAL PERVERT DOING SEXUAL PERVERSION ACTS OF ABOMINATION WHICH GOD CONDEMNS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah. God. Alright.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is Hate to those that Hate Truth!! ==God must not and will not be mocked!...Heed his judgments with fear(respect), and to remember God said in Gen.6:5-God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. God destroy the first world time period, and because man cannot naturally see God with his eyes, he has no fear, and believes he is his own self god, yet one day to every man all things will be made clear by God. His judgment will open all eyes to know that he is God and a true God of his word! Also some people are deceived by Satan to look at nature as a lawful guide for homosexuality. Just because same sex acts are done by animals(mammals) of different kinds is no rightful reason ,that mankind should behave and do as animals do. Animals don't go to "Hell and Fire",after they die, but perverted mankind does according to the judgement of God's word. God didn't speak his word against the animals,God spoke unto mankind, and that they must not commit the acts of homosexuality. Animals aren't made in the "image of God", but man is. Therefore, man is required to give account of the things he has done. Eccl.12:13-Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.14. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Throwing bible verses at a non-christian is like trying to convince someone that their dog is actually a cat. They KNOW it's a dog. But you KNOW it's a cat.
> 
> I'm not a christian. The United States is not officially Christian. The laws are not derived from the Bible. Therefore, while you may spout out your religious rhetoric until kingdom come (as is your right), it doesn't hold any water in politics or public debate...at least not rational debate.
Click to expand...


YES!!!YOU HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM===ALMIGHTY GOD says atheist are FOOLS!!! 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???


----------



## AntiParty

GISMYS said:


> brandonisi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE CHOICE IS WILL YOU DO ACTS OF SEXUAL PERVERSION OR NOT =THAT IS THE CHOICE!!and you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes. Okay, let me break this down so that you can better understand.
> 
> Yes, I "choose" to have sex with my boyfriend of nine years...but of course I do. What you're doing is making sex the whole of me, as if I'm incapable of human emotions. I "choose" to have sex with my boyfriend because I am attracted to him both sexually and romantically.
> 
> Now let's get to attraction. That is not a choice. No one chooses to be attracted to someone sexually or have romantic feelings for them. I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you prefer the opposite sex. That is what you are attracted to, therefore that is what you CHOOSE to have sex with and pursue romantic relationships with.
> 
> So,
> 
> Sexual ACTS - a choice
> Sexual ATTRACTION - not a choice
> 
> I mean, this isn't rocket science, right?
> 
> As for it being a "perversion"...well, okay. According to....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ATTRACTION IS CHOICE!!!! I AM NOT ATTRACTED TO SOME WOMEN,500 LB WOMEN, 6'4"+ WOMEN ,STUPID BIMBO BARFLY WOMEN,WILD WOMEN, DRUNK OR DRUGGIEE WOMEN OFFER I CHOSE TO HAVE NO ATTRACTION FOR!!!  my choice!!
Click to expand...


The most important thing to note here is the word "CHOICE"! Choice is considered a Freedom. And even if you don't understand it as a choice, it's still a freedom. The gays never asked you or me to understand it, they just want bigotry to end. We need to stop judging groups we are unfamiliar with. Bigotry is the most prehistoric mind-set Americans have.


----------



## midcan5

And the beat goes on.... Too funny that this issue isn't settled. But anyone who thinks sexuality is a choice can find out for themselves. Simply switch hit, try it, from today for a few days find attraction in the other gender. Boy, his/her ass is nice, jeez, I'd love to hug her/him and a kiss would be oh so wonderful. No need to jump right in physically, the mind is all you need. Good luck and let us all know how it goes. And please try hard even in your dreams of conquest. My post below is from 2007 - too funny. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/50615-know-what-really-causes-homosexuality.html 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...arding-islam-and-one-flesh-2.html#post8319649

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...something-simply-inherent-29.html#post9326144


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> And the beat goes on.... Too funny that this issue isn't settled. But anyone who thinks sexuality is a choice can find out for themselves. Simply switch hit, try it, from today for a few days find attraction in the other gender. Boy, his/her ass is nice, jeez, I'd love to hug her/him and a kiss would be oh so wonderful. No need to jump right in physically, the mind is all you need. Good luck and let us all know how it goes. And please try hard even in your dreams of conquest. My post below is from 2007 - too funny.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/50615-know-what-really-causes-homosexuality.html
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...arding-islam-and-one-flesh-2.html#post8319649
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...something-simply-inherent-29.html#post9326144



Why are you afraid of freedom? Does the ability to chose scare you?


----------



## brandonisi

GISMYS said:


> YES!!!YOU HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM===ALMIGHTY GOD says atheist are FOOLS!!!



Errr...I've got some bad news for you. I'm not an atheist. Not believing in the Christian interpretation of God or not believing in the Bible does not make one an atheist. It just makes one a non-christian.

Anyway, I've been informed you're about as useful as a cup of ice in Antarctica and conversations with you are like talking to a "bible-bot". Also, your caps-lock gives me a headache.


----------



## GISMYS

brandonisi said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!!YOU HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM===ALMIGHTY GOD says atheist are FOOLS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Errr...I've got some bad news for you. I'm not an atheist. Not believing in the Christian interpretation of God or not believing in the Bible does not make one an atheist. It just makes one a non-christian.
> 
> Anyway, I've been informed you're about as useful as a cup of ice in Antarctica and conversations with you are like talking to a "bible-bot". Also, your caps-lock gives me a headache.
Click to expand...


YES!!!YOU HAVE A HUGE PROBLEMS===ALMIGHTY GOD says atheist are FOOLS!!!


----------



## Mathbud1

RKMBrown said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that humans do not have the ability to reproduce a-sexually, I would argue genetics through natural selection as the largest factor in our sexual behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how you think genetics would affect behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For example, pheromone induced behavior.
> 
> Human Physiology/The endocrine system - Wikibooks, open books for an open world
> 
> There are genetically encoded reasons, or biases if you will, that most men are sexually attracted to women and vice verse.  Additionally, when a man and a woman sleep together there are chemicals exchanged that aid in said attraction so they will stay together.
Click to expand...


That definitely shows that our bodies release hormones in response to stimuli (environment) that can affect our behavior. It doesn't show that our genes are pre-programmed with the instructions to make us heterosexual or homosexual.

It makes sense for female pheremones to prompt male attraction for breeding purposes. If there are/were male pheremones that prompt male attraction, what purpose could they serve genetically speaking?

I'm not a biologist, but there doesn't SEEM to be anything from a bilogical standpoint that could possibly explain a natural reason for anyone to be "genetically programmed" for homosexuality. From a natural selection point of view it would end any hereditary line that carried the gene because homosexuality is not "breedable."

It seems FAR more likely that post-birth external stimuli influence us to certain behaviors.


----------



## RKMBrown

Mathbud1 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how you think genetics would affect behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, pheromone induced behavior.
> 
> Human Physiology/The endocrine system - Wikibooks, open books for an open world
> 
> There are genetically encoded reasons, or biases if you will, that most men are sexually attracted to women and vice verse.  Additionally, when a man and a woman sleep together there are chemicals exchanged that aid in said attraction so they will stay together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That definitely shows that our bodies release hormones in response to stimuli (environment) that can affect our behavior. It doesn't show that our genes are pre-programmed with the instructions to make us heterosexual or homosexual.
> 
> It makes sense for female pheremones to prompt male attraction for breeding purposes. If there are/were male pheremones that prompt male attraction, what purpose could they serve genetically speaking?
> 
> I'm not a biologist, but there doesn't SEEM to be anything from a bilogical standpoint that could possibly explain a natural reason for anyone to be "genetically programmed" for homosexuality. From a natural selection point of view it would end any hereditary line that carried the gene because homosexuality is not "breedable."
> 
> It seems FAR more likely that post-birth external stimuli influence us to certain behaviors.
Click to expand...

It does show that our genes are pre-programmed with the instructions to make us sexual.  I have noted in quite a few males who are gay decidedly female speech, appearance, and behavior patterns. Learned through culture?  Do females act as they do solely on culture?  I think it's some combination.

To the question of are there any male pheromones that prompt male attraction, and if so what purpose could they serve genetically speaking?

Think Roman legions, think groups / packs of hunter's.  Attraction does not have to be for sex alone.  For example, it has been shown that even hetero males will have bias to vote for the better more viral looking male candidate. 

Additionally, both males and females can easily achieve orgasm outside of coitus.


----------



## Mathbud1

RKMBrown said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, pheromone induced behavior.
> 
> Human Physiology/The endocrine system - Wikibooks, open books for an open world
> 
> There are genetically encoded reasons, or biases if you will, that most men are sexually attracted to women and vice verse.  Additionally, when a man and a woman sleep together there are chemicals exchanged that aid in said attraction so they will stay together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That definitely shows that our bodies release hormones in response to stimuli (environment) that can affect our behavior. It doesn't show that our genes are pre-programmed with the instructions to make us heterosexual or homosexual.
> 
> It makes sense for female pheremones to prompt male attraction for breeding purposes. If there are/were male pheremones that prompt male attraction, what purpose could they serve genetically speaking?
> 
> I'm not a biologist, but there doesn't SEEM to be anything from a bilogical standpoint that could possibly explain a natural reason for anyone to be "genetically programmed" for homosexuality. From a natural selection point of view it would end any hereditary line that carried the gene because homosexuality is not "breedable."
> 
> It seems FAR more likely that post-birth external stimuli influence us to certain behaviors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does show that our genes are pre-programmed with the instructions to make us sexual.  I have noted in quite a few males who are gay decidedly female speech, appearance, and behavior patterns. Learned through culture?  Do females act as they do solely on culture?  I think it's some combination.
> 
> To the question of are there any male pheromones that prompt male attraction, and if so what purpose could they serve genetically speaking?
> 
> Think Roman legions, think groups / packs of hunter's.  Attraction does not have to be for sex alone.  For example, it has been shown that even hetero males will have bias to vote for the better more viral looking male candidate.
> 
> Additionally, both males and females can easily achieve orgasm outside of coitus.
Click to expand...


The psuedo-feminine behavior seems mostly an affectation to me, and not one that makes much sense. Logically speaking, why would a man who is attracted to men be attracted to a man who tries to act as much like a woman as he can?

Culture is not the only thing that influences feminine behavior. Culture is far from the only external influence on us. Something as simple as a bad smell or taste at a certain moment can taint our perceptions of that moment forever. Were we sad or happy in moment? Were we tired or alert? Were we distracted by other things or focused wholly on the moment? Our interactions with the world around us are hugely complex, and (it seems to me) have to have as complex an influence on our behavior.

Sexual attraction is, by definition, for sex. The only logical seeming argument for a genetic influence on sexual attraction would be finding the best mate for breeding (not something that can be satisfied by homosexuality.) For non-sexual attractions, such as you described, the argument might be survival. Teaming up with other physically fit and strong males should increase your chances of surviving in a dangerous world.

I'm not sure what the relevance is of your comment about orgasm outside of coitus. You'll have to explain. (If you want to.)


----------



## Mathbud1

midcan5 said:


> And the beat goes on.... Too funny that this issue isn't settled. But anyone who thinks sexuality is a choice can find out for themselves. Simply switch hit, try it, from today for a few days find attraction in the other gender. Boy, his/her ass is nice, jeez, I'd love to hug her/him and a kiss would be oh so wonderful. No need to jump right in physically, the mind is all you need. Good luck and let us all know how it goes. And please try hard even in your dreams of conquest. My post below is from 2007 - too funny.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/50615-know-what-really-causes-homosexuality.html
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...arding-islam-and-one-flesh-2.html#post8319649
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...something-simply-inherent-29.html#post9326144


My position is not that it necessarily has to be a choice, but I don't think it can't be a choice. It is likely that with enough effort and focus I could change my perceptions enough to be attracted to a male. Why would I want to though? It would completely end any breeding hopes I might have. It would be difficult to do. It would open me up to the stigma against homosexuality. And it would severely limit the number of potential sexual partners I might have. Not an attractive choice from my perspective. For others it might be less unattractive. To rebel against societal norms. To escape bad past experiences. To get attention, good or bad.

It doesn't seem likely that many would make that choice consciously. Far more likely to me is external influence shaping behavior without conscious choice in most situations.


----------



## Mathbud1

midcan5 said:


> And the beat goes on.... Too funny that this issue isn't settled. But anyone who thinks sexuality is a choice can find out for themselves. Simply switch hit, try it, from today for a few days find attraction in the other gender. Boy, his/her ass is nice, jeez, I'd love to hug her/him and a kiss would be oh so wonderful. No need to jump right in physically, the mind is all you need. Good luck and let us all know how it goes. And please try hard even in your dreams of conquest. My post below is from 2007 - too funny.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/50615-know-what-really-causes-homosexuality.html
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...arding-islam-and-one-flesh-2.html#post8319649
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...something-simply-inherent-29.html#post9326144


As an aside most issues aren't ever really settled. They might be "settled" for a certain group at a certain time, but in another time and place they will almost certainly be questioned again.


----------



## RKMBrown

Mathbud1 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That definitely shows that our bodies release hormones in response to stimuli (environment) that can affect our behavior. It doesn't show that our genes are pre-programmed with the instructions to make us heterosexual or homosexual.
> 
> It makes sense for female pheremones to prompt male attraction for breeding purposes. If there are/were male pheremones that prompt male attraction, what purpose could they serve genetically speaking?
> 
> I'm not a biologist, but there doesn't SEEM to be anything from a bilogical standpoint that could possibly explain a natural reason for anyone to be "genetically programmed" for homosexuality. From a natural selection point of view it would end any hereditary line that carried the gene because homosexuality is not "breedable."
> 
> It seems FAR more likely that post-birth external stimuli influence us to certain behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> It does show that our genes are pre-programmed with the instructions to make us sexual.  I have noted in quite a few males who are gay decidedly female speech, appearance, and behavior patterns. Learned through culture?  Do females act as they do solely on culture?  I think it's some combination.
> 
> To the question of are there any male pheromones that prompt male attraction, and if so what purpose could they serve genetically speaking?
> 
> Think Roman legions, think groups / packs of hunter's.  Attraction does not have to be for sex alone.  For example, it has been shown that even hetero males will have bias to vote for the better more viral looking male candidate.
> 
> Additionally, both males and females can easily achieve orgasm outside of coitus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The psuedo-feminine behavior seems mostly an affectation to me, and not one that makes much sense. Logically speaking, why would a man who is attracted to men be attracted to a man who tries to act as much like a woman as he can?
> 
> Culture is not the only thing that influences feminine behavior. Culture is far from the only external influence on us. Something as simple as a bad smell or taste at a certain moment can taint our perceptions of that moment forever. Were we sad or happy in moment? Were we tired or alert? Were we distracted by other things or focused wholly on the moment? Our interactions with the world around us are hugely complex, and (it seems to me) have to have as complex an influence on our behavior.
> 
> Sexual attraction is, by definition, for sex. The only logical seeming argument for a genetic influence on sexual attraction would be finding the best mate for breeding (not something that can be satisfied by homosexuality.) For non-sexual attractions, such as you described, the argument might be survival. Teaming up with other physically fit and strong males should increase your chances of surviving in a dangerous world.
> 
> I'm not sure what the relevance is of your comment about orgasm outside of coitus. You'll have to explain. (If you want to.)
Click to expand...


Yeah my point was that when groups of men or groups of women are in close proximity for extended periods of time... and more particularly when there is a decided lack of sexual contact of the opposite sex for extended periods of time, then non-sexual attractions may lead to dalliances, then the non-coitus orgasm can lead to addiction to the act. Not unlike addiction to cocaine. 

One gay guy I know, a brother in law, started out dating girls, he was a bit odd if you will, and still is when it comes to social interactions.  The girls picked on him for it.  The gay guys found it attractive, and he reciprocated.  He's had the same guy friend for a couple decades now. 

I suspect, that if he had more successful interactions when dating girls he might have continued that way.  But it was clear to me from the start and more so afterwards that there was something female about him from the start, even when he was dating girls.


----------



## midcan5

Quantum Windbag said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the beat goes on.... Too funny that this issue isn't settled. But anyone who thinks sexuality is a choice can find out for themselves. Simply switch hit, try it, from today for a few days find attraction in the other gender. Boy, his/her ass is nice, jeez, I'd love to hug her/him and a kiss would be oh so wonderful. No need to jump right in physically, the mind is all you need. Good luck and let us all know how it goes. And please try hard even in your dreams of conquest. My post below is from 2007 - too funny.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/50615-know-what-really-causes-homosexuality.html
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...arding-islam-and-one-flesh-2.html#post8319649
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...something-simply-inherent-29.html#post9326144
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you afraid of freedom? Does the ability to chose scare you?
Click to expand...


You once again miss the point, choice is freedom, so choose.  Try it you may like it. Your freedom is granted to be all that you want to be. 

Mathbud1,  I think there are circumstances in which one can have sexual experiences but fundamentally we are one or the other along some continuum. My brother is gay and from an early age it was evident. Of course I can only look back and wonder why my girlie mags had little interest to him. Now I see it more clearly. My wife has taught for many years and says you can tell the boys very young, girls are much harder. Society though pushes us - at least when I grew up - to marriage and recently a close friend came out after many many years of marriage. For those who live in the world of people you can tell today and you accept today.

Take the test only a mind is required.


----------



## Mathbud1

midcan5 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the beat goes on.... Too funny that this issue isn't settled. But anyone who thinks sexuality is a choice can find out for themselves. Simply switch hit, try it, from today for a few days find attraction in the other gender. Boy, his/her ass is nice, jeez, I'd love to hug her/him and a kiss would be oh so wonderful. No need to jump right in physically, the mind is all you need. Good luck and let us all know how it goes. And please try hard even in your dreams of conquest. My post below is from 2007 - too funny.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/50615-know-what-really-causes-homosexuality.html
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...arding-islam-and-one-flesh-2.html#post8319649
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...something-simply-inherent-29.html#post9326144
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you afraid of freedom? Does the ability to chose scare you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You once again miss the point, choice is freedom, so choose.  Try it you may like it. Your freedom is granted to be all that you want to be.
> 
> Mathbud1,  I think there are circumstances in which one can have sexual experiences but fundamentally we are one or the other along some continuum. My brother is gay and from an early age it was evident. Of course I can only look back and wonder why my girlie mags had little interest to him. Now I see it more clearly. My wife has taught for many years and says you can tell the boys very young, girls are much harder. Society though pushes us - at least when I grew up - to marriage and recently a close friend came out after many many years of marriage. For those who live in the world of people you can tell today and you accept today.
> 
> Take the test only a mind is required.
Click to expand...

Fundamentally how? What mechanism drives that fundamental state? Genetics? A soul? Experiences? Choice?


----------



## Mathbud1

RKMBrown said:


> Yeah my point was that when groups of men or groups of women are in close proximity for extended periods of time... and more particularly when there is a decided lack of sexual contact of the opposite sex for extended periods of time, then non-sexual attractions may lead to dalliances, then the non-coitus orgasm can lead to addiction to the act. Not unlike addiction to cocaine.



That's a perfect example of choice and experience altering behavior and attraction.



> One gay guy I know, a brother in law, started out dating girls, he was a bit odd if you will, and still is when it comes to social interactions.  The girls picked on him for it.  The gay guys found it attractive, and he reciprocated.  He's had the same guy friend for a couple decades now.
> 
> I suspect, that if he had more successful interactions when dating girls he might have continued that way.  But it was clear to me from the start and more so afterwards that there was something female about him from the start, even when he was dating girls.



People say, "from the start" and I'm never really sure what they mean. As far as I know, at extremely young ages there is no major difference in male and female behavior. By the time it's possible to differentiate between typical male behavior and typical female behavior, our environment will have been influencing us for possibly years. So observations "from the start" don't seem likely to tell us much about genetic programming/influencing of sexual behavior.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the beat goes on.... Too funny that this issue isn't settled. But anyone who thinks sexuality is a choice can find out for themselves. Simply switch hit, try it, from today for a few days find attraction in the other gender. Boy, his/her ass is nice, jeez, I'd love to hug her/him and a kiss would be oh so wonderful. No need to jump right in physically, the mind is all you need. Good luck and let us all know how it goes. And please try hard even in your dreams of conquest. My post below is from 2007 - too funny.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/50615-know-what-really-causes-homosexuality.html
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...arding-islam-and-one-flesh-2.html#post8319649
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...something-simply-inherent-29.html#post9326144
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you afraid of freedom? Does the ability to chose scare you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You once again miss the point, choice is freedom, so choose.  Try it you may like it. Your freedom is granted to be all that you want to be.
> 
> Mathbud1,  I think there are circumstances in which one can have sexual experiences but fundamentally we are one or the other along some continuum. My brother is gay and from an early age it was evident. Of course I can only look back and wonder why my girlie mags had little interest to him. Now I see it more clearly. My wife has taught for many years and says you can tell the boys very young, girls are much harder. Society though pushes us - at least when I grew up - to marriage and recently a close friend came out after many many years of marriage. For those who live in the world of people you can tell today and you accept today.
> 
> Take the test only a mind is required.
Click to expand...


i did, idiot, which is why I know you are wrong when you tell me it isn't a choice, so tell me why you are afraid of freedom, and why you think Mathbud doesn't deserve his own response from you.


----------



## AntiParty

emilynghiem said:


> [MENTION=47936]AntiParty[/MENTION]
> I agree with you if you mean only a gay person can answer for themselves, but
> 1. Even a gay person cannot speak for all other gay people.
> Each person can speak for themselves, let others do the same,
> and learn to deal with the fact that some answers are not going to match, even after reconciling, we can still disagree and not believe the same things.
> 2. If I cite what gay people said for themselves, I don't have to be gay to believe them and repeat them. As long as I don't project that as truth for "all people" (which is wrong even if a gay person makes a false generalization as well).
> 3. It's the projection and generalization that causes errors and conflicts.
> You don't have to be gay to express the truth.
> And gay people can make errors also with generalizations.
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a gay person can answer this question..............
> 
> I think the people trying to answer this without being gay are a hoot!
> 
> "Oh, It's certainly a choice because........."  or "It's not a choice something ...."
> 
> 
> Are you gay? Why are you answer questions for them? Why are you the professional of gay behavior? Ask a gay if it's a choice. Stop answering for them..
> 
> Unless of course you thought you were gay and you went through the religion anti-gay training camp that trains people who thought they were gay to be not gay..........etc...
> 
> You do realize that most Preists that raped young boys only did it because they were told they didn't have to "release the load". Puberty and not releasing your load makes your balls turn into your brains.
> 
> Just rub one out! Only specific versions of the Bible said don't jack off. It's not perverted, it's necessary. There should be a pressure valve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Priests who raped nuns in Africa because they didn't want AIDS from natives
> aren't going to be helped by just rubbing one out. they need deeper therapy for their sickness  on a spiritual level not just placating symptoms.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you should try no sex and no masturbation for a spell. Puberty was the period of your life, as a NEW adult, with no sex and no masturbation........

How did puberty go for you? (I'm assuming you are an adult and didn't have sex education to guide emotions and other things)


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you afraid of freedom? Does the ability to chose scare you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You once again miss the point, choice is freedom, so choose.  Try it you may like it. Your freedom is granted to be all that you want to be.
> 
> Mathbud1,  I think there are circumstances in which one can have sexual experiences but fundamentally we are one or the other along some continuum. My brother is gay and from an early age it was evident. Of course I can only look back and wonder why my girlie mags had little interest to him. Now I see it more clearly. My wife has taught for many years and says you can tell the boys very young, girls are much harder. Society though pushes us - at least when I grew up - to marriage and recently a close friend came out after many many years of marriage. For those who live in the world of people you can tell today and you accept today.
> 
> Take the test only a mind is required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i did, idiot,
Click to expand...

Now now, there is no need to get your panties in a bunch ma'am, take a midol count to five and breath.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You once again miss the point, choice is freedom, so choose.  Try it you may like it. Your freedom is granted to be all that you want to be.
> 
> Mathbud1,  I think there are circumstances in which one can have sexual experiences but fundamentally we are one or the other along some continuum. My brother is gay and from an early age it was evident. Of course I can only look back and wonder why my girlie mags had little interest to him. Now I see it more clearly. My wife has taught for many years and says you can tell the boys very young, girls are much harder. Society though pushes us - at least when I grew up - to marriage and recently a close friend came out after many many years of marriage. For those who live in the world of people you can tell today and you accept today.
> 
> Take the test only a mind is required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i did, idiot,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now now, there is no need to get your panties in a bunch ma'am, take a midol count to five and breath.
Click to expand...


Using sex as an insult, why is that? is it because you have aren't comfortable with your own sexuality, or is it because you believe that sex is dirty? Have you noticed that I am unimpressed with tactics like that?


----------



## Slyhunter

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> i did, idiot,
> 
> 
> 
> Now now, there is no need to get your panties in a bunch ma'am, take a midol count to five and breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using sex as an insult, why is that? is it because you have aren't comfortable with your own sexuality, or is it because you believe that sex is dirty? Have you noticed that I am unimpressed with tactics like that?
Click to expand...


Sounds to me like you only made it to 2.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Slyhunter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now now, there is no need to get your panties in a bunch ma'am, take a midol count to five and breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using sex as an insult, why is that? is it because you have aren't comfortable with your own sexuality, or is it because you believe that sex is dirty? Have you noticed that I am unimpressed with tactics like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you only made it to 2.
Click to expand...


Why does it sound that way to you? I am not the one using sex as an insult, the poster I quoted is. Are you just confused because you disagree with me, and cannot reconcile the fact that I have never once used sexuality as an insult in my entire life?


----------



## Slyhunter

Quantum Windbag said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using sex as an insult, why is that? is it because you have aren't comfortable with your own sexuality, or is it because you believe that sex is dirty? Have you noticed that I am unimpressed with tactics like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you only made it to 2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it sound that way to you? I am not the one using sex as an insult, the poster I quoted is. Are you just confused because you disagree with me, and cannot reconcile the fact that I have never once used sexuality as an insult in my entire life?
Click to expand...

3 comes after 2.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> i did, idiot,
> 
> 
> 
> Now now, there is no need to get your panties in a bunch ma'am, take a midol count to five and breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using sex as an insult, why is that? is it because you have aren't comfortable with your own sexuality, or is it because you believe that sex is dirty? Have you noticed that I am unimpressed with tactics like that?
Click to expand...

Calling people idiot, seems you aren't interested in tactics our debate at all.  Likely because you fail at logic.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using sex as an insult, why is that? is it because you have aren't comfortable with your own sexuality, or is it because you believe that sex is dirty? Have you noticed that I am unimpressed with tactics like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you only made it to 2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it sound that way to you? I am not the one using sex as an insult, the poster I quoted is. Are you just confused because you disagree with me, and cannot reconcile the fact that I have never once used sexuality as an insult in my entire life?
Click to expand...

You use insults every chance you get. I have seen you do it at least a dozen times. I actually didn't use sexuality as an insult I simply implied that a poster was acting like an irrational, emotional person.

You choose to be offended, thus giving me control over the ability to offend you.


----------



## RKMBrown

Mathbud1 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah my point was that when groups of men or groups of women are in close proximity for extended periods of time... and more particularly when there is a decided lack of sexual contact of the opposite sex for extended periods of time, then non-sexual attractions may lead to dalliances, then the non-coitus orgasm can lead to addiction to the act. Not unlike addiction to cocaine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a perfect example of choice and experience altering behavior and attraction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One gay guy I know, a brother in law, started out dating girls, he was a bit odd if you will, and still is when it comes to social interactions.  The girls picked on him for it.  The gay guys found it attractive, and he reciprocated.  He's had the same guy friend for a couple decades now.
> 
> I suspect, that if he had more successful interactions when dating girls he might have continued that way.  But it was clear to me from the start and more so afterwards that there was something female about him from the start, even when he was dating girls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People say, "from the start" and I'm never really sure what they mean. As far as I know, at extremely young ages there is no major difference in male and female behavior. By the time it's possible to differentiate between typical male behavior and typical female behavior, our environment will have been influencing us for possibly years. So observations "from the start" don't seem likely to tell us much about genetic programming/influencing of sexual behavior.
Click to expand...

The phrase "from the start," in this case refers to first introductions.  He was about 15, in puberty but not exhibiting male behavior patterns.  His younger brother was 6, and was exhibiting male behavior patterns.

I've had boys and a girl.  From birth the differences between boys and girls is significant.  Everything from mannerisms to the types of toys they choose, to how they play with the toys is completely different.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Any differences you notice in your kids gender stereotypes is coming from you. Raise boys with blue, girls with pink and you're from that moment giving them a gender stereotype to conform to. Chances are, you'rer giving they many others as well, thus what you now observe isn't their true natures so much as the natures you imposed onto them.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]: For my friend I met online who identified as female, he/she reported being born with that female personality or "soul" -- predominantly female and responded to me when I addressed her as so. That was who that person naturally was. 

If a person's persona is female, I understand that the "female brain" is identifiably distinct from the male brain, and in transgender studies the physical males did show key characteristics of having a larger hypothalamus of female brains (and also greater ability of gay men to cross over both sides of the brain, but still not at the level of women).

So what makes a certain "soul or personality" incarnate or develop physically in a body?

Does it start on a "spiritual level," then manifest in genetics and brain development, and then in  how people interact physically in relations with others in the social environment?

When I frame it by spiritual determination first, then the genetic and physical factors after that, this seems to explain more of the situations, including whether or not people experienced change, and also what social factors and relations with people are involved. Even if we can't tell how much is genetic or environmental, isn't the common factor in whether or not people change, determined by their spiritual identity to begin with?



RKMBrown said:


> It does show that our genes are pre-programmed with the instructions to make us sexual.  I have noted in quite a few males who are gay decidedly female speech, appearance, and behavior patterns. Learned through culture?  Do females act as they do solely on culture?  I think it's some combination.
> 
> To the question of are there any male pheromones that prompt male attraction, and if so what purpose could they serve genetically speaking?
> 
> Think Roman legions, think groups / packs of hunter's.  Attraction does not have to be for sex alone.  For example, it has been shown that even hetero males will have bias to vote for the better more viral looking male candidate.
> 
> Additionally, both males and females can easily achieve orgasm outside of coitus.


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> Dear [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]: For my friend I met online who identified as female, he/she reported being born with that female personality or "soul" -- predominantly female and responded to me when I addressed her as so. That was who that person naturally was.
> 
> If a person's persona is female, I understand that the "female brain" is identifiably distinct from the male brain, and in transgender studies the physical males did show key characteristics of having a larger hypothalamus of female brains (and also greater ability of gay men to cross over both sides of the brain, but still not at the level of women).
> 
> So what makes a certain "soul or personality" incarnate or develop physically in a body?
> 
> Does it start on a "spiritual level," then manifest in genetics and brain development, and then in  how people interact physically in relations with others in the social environment?
> 
> When I frame it by spiritual determination first, then the genetic and physical factors after that, this seems to explain more of the situations, including whether or not people experienced change, and also what social factors and relations with people are involved. Even if we can't tell how much is genetic or environmental, isn't the common factor in whether or not people change, determined by their spiritual identity to begin with?
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does show that our genes are pre-programmed with the instructions to make us sexual.  I have noted in quite a few males who are gay decidedly female speech, appearance, and behavior patterns. Learned through culture?  Do females act as they do solely on culture?  I think it's some combination.
> 
> To the question of are there any male pheromones that prompt male attraction, and if so what purpose could they serve genetically speaking?
> 
> Think Roman legions, think groups / packs of hunter's.  Attraction does not have to be for sex alone.  For example, it has been shown that even hetero males will have bias to vote for the better more viral looking male candidate.
> 
> Additionally, both males and females can easily achieve orgasm outside of coitus.
Click to expand...


IT IS THE ABOMINATION ""ACTS"" OF SEXUAL PERVERSION THAT GOD'S WORD CONDEMNS. Try to think! CONDEMNS


----------



## emilynghiem

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now now, there is no need to get your panties in a bunch ma'am, take a midol count to five and breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using sex as an insult, why is that? is it because you have aren't comfortable with your own sexuality, or is it because you believe that sex is dirty? Have you noticed that I am unimpressed with tactics like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling people idiot, seems you aren't interested in tactics our debate at all.  Likely because you fail at logic.
Click to expand...


Hi  [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION], 
from [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]'s other posts and conversations I find QW is more than capable of carrying on intelligent debates in depth and detail without resorting to any side jabs at people personally. And so are you. 

I know the personal jabs happen online as "part of the social and environmental influences."

I believe your "natural default selves" are normally "oriented" toward 
making rational and articulate points,
whereas this "externalized behavior" going on "can be changed."

As you said, "it is a choice" to focus on that to take exception or offense, 
which goes for both of you: 
Had I not seen both of you communicate quite effectively, demonstrating astute levels of perception and discernment, far above petty levels of personal cracks, I would not ask you both to knock it off and please focus on content. Thank you, Gentlemen. Do carry on!


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> IT IS THE ABOMINATION ""ACTS"" OF SEXUAL PERVERSION THAT GOD'S WORD. Try to think! CONDEMNS



   [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
And of all the people who have successfully recovered and healed of past perverse behavior, NOT ONE got there by being preached at in this way. They already knew they had a problem, so more preaching about it did not change that. (What they didn't know is that their problems could be healed, so that was the help they needed, not preaching about the problems but offering the solutions.)

GISMYS who are you addressing? 
Which particular person or issue/action are you trying to correct? 

If you are trying to address Gentiles, would you agree with the focus on proving how spiritual healing and recovery works using Science and Medicine, demonstrating laws of science and nature back up what people claim about being healed of disease and mental addictions, INCLUDING the "sexual perversions" you are so concerned about.

Which is more effective, preaching where people argue back and "don't listen"?
Or focusing on scientific proof of the spiritual process so people can understand it is true?

GISMYS since you know how close we are to the truth being revealed for all the world,
doesn't it make sense that science will be used more and more to prove these things are real and natural? Wouldn't that bring the knowledge out for the public to see in plain sight?

If you can see that, as part of the vision of truth established, I totally support that approach. If every eye is going to see, it makes sense to use science to show all people.


----------



## GISMYS

THE FIRST STEP WE SINNERS NEED TO WHEN SEEKING FORGIVNESS  IS TO CONFESS OUR SIN IS SIN AND REPENT. BUT SEXUAL PERVERTS TRY TO SAY THEIR SIN IS NOT SIN THUS THEY COMPOUND THEIR SIN BY DENYING THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD. GPD loves the sinner but GOD hates their sin. and you??


----------



## Delta4Embassy

...And not one religious zealot ever stopped being a zealot after some rational person tried disuading them. Just sayin'


----------



## RKMBrown

Delta4Embassy said:


> Any differences you notice in your kids gender stereotypes is coming from you. Raise boys with blue, girls with pink and you're from that moment giving them a gender stereotype to conform to. Chances are, you'rer giving they many others as well, thus what you now observe isn't their true natures so much as the natures you imposed onto them.



You are making assumptions with regard to how I raised my kids.  I didn't try to make my kids left handed or right handed.  They choose on their own.


----------



## GISMYS

FACE THE TRUTH!!!==THE FIRST STEP WE SINNERS NEED TO WHEN SEEKING FORGIVNESS IS TO CONFESS OUR SIN IS SIN AND REPENT. BUT SEXUAL PERVERTS TRY TO SAY THEIR SIN IS NOT SIN THUS THEY COMPOUND THEIR SIN BY DENYING THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD. GPD loves the sinner but GOD hates their sin. and you??


----------



## RKMBrown

emilynghiem said:


> Dear [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]: For my friend I met online who identified as female, he/she reported being born with that female personality or "soul" -- predominantly female and responded to me when I addressed her as so. That was who that person naturally was.
> 
> If a person's persona is female, I understand that the "female brain" is identifiably distinct from the male brain, and in transgender studies the physical males did show key characteristics of having a larger hypothalamus of female brains (and also greater ability of gay men to cross over both sides of the brain, but still not at the level of women).
> 
> So what makes a certain "soul or personality" incarnate or develop physically in a body?
> 
> Does it start on a "spiritual level," then manifest in genetics and brain development, and then in  how people interact physically in relations with others in the social environment?
> 
> When I frame it by spiritual determination first, then the genetic and physical factors after that, this seems to explain more of the situations, including whether or not people experienced change, and also what social factors and relations with people are involved. Even if we can't tell how much is genetic or environmental, isn't the common factor in whether or not people change, determined by their spiritual identity to begin with?
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does show that our genes are pre-programmed with the instructions to make us sexual.  I have noted in quite a few males who are gay decidedly female speech, appearance, and behavior patterns. Learned through culture?  Do females act as they do solely on culture?  I think it's some combination.
> 
> To the question of are there any male pheromones that prompt male attraction, and if so what purpose could they serve genetically speaking?
> 
> Think Roman legions, think groups / packs of hunter's.  Attraction does not have to be for sex alone.  For example, it has been shown that even hetero males will have bias to vote for the better more viral looking male candidate.
> 
> Additionally, both males and females can easily achieve orgasm outside of coitus.
Click to expand...


What makes a certain "soul or personality" incarnate or develop physically in a body?

I don't think one answer suffices to that question.  I believe we are all individuals and the answer is comprised of many factors for all individuals.

Does it start on a "spiritual level," then manifest in genetics and brain development, and then in how people interact physically in relations with others in the social environment?

Perhaps for some yes, but what is a spiritual level if not a rendering in the genetically constructed body?  Can I not destroy a spirt being hosted by a brain by severing the frontal lobe?  If so, is the spirt not in part guided by the capabilities and biases of the body?

I believe for others, it also starts in genetics, then gets reinforced through learning and further biased by brain development to reward the body for said activities that are good for the mind and body.  IOW our spirit is by default, in tune with our body, only through great effort can one disassociate the spirit from the body.  For example, ignore pain of a burning hand to save a child.  We can make decisions that are not good for our body, but rather are good for our spirit.  And conversely, our body can force us to do that which is good for it, in spite of our spirit, esp. when the spirit is weak.


----------



## emilynghiem

AntiParty said:


> Perhaps you should try no sex and no masturbation for a spell. Puberty was the period of your life, as a NEW adult, with no sex and no masturbation........
> 
> How did puberty go for you? (I'm assuming you are an adult and didn't have sex education to guide emotions and other things)



Hi [MENTION=47936]AntiParty[/MENTION]: maybe male hormones being more driven in some ways than female hormones, I have an advantage in being female and past the stages of strongest drives.

As a matter of fact I have been celibate for quite a long time, and have been focusing on trying to resolve these political and religious conflicts that affected saving the historic neighborhood where I live in a 100 year battle with city govt (where I spent the last 20 trying to address control issues that everyone seems to project).

I don't think we would have HALF the political conflicts we do now,
if everyone took the time to resolve differences directly, one on one,
get all the control and division issues out of the way, and quit projecting
that angst and need for compensation onto bigger and bigger situations
to create more and more messes to clean up.

Conflicts are going to happen, but if we resolve them instead of letting them build up and pass down from one generation to the next, we do not overload ourselves with so much that we need to resort to manipulation to deal with the excess.

Instead of seeing it as substituting masturbation to prevent that projection of stress,
I am saying why not resolve the internalized source of the unresolved stress building up to begin with.

If we address the inner conflicts first, then the physical and sexual drives take care of themselves. They stay at normal levels that can be managed in healthy relationships.

But if the inner conflicts go unresolved, and you add the sexual and survival drives to compete with other people or groups on top of that, this causes more problems.
So why do that.

I am into resolving issues at the root. There is no substitute for doing the work at the foundation. Any other issues will follow naturally and don't need manipulation when things are brought back in balance at manageable levels.

Maybe I have an advantage in not having as many distracting desires, but just wanting to focus on the root cause of why there is imbalance and suppression blocking resolution of problems between people -- get to those points where the process can be normalized, so all the other issues can be resolved after that. No masturbation needed, either verbally or sexually, if people are too busy relating directly together in productive fruitful ways.


----------



## RKMBrown

GISMYS said:


> FACE THE TRUTH!!!==THE FIRST STEP WE SINNERS NEED TO WHEN SEEKING FORGIVNESS IS TO CONFESS OUR SIN IS SIN AND REPENT. BUT SEXUAL PERVERTS TRY TO SAY THEIR SIN IS NOT SIN THUS THEY COMPOUND THEIR SIN BY DENYING THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD. GPD loves the sinner but GOD hates their sin. and you??



Do you eat pork?


----------



## GISMYS

RKMBrown said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACE THE TRUTH!!!==THE FIRST STEP WE SINNERS NEED TO WHEN SEEKING FORGIVNESS IS TO CONFESS OUR SIN IS SIN AND REPENT. BUT SEXUAL PERVERTS TRY TO SAY THEIR SIN IS NOT SIN THUS THEY COMPOUND THEIR SIN BY DENYING THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD. GPD loves the sinner but GOD hates their sin. and you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you eat pork?
Click to expand...


pray for some wisdom and understanding!! WE BELIEVERS AFTER JESUS CAME TO EARTH AND FULLFILLED THE LAW, WE NOW LIVE UNDER THE NEW COVENANT!!! WE ARE FREE TO EAT ANYTHING WE LIKE!!


----------



## jasonnfree

GISMYS said:


> THE FIRST STEP WE SINNERS NEED TO WHEN SEEKING FORGIVNESS  IS TO CONFESS OUR SIN IS SIN AND REPENT. BUT SEXUAL PERVERTS TRY TO SAY THEIR SIN IS NOT SIN THUS THEY COMPOUND THEIR SIN BY DENYING THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD. GPD loves the sinner but GOD hates their sin. and you??



If God hates their sin, it would be easy enough for him to change them, since he's the one that really created them, if he really is that all powerful.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> FACE THE TRUTH!!!==THE FIRST STEP WE SINNERS NEED TO WHEN *SEEKING FORGIVNESS IS TO CONFESS OUR SIN IS SIN AND REPENT.* BUT SEXUAL PERVERTS TRY TO SAY THEIR SIN IS NOT SIN THUS THEY COMPOUND THEIR SIN BY DENYING THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD. GPD loves the sinner but GOD hates their sin. and you??



And where in the Bible does it say for you 
to require your neighbor to repent first before you do? 

Doesn't the Bible say the opposite of that:
to remove the beam from your own eye first? BEFORE helping your neighbor?

Aren't you responsible for repenting for your own trespasses?
Before telling your neighbor about theirs?

 [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] keep working on this yourself, first.
In perfecting your side, you will become more effective in helping your neighbor as a result. But not the other way.

I think you are jumping the gun and putting the cart before the horse.
I think you must be skipping some steps, so you could be "yelling for help"
for other neighbors to come help you figure out what you missed.

I agree it is a mutual process, and we are called to help each other.
So there must be something to help you with if you feel called to help others equally.


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACE THE TRUTH!!!==THE FIRST STEP WE SINNERS NEED TO WHEN *SEEKING FORGIVNESS IS TO CONFESS OUR SIN IS SIN AND REPENT.* BUT SEXUAL PERVERTS TRY TO SAY THEIR SIN IS NOT SIN THUS THEY COMPOUND THEIR SIN BY DENYING THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD. GPD loves the sinner but GOD hates their sin. and you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where in the Bible does it say for you
> to require your neighbor to repent first before you do?
> 
> Doesn't the Bible say the opposite of that:
> to remove the beam from your own eye first? BEFORE helping your neighbor?
> 
> Aren't you responsible for repenting for your own trespasses?
> Before telling your neighbor about theirs?
> 
> [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] keep working on this yourself, first.
> In perfecting your side, you will become more effective in helping your neighbor as a result. But not the other way.
> 
> I think you are jumping the gun and putting the cart before the horse.
> I think you must be skipping some steps, so you could be "yelling for help"
> for other neighbors to come help you figure out what you missed.
> 
> I agree it is a mutual process, and we are called to help each other.
> So there must be something to help you with if you feel called to help others equally.
Click to expand...


HEY!! SELFRIGHTIOUS PHARISEE!! I CONFESS AND REPENT ANYTIME I HAVE KNOWN SIN!!!and you??


----------



## GISMYS

RKMBrown said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACE THE TRUTH!!!==THE FIRST STEP WE SINNERS NEED TO WHEN SEEKING FORGIVNESS IS TO CONFESS OUR SIN IS SIN AND REPENT. BUT SEXUAL PERVERTS TRY TO SAY THEIR SIN IS NOT SIN THUS THEY COMPOUND THEIR SIN BY DENYING THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD. GPD loves the sinner but GOD hates their sin. and you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you eat pork?
Click to expand...


Faith in JESUS Saves You not Obeying Old Testment Law 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Faith in JESUS Saves You not Obeying Old Testment Law==CHOSE T0 PLACE YOUR FAITH IN JESUS==a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Galations 2:16 
==BELIEVERS! We now live under the new covenant not under old testment law. PTL.=======If we could be saved by his laws, then God would not have had to give us a different way to get out of the grip of sinfor the Scriptures insist we are all its prisoners. The only way out is through faith in Jesus Christ; the way of escape is open to all who believe him.

23 Until Christ came we were guarded by the law, kept in protective custody, so to speak, until we could believe in the coming Savior.

24 Let me put it another way. The Jewish laws were our teacher and guide until Christ came to give us right standing with God through our faith. 25 But now that Christ has come, we dont need those laws any longer to guard us and lead us to him. 26 For now we are all children of God through faith in Jesus Christ, 27 and we who have been baptized into union with Christ are enveloped by him. 28 We are no longer Jews or Greeks or slaves or free men or even merely men or women, but we are all the samewe are Christians; we are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And now that we are Christs we are the true descendants of Abraham, and all of Gods promises to him belong to us.
Galations 3:21-29


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> ATTRACTION IS CHOICE!!!! I AM NOT ATTRACTED TO SOME WOMEN,500 LB WOMEN, 6'4"+ WOMEN ,STUPID BIMBO BARFLY WOMEN,WILD WOMEN, DRUNK OR DRUGGIEE WOMEN OFFER I CHOSE TO HAVE NO ATTRACTION FOR!!!  my choice!!



  [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] are you choosing to be attracted to this forum?
Or did God call you here by conscience to share in the ways you share,
because that is part of the spiritual process between you and me and others here.

If it is God's will you be here, if it is a "choice," isn't it a choice
you are meant to choose and cannot help but following because God wills it.

Can we help that we are called to interact as we do?
I don't think we can help how we react and respond.
Even when we "choose" to change, isn't that part of our spiritual nature?
Isn't that naturally who we are and how we are meant to develop?


----------



## GISMYS

YES!! WE HAVE CHOICE BUT GOD DOESNOT WANT US TO CHOSE SIN!!! THINK!! GOD wants no one to chose to murder,steal or live in sick abomination of sexual perversion!!


----------



## emilynghiem

jasonnfree said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE FIRST STEP WE SINNERS NEED TO WHEN SEEKING FORGIVNESS  IS TO CONFESS OUR SIN IS SIN AND REPENT. BUT SEXUAL PERVERTS TRY TO SAY THEIR SIN IS NOT SIN THUS THEY COMPOUND THEIR SIN BY DENYING THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD. GPD loves the sinner but GOD hates their sin. and you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God hates their sin, it would be easy enough for him to change them, since he's the one that really created them, if he really is that all powerful.
Click to expand...


Dear [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
Would you like to serve as an example of how God can change anyone who asks help?

Since it has been pointed out that your way of preaching on here is "unnatural,"
annoying people in All Caps, who are dismissing you as a troll and cannot hear you,

What process does it take for God to perfect your speech and behavior
so that you can communicate as natural, and be heard and received as speaking truth?

Would you like to demonstrate how finding what to repent of
that is causing "unnatural behavior" can be forgiven and resolved,
and result in transforming the person to be naturally as God intends them to be?

Since you want so much for people to understand the importance of
repentance and forgiveness to get rid of unnatural perversion,
why not serve as a demonstration to witness to how God works to transform?


----------



## GISMYS

YES!! WE HAVE CHOICE BUT GOD DOESNOT WANT US TO CHOSE SIN!!! THINK!! GOD wants no one to chose to murder,steal or live in sick abomination of sexual perversion!! 
===HEAR GOD'S WORD ON THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION=-God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in [t]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Romans 1:26-32


----------



## Asclepias

GISMYS said:


> YES!! WE HAVE CHOICE BUT GOD DOESNOT WANT US TO CHOSE SIN!!! THINK!! GOD wants no one to chose to murder,steal or live in sick abomination of sexual perversion!!



Is that the message you want to convey to people?  If so you are doing the exact opposite. Do you think your method of delivery is pushing people away or bringing them closer to hear your message?


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> YES!! WE HAVE CHOICE BUT GOD DOESNOT WANT US TO CHOSE SIN!!! THINK!! GOD wants no one to chose to murder,steal or live in sick abomination of sexual perversion!!



OK [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] let's start with you, as a most vocal witness,
since you are called to share this message and knowledge.

Can you demonstrate to us that by repenting of these ways deemed "unnatural,"
that your speech will stop coming across as a "perversion" of the Bible as something
negative and ugly that people naturally avoid, but will be transformed into loving words
that speak to God's truth in correcting and righting anything wrong or unnatural in the world.

Can you please show us how this works, so people can understand the difference it makes
when you "choose" to repent and quit justifying unnatural ways seen as negative perversion.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> HEY!! SELFRIGHTIOUS PHARISEE!! I CONFESS AND REPENT ANYTIME I HAVE KNOWN SIN!!!and you??



GREAT [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
Let us keep going on this path.
Let's keep focusing on this approach and all other things wrong will be corrected in the process. Wonderful, I support you in this and pray that all be transformed and made new.
Amen with thanks and praise!


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!! WE HAVE CHOICE BUT GOD DOESNOT WANT US TO CHOSE SIN!!! THINK!! GOD wants no one to chose to murder,steal or live in sick abomination of sexual perversion!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] let's start with you, as a most vocal witness,
> since you are called to share this message and knowledge.
> 
> Can you demonstrate to us that by repenting of these ways deemed "unnatural,"
> that your speech will stop coming across as a "perversion" of the Bible as something
> negative and ugly that people naturally avoid, but will be transformed into loving words
> that speak to God's truth in correcting and righting anything wrong or unnatural in the world.
> 
> Can you please show us how this works, so people can understand the difference it makes
> when you "choose" to repent and quit justifying unnatural ways seen as negative perversion.
Click to expand...


SIN IS NEGATIVE AND UGLY!!! THE first step to being forgiven and washed clean is to confess your sin ""IS"" SIN!!! Don't compound you sin by denying the TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD THAT CONDEMNS YOUR PET SIN OF SEXUAL PERVERSION. Think!


----------



## RKMBrown

GISMYS said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACE THE TRUTH!!!==THE FIRST STEP WE SINNERS NEED TO WHEN SEEKING FORGIVNESS IS TO CONFESS OUR SIN IS SIN AND REPENT. BUT SEXUAL PERVERTS TRY TO SAY THEIR SIN IS NOT SIN THUS THEY COMPOUND THEIR SIN BY DENYING THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD. GPD loves the sinner but GOD hates their sin. and you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you eat pork?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pray for some wisdom and understanding!! WE BELIEVERS AFTER JESUS CAME TO EARTH AND FULLFILLED THE LAW, WE NOW LIVE UNDER THE NEW COVENANT!!! WE ARE FREE TO EAT ANYTHING WE LIKE!!
Click to expand...

Show me where it says we are free to eat anything we like in the bible, then I'll show you where it says gays are allowed to marry other adults of the same sex.

Otherwise, repent sinner!


----------



## GISMYS

RKMBrown said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you eat pork?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pray for some wisdom and understanding!! WE BELIEVERS AFTER JESUS CAME TO EARTH AND FULLFILLED THE LAW, WE NOW LIVE UNDER THE NEW COVENANT!!! WE ARE FREE TO EAT ANYTHING WE LIKE!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where it says we are free to eat anything we like in the bible, then I'll show you where it says gays are allowed to marry other adults of the same sex.
> 
> Otherwise, repent sinner!
Click to expand...


Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. (Col 2:16)==But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. (1 Cor 8:


----------



## emilynghiem

BTW [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...story-2-dads-w-newborn-son-5.html#post9393288

I agree with your POINT that people are "hating what they cannot control in themselves"
(not with the practice of doing that, but with your assessment/description)

I notice that the same way
* GreenBean kept projecting his understanding of "mental illness" (from his own experiences with recovery from addiction and what is a choice or not a choice to stay on that path)
* You kept projecting your assessment of causation based on people's sexuality/orientation

With GreenBean, you kept insisting or assuming it has to be because he is "closet homosexual" and suppressing his "sexuality," because that is your understanding; from his experience he has dealt with overcoming addiction and sees homosexuality that way.

So HE keeps insisting or assuming "mental illness" and "choice to stay addicted"
is involved because that is HIS experience with spiritual changes.

I trust you are honest with your perceptions, what you can see or not see, you come right out and say yes or no.

Can you see that you are both projecting something the other person does not use to describe their process.

The same people on those website testimonial pages who described themselves as going through a "spiritual path of lifechange" GreenBean kept calling "mental illness"
and he REFUSED to change his language/perception even though we AGREED we are "referring the same people and process where they describe themselves differently"
They did NOT perceive or call their process "mental illness" as GreenBean calls that.

And similar with you. I kept trying to explain that GreenBean has been going through recovery on a spiritual level, and yes it could be mental or personality issues,
but you kept framing this as his "sexual orientation" he was struggling with.

What I believe is going on in such cases, where two people like you and GB deadlock,
is either you both let go at the same time, either agree to both drop it, or agree to "call it even and admit you are both doing it and neither agreeing to change",
and that is enough to change the relationship. 

Just by identifying where the mutual give and take is occurring, and either agreeing to resolve it or agreeing to disagree without judging each other for what you "cannot change."

If that is both your way of seeing and saying it, we can still agree we are talking about the same process -- GB sees it as mental illness, or I see it as spiritual changes, or you see it as someone's sexual orientation, and it doesn't make that process false. The same experiences are happening and it is our language that is biasing our perception of what each means and is referring to. We are actually referring to the same things.

Can you see that GB was doing something similar to you, but the difference is whether you and he are aware of those differences causing that projection and can accept them.

I believe you are a broadminded enough person to deal with these differences.

If you are going to carry on this conversation to the next level, with more and more people,
this effect of projecting biases is going to be multiplied; so if you can deal with it when it is just 2-3 people, that would help before you try to talk with whole groups affected this way.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> SIN IS NEGATIVE AND UGLY!!! THE first step to being forgiven and washed clean is to confess your sin ""IS"" SIN!!! Don't compound you sin by denying the TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD THAT CONDEMNS YOUR PET SIN OF SEXUAL PERVERSION. Think!



Yes  [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] and the more you repent and let God wash away sins of the past from your own words and mind, 
then your speech will also become more pure with Grace, and not perversion in any way or appearance as ugly.

Matthew 15:11 
Matthew 15:11 What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."
*11"It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man." *


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. (Col 2:16)==But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. (1 Cor 8:



11"It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man." -- Matthew 15:11

 [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] the rebuke is not literally about the food itself,
it is about cleaning up your own act and your own speech otherwise "defiling" the message.

May all things be repented of, removed and come clean, that God's truth is spoken with love wisdom and clarity, and established between us in Christ Jesus name, Amen! Thank you GISMYS


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> SIN IS NEGATIVE AND UGLY!!! THE first step to being forgiven and washed clean is to confess your sin ""IS"" SIN!!! Don't compound you sin by denying the TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD THAT CONDEMNS YOUR PET SIN OF SEXUAL PERVERSION. Think!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes  [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] and the more you repent and let God wash away sins of the past from your own words and mind,
> then your speech will also become more pure with Grace, and not perversion in any way or appearance as ugly.
> 
> Matthew 15:11
> Matthew 15:11 What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."
> *11"It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man." *
Click to expand...


I POST GOD'S WORD ON SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION NOT MY WORD!!! Just face the truth and stop compounding your sin of sexual perversion by denying the truth of GOD'S WORD which is an even worse sin!!


----------



## brandonisi

I'll never understand what goes through ones head when they justify their opinions of what civil law should be with bible quotes. 

A same sex couple who chooses to get married has nothing to do with anyone but that couple. 

I've been with my boyfriend (I hate using the word "partner") for nearly a decade. If it weren't for the current laws in my state (Texas), we would probably have married already. Our relationship has lasted longer than that of my brothers and their wives, my sister and her husband, and even my father and his wife (he remarried after my mother passed away). We have a beautiful home, make decent money, pay our taxes and feed our cat. 

But somehow our relationship is inferior to that of my meth-head sister who is now on her fourth marriage? Give me a break.


----------



## GISMYS

brandonisi said:


> I'll never understand what goes through ones head when they justify their opinions of what civil law should be with bible quotes.
> 
> A same sex couple who chooses to get married has nothing to do with anyone but that couple.
> 
> I've been with my boyfriend (I hate using the word "partner") for nearly a decade. If it weren't for the current laws in my state (Texas), we would probably have married already. Our relationship has lasted longer than that of my brothers and their wives, my sister and her husband, and even my father and his wife (he remarried after my mother passed away). We have a beautiful home, make decent money, pay our taxes and feed our cat.
> 
> But somehow our relationship is inferior to that of my meth-head sister who is now on her fourth marriage? Give me a break.



YES!!! SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION FAR INFERIOR TO GOD'S PLAN FOR MANKIND!!! YOU AND YOUR SISTER NEED TO SEEK AND FIND,ACCEPT JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR!!!Wise up before it is too late!!!


----------



## brandonisi

GISMYS said:


> YES!!! SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION FAR INFERIOR TO GOD'S PLAN FOR MANKIND!!! YOU AND YOUR SISTER NEED TO SEEK AND FIND,ACCEPT JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR!!!Wise up before it is too late!!!



Gismys,
You should know that I take nothing you say seriously. I've come to the conclusion that you are either:

A) An unemployed, overweight individual living with your mother as you troll about on Internet forums, or

B) Really are just that ridiculous of a person. 

Reply if you wish. I'm no longer acknowledging you exist. It was entertaining at first, but now it's just a pain to decipher your grammar. Goodbye.


----------



## GISMYS

brandonisi said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION FAR INFERIOR TO GOD'S PLAN FOR MANKIND!!! YOU AND YOUR SISTER NEED TO SEEK AND FIND,ACCEPT JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR!!!Wise up before it is too late!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gismys,
> You should know that I take nothing you say seriously. I've come to the conclusion that you are either:
> 
> A) An unemployed, overweight individual living with your mother as you troll about on Internet forums, or
> 
> B) Really are just that ridiculous of a person.
> 
> Reply if you wish. I'm no longer acknowledging you exist. It was entertaining at first, but now it's just a pain to decipher your grammar. Goodbye.
Click to expand...


SATAN AND DEMONS SCREAM AND CRY WHEN THEY HEAR TRUTH just like you do!!!


----------



## RKMBrown

GISMYS said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> pray for some wisdom and understanding!! WE BELIEVERS AFTER JESUS CAME TO EARTH AND FULLFILLED THE LAW, WE NOW LIVE UNDER THE NEW COVENANT!!! WE ARE FREE TO EAT ANYTHING WE LIKE!!
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says we are free to eat anything we like in the bible, then I'll show you where it says gays are allowed to marry other adults of the same sex.
> 
> Otherwise, repent sinner!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. (Col 2:16)==But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. (1 Cor 8:
Click to expand...


Ayup that's the spot.

15When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.
16Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--
17things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

For example, let no one act as your judge in regard to interracial or gay marriage.  There you go... the substance belongs to Christ.  

Back to the point, would Christ have judged a gay marriage as sinful, or said another way, what gives you the right to be a ruler and authority over gays?

This is exactly to my point, thank you.  Just as Christ is saying the old laws for the Sabbath, and cloven animals should not be judged by rulers and authorities, he's also foreshadowing that other of these types of laws should belong to Christ not rulers and authorities.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now now, there is no need to get your panties in a bunch ma'am, take a midol count to five and breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using sex as an insult, why is that? is it because you have aren't comfortable with your own sexuality, or is it because you believe that sex is dirty? Have you noticed that I am unimpressed with tactics like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling people idiot, seems you aren't interested in tactics our debate at all.  Likely because you fail at logic.
Click to expand...


Calling people an idiot is a rhetorical technique, and has nothing to do with logic. that is something I would think that a self declared expert in logic would understand, if he was half as good as he thought he were at logic. the fact that you keep accusing me of using a straw man argument when I ask questions based on your arguments tells me you aren't early as good as logic as you think you are, and the fact that you confuse rhetoric and logic just confirms it.

That said, how does anything I might do in any way mitigate using homosexuality as an insult? I mean, seriously, if you want me, or anyone else on the face of the Earth, to take you seriously how the fuck can you even attempt to justify using it as an insult? Doesn't that feed right into the homophobia you claim to abhore?

in other words, you lost the argument when you resorted to insulting me with your inability to not use sexuality as an insult, and nothing you can say, or do, will change that fact.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you only made it to 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it sound that way to you? I am not the one using sex as an insult, the poster I quoted is. Are you just confused because you disagree with me, and cannot reconcile the fact that I have never once used sexuality as an insult in my entire life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use insults every chance you get. I have seen you do it at least a dozen times. I actually didn't use sexuality as an insult I simply implied that a poster was acting like an irrational, emotional person.
> 
> You choose to be offended, thus giving me control over the ability to offend you.
Click to expand...


I am not offended, I am perfectly comfortable with who, and what, I am. nothing you can say, or imply, is going to cause me offense because I know that being offended means that I am giving you control over me, that is something I am not going to do.

I would also like to point out that you will never find me using sexuality as an insult. That is because, unlike you,, I understand that sexual preference is a choice, and thus beyond the ability to insult. When I insult people it is based on their misconceptions, not their choices, their lifestyle, or things that are beyond their control. I jump on them for their refusal to open their minds, not their personal lifestyle.

You cannot say the same thing, which is why you will never win an argument with me, you cannot divorce yourself from your prejudices. If i ever call you an idiot in the future you will know why.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Delta4Embassy said:


> ...And not one religious zealot ever stopped being a zealot after some rational person tried disuading them. Just sayin'



Never in the history of the world?

Just asking.


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> BTW [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...story-2-dads-w-newborn-son-5.html#post9393288
> 
> I agree with your POINT that people are "hating what they cannot control in themselves"
> (not with the practice of doing that, but with your assessment/description)
> 
> I notice that the same way
> * GreenBean kept projecting his understanding of "mental illness" (from his own experiences with recovery from addiction and what is a choice or not a choice to stay on that path)
> * You kept projecting your assessment of causation based on people's sexuality/orientation
> 
> With GreenBean, you kept insisting or assuming it has to be because he is "closet homosexual" and suppressing his "sexuality," because that is your understanding; from his experience he has dealt with overcoming addiction and sees homosexuality that way.
> 
> So HE keeps insisting or assuming "mental illness" and "choice to stay addicted"
> is involved because that is HIS experience with spiritual changes.
> 
> I trust you are honest with your perceptions, what you can see or not see, you come right out and say yes or no.
> 
> Can you see that you are both projecting something the other person does not use to describe their process.
> 
> The same people on those website testimonial pages who described themselves as going through a "spiritual path of lifechange" GreenBean kept calling "mental illness"
> and he REFUSED to change his language/perception even though we AGREED we are "referring the same people and process where they describe themselves differently"
> They did NOT perceive or call their process "mental illness" as GreenBean calls that.
> 
> And similar with you. I kept trying to explain that GreenBean has been going through recovery on a spiritual level, and yes it could be mental or personality issues,
> but you kept framing this as his "sexual orientation" he was struggling with.
> 
> What I believe is going on in such cases, where two people like you and GB deadlock,
> is either you both let go at the same time, either agree to both drop it, or agree to "call it even and admit you are both doing it and neither agreeing to change",
> and that is enough to change the relationship.
> 
> Just by identifying where the mutual give and take is occurring, and either agreeing to resolve it or agreeing to disagree without judging each other for what you "cannot change."
> 
> If that is both your way of seeing and saying it, we can still agree we are talking about the same process -- GB sees it as mental illness, or I see it as spiritual changes, or you see it as someone's sexual orientation, and it doesn't make that process false. The same experiences are happening and it is our language that is biasing our perception of what each means and is referring to. We are actually referring to the same things.
> 
> Can you see that GB was doing something similar to you, but the difference is whether you and he are aware of those differences causing that projection and can accept them.
> 
> I believe you are a broadminded enough person to deal with these differences.
> 
> If you are going to carry on this conversation to the next level, with more and more people,
> this effect of projecting biases is going to be multiplied; so if you can deal with it when it is just 2-3 people, that would help before you try to talk with whole groups affected this way.


Greenbean projected nothing but hatred for himself. 

I don't really care to discuss him any more.


----------



## midcan5

And more icing on the cake.

'Worlds largest study on same-sex parents finds kids are healthier and happier than peers
Children raised by gay parents are doing just as well, if not better, than the general population'  Lindsay Abrams  

World?s largest study on same-sex parents finds kids are healthier and happier than peers - Salon.com

Oh and did anyone try switch hitting?  

hahahahahaha


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> And more icing on the cake.
> 
> 'Worlds largest study on same-sex parents finds kids are healthier and happier than peers
> Children raised by gay parents are doing just as well, if not better, than the general population'  Lindsay Abrams
> 
> World?s largest study on same-sex parents finds kids are healthier and happier than peers - Salon.com
> 
> Oh and did anyone try switch hitting?
> 
> hahahahahaha



I love it when people don't follow links.



> 315 parents completed the survey (completion rate&#8201;=&#8201;81%) representing 500 children.    80% of children had a female index parent while 18% had a male index parent. Children    in same-sex parent families had higher scores on measures of general behavior, general    health and family cohesion compared to population normative data (&#946;&#8201;=&#8201;2.93, 95% CI&#8201;=&#8201;0.35    to 5.52, P&#8201;=&#8201;.03; &#946;&#8201;=&#8201;5.60, 95% CI&#8201;=&#8201;2.69 to 8.52, P&#8201;=&#8201;<.001; and &#946;&#8201;=&#8201;6.01, 95% CI&#8201;=&#8201;2.84    to 9.17, P&#8201;=&#8201;<.001 respectively). There were no significant differences between the    two groups for all other scale scores. Physical activity, mental health, and family    cohesion were all negatively associated with increased stigma (&#946;&#8201;=&#8201;-3.03, 95% CI&#8201;=&#8201;-5.86    to -0.21, P&#8201;=&#8201;.04; &#946;&#8201;=&#8201;-10.45, 95% CI&#8201;=&#8201;-18.48 to -2.42, P&#8201;=&#8201;.01; and &#946;&#8201;=&#8201;-9.82, 95%    CI&#8201;=&#8201;-17.86 to -1.78, P&#8201;=&#8201;.02 respectively) and the presence of emotional symptoms    was positively associated with increased stigma (&#946; =0.94, 95% CI&#8201;=&#8201;0.08 to 1.81, P&#8201;=&#8201;.03).



In case you do not understand what that means, the "study" was nothing more than a survey of parents and their opinions about their children.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Hehe, if it's a choice then it's also a mental illness. Only someone who's mentally ill would choose to become the planet's most persecuted social demographic.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

GISMYS said:


> FOR SEXUAL PERVERTS TO HAVE CHILDREN IN THEIR HOUSE IS """EXTREAM CHILD ABUSE OF THE WORST KIND"""!!! Stand up for right!!!



But beating children with metal rods isn't?


----------



## Slyhunter

Delta4Embassy said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> FOR SEXUAL PERVERTS TO HAVE CHILDREN IN THEIR HOUSE IS """EXTREAM CHILD ABUSE OF THE WORST KIND"""!!! Stand up for right!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But beating children with metal rods isn't?
Click to expand...


What I always tell my sister, stop yelling at your kids, it serves no purpose other than to abuse them because it doesn't actually work, beat them instead. Use a method that actually works thus you can do less of it. Because doing something that doesn't work means you have to do it more often than you have to do something that does work.

One good beating could reduce the necessity for future beatings because the kid will be to scared to not behave. And that is the point.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Delta4Embassy said:


> Hehe, if it's a choice then it's also a mental illness. Only someone who's mentally ill would choose to become the planet's most persecuted social demographic.



That is the single dumbest argument ever presented. You do understand that people have chosen to live lives that caused them to be persecuted since the beginning of time, don't you? Or do you think people are programmed to chose a religion where Romans would crucify them, throw them to the lions, or skin them alive for the entertainment of the masses? You really need to learn to think before you post something so absurd.


----------



## RKMBrown

Slyhunter said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> FOR SEXUAL PERVERTS TO HAVE CHILDREN IN THEIR HOUSE IS """EXTREAM CHILD ABUSE OF THE WORST KIND"""!!! Stand up for right!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But beating children with metal rods isn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I always tell my sister, stop yelling at your kids, it serves no purpose other than to abuse them because it doesn't actually work, beat them instead. Use a method that actually works thus you can do less of it. Because doing something that doesn't work means you have to do it more often than you have to do something that does work.
> 
> One good beating could reduce the necessity for future beatings because the kid will be to scared to not behave. And that is the point.
Click to expand...


I never had to beat my kids.  The threat of that being an option was always enough.  They never did anything bad enough to deserve corporal punishment.  

When I was a kid, corporal punishment was almost a relief, that the issue was done.  Then I'd go out and try not to get caught again.


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hehe, if it's a choice then it's also a mental illness. Only someone who's mentally ill would choose to become the planet's most persecuted social demographic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the single dumbest argument ever presented. You do understand that people have chosen to live lives that caused them to be persecuted since the beginning of time, don't you? Or do you think people are programmed to chose a religion where Romans would crucify them, throw them to the lions, or skin them alive for the entertainment of the masses? You really need to learn to think before you post something so absurd.
Click to expand...

Actually his post was 100% right. Most people don't choose a religion. They have it ingrained in them when they were young and impressionable. You don't find a lot of adults who change religions. You get a lot of people who change within their umbrella of religious affilates ie: from Catholic to Protestant but it is very rare for a someone to change to a completely different religion. ie: Christian to Muslim or Hindu to Jew.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hehe, if it's a choice then it's also a mental illness. Only someone who's mentally ill would choose to become the planet's most persecuted social demographic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the single dumbest argument ever presented. You do understand that people have chosen to live lives that caused them to be persecuted since the beginning of time, don't you? Or do you think people are programmed to chose a religion where Romans would crucify them, throw them to the lions, or skin them alive for the entertainment of the masses? You really need to learn to think before you post something so absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually his post was 100% right. Most people don't choose a religion. They have it ingrained in them when they were young and impressionable. You don't find a lot of adults who change religions. You get a lot of people who change within their umbrella of religious affilates ie: from Catholic to Protestant but it is very rare for a someone to change to a completely different religion. ie: Christian to Muslim or Hindu to Jew.
Click to expand...


Wow, you actually ignored the examples in my post and pretended that made you smarter than I am. I am not impressed.

Tell me something, how could anyone have had Christianity when they were young and impressionable when it was around less than a couple of years when the first persecution of Christians began? Did people grow up faster back then? Or is remotely possible you are wrong about your assumptions that you have all the answers?


----------



## RKMBrown

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the single dumbest argument ever presented. You do understand that people have chosen to live lives that caused them to be persecuted since the beginning of time, don't you? Or do you think people are programmed to chose a religion where Romans would crucify them, throw them to the lions, or skin them alive for the entertainment of the masses? You really need to learn to think before you post something so absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually his post was 100% right. Most people don't choose a religion. They have it ingrained in them when they were young and impressionable. You don't find a lot of adults who change religions. You get a lot of people who change within their umbrella of religious affilates ie: from Catholic to Protestant but it is very rare for a someone to change to a completely different religion. ie: Christian to Muslim or Hindu to Jew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you actually ignoredd the examples in my post and pretended that made you smarter than I am. I am not impressed.
> 
> Tell me something, how could anyone have had Christianity when they were young and impressionable when it was around less than a couple of years when the first persecution of Christians began? Did people grow up faster back then? Or is remotely possible you are wrong about your assumptions that you have all the answers?
Click to expand...


Amazing to me how many times you've made a fool of yourself Windbag.  You are not nearly as smart as you think you are.


----------



## AntiParty

GISMYS said:


> FACE THE TRUTH!!!==THE FIRST STEP WE SINNERS NEED TO WHEN SEEKING FORGIVNESS IS TO CONFESS OUR SIN IS SIN AND REPENT. BUT SEXUAL PERVERTS TRY TO SAY THEIR SIN IS NOT SIN THUS THEY COMPOUND THEIR SIN BY DENYING THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD. GPD loves the sinner but GOD hates their sin. and you??



So it's only sexual sinners that are strong enough to draw a thread attention to? Have you read the 10 commandments, have you determined what is the greater sin in Christian terms?

Sinners like to overly attack other peoples sins because in their mind that makes them a perfect person. But it's basic projection and JUDGEMENT. 

It will not make you a better person and judging others will make you a less Christian, says so in the book.


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the single dumbest argument ever presented. You do understand that people have chosen to live lives that caused them to be persecuted since the beginning of time, don't you? Or do you think people are programmed to chose a religion where Romans would crucify them, throw them to the lions, or skin them alive for the entertainment of the masses? You really need to learn to think before you post something so absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually his post was 100% right. Most people don't choose a religion. They have it ingrained in them when they were young and impressionable. You don't find a lot of adults who change religions. You get a lot of people who change within their umbrella of religious affilates ie: from Catholic to Protestant but it is very rare for a someone to change to a completely different religion. ie: Christian to Muslim or Hindu to Jew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you actually ignoredd the examples in my post and pretended that made you smarter than I am. I am not impressed.
> 
> Tell me something, how could anyone have had Christianity when they were young and impressionable when it was around less than a couple of years when the first persecution of Christians began? Did people grow up faster back then? Or is remotely possible you are wrong about your assumptions that you have all the answers?
Click to expand...

More than a couple years. Persecution started under Nero in the year 64AD  Also many scholars believe that it was only a handful of Christians under Nero who were charged with Arson. Not much of a persecution at the beginning.


> Although provincial governors in the Roman Empire had a great deal of personal discretion and power to do what they felt was needed in their jurisdiction, and there were local and sporadic incidents of persecution and mob violence against Christians, for most of the first three hundred years of Christian history Christians were able to live in peace, practice professions, and rise to positions of responsibility. Only for approximately ten out of the first three hundred years of the church's history were Christians executed due to orders from a Roman emperor.


  -The Myth of Persecution. Moss, HarperCollins, 2013.

Every single religion has been persecuted at some point in time.


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> [
> I POST GOD'S WORD


So you are claiming to be a prophet?

I call false prophet.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using sex as an insult, why is that? is it because you have aren't comfortable with your own sexuality, or is it because you believe that sex is dirty? Have you noticed that I am unimpressed with tactics like that?
> 
> 
> 
> Calling people idiot, seems you aren't interested in tactics our debate at all.  Likely because you fail at logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling people an idiot is a rhetorical technique
Click to expand...

No, it's childish and it's stupid. Only a complete moron would attempt to pass off their school yard insults as rhetorical technique.

I have a hard time buying that from such an immature poster.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually his post was 100% right. Most people don't choose a religion. They have it ingrained in them when they were young and impressionable. You don't find a lot of adults who change religions. You get a lot of people who change within their umbrella of religious affilates ie: from Catholic to Protestant but it is very rare for a someone to change to a completely different religion. ie: Christian to Muslim or Hindu to Jew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you actually ignored the examples in my post and pretended that made you smarter than I am. I am not impressed.
> 
> Tell me something, how could anyone have had Christianity when they were young and impressionable when it was around less than a couple of years when the first persecution of Christians began? Did people grow up faster back then? Or is remotely possible you are wrong about your assumptions that you have all the answers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing to me how many times you've made a fool of yourself Windbag.  You are not nearly as smart as you think you are.
Click to expand...


What is amazing is that you think a guy that deliberately chose the user name I did in any way cares about making a fool of himself.

That said, how was anything I said in the post you quoted wrong? The first Christian martyr was named Stephen, and he was killed less than a year after the birth of Christianity. Thereafter the persecution of Christians spread among the Jews, and continued even after the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus. In order for the claim that they were raised to be Christian fanatics to be true they would have to grow up incredibly fast back then, wouldn't they?

Maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually his post was 100% right. Most people don't choose a religion. They have it ingrained in them when they were young and impressionable. You don't find a lot of adults who change religions. You get a lot of people who change within their umbrella of religious affilates ie: from Catholic to Protestant but it is very rare for a someone to change to a completely different religion. ie: Christian to Muslim or Hindu to Jew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you actually ignoredd the examples in my post and pretended that made you smarter than I am. I am not impressed.
> 
> Tell me something, how could anyone have had Christianity when they were young and impressionable when it was around less than a couple of years when the first persecution of Christians began? Did people grow up faster back then? Or is remotely possible you are wrong about your assumptions that you have all the answers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More than a couple years. Persecution started under Nero in the year 64AD  Also many scholars believe that it was only a handful of Christians under Nero who were charged with Arson. Not much of a persecution at the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> Although provincial governors in the Roman Empire had a great deal of personal discretion and power to do what they felt was needed in their jurisdiction, and there were local and sporadic incidents of persecution and mob violence against Christians, for most of the first three hundred years of Christian history Christians were able to live in peace, practice professions, and rise to positions of responsibility. Only for approximately ten out of the first three hundred years of the church's history were Christians executed due to orders from a Roman emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -The Myth of Persecution. Moss, HarperCollins, 2013.
> 
> Every single religion has been persecuted at some point in time.
Click to expand...


Persecution started long before Nero got around to it, read my response to the other idiot that doesn't know history.

That said, feel free to point out where I claimed that persecution is restricted to Christians. My point was, and still is, that people chose to affiliate with regions that will cause them to be persecuted. You tried to claim that they were raised that way, and I pointed out that that was a ridiculous claim. The proof of how ridiculous it is is your attempt to deflect by attacking straw men.

Thanks for making my point for me.


----------



## RKMBrown

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you actually ignoredd the examples in my post and pretended that made you smarter than I am. I am not impressed.
> 
> Tell me something, how could anyone have had Christianity when they were young and impressionable when it was around less than a couple of years when the first persecution of Christians began? Did people grow up faster back then? Or is remotely possible you are wrong about your assumptions that you have all the answers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing to me how many times you've made a fool of yourself Windbag.  You are not nearly as smart as you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing is that you think a guy that deliberately chose the user name I did in any way cares about making a foll of himself.
> 
> That said, how was anything I said in the post you quoted wrong? The first Christian martyr was named Stephen, and he was killed less than a year after the birth of Christianity. Thereafter the persecution of Christians spread among the Jews, and continued even after the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus. In order for the claim that they were raised to be Christian fanatics to be true they would have to grow up incredibly fast back then, wouldn't they?
> 
> Maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are.
Click to expand...

Where did I say anything in that post was wrong?  Is English your native tongue?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling people idiot, seems you aren't interested in tactics our debate at all.  Likely because you fail at logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling people an idiot is a rhetorical technique
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's childish and it's stupid. Only a complete moron would attempt to pass off their school yard insults as rhetorical technique.
> 
> I have a hard time buying that from such an immature poster.
Click to expand...


Childish and stupid is a rhetorical technique, idiot. If you don't believe me feel free to study rhetoric. 

That said, your pathetic attempts to upset me by questioning my sexuality is much lower than the schoolyard rhetoric I employ, so feel free to hang your head in shame.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing to me how many times you've made a fool of yourself Windbag.  You are not nearly as smart as you think you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is amazing is that you think a guy that deliberately chose the user name I did in any way cares about making a foll of himself.
> 
> That said, how was anything I said in the post you quoted wrong? The first Christian martyr was named Stephen, and he was killed less than a year after the birth of Christianity. Thereafter the persecution of Christians spread among the Jews, and continued even after the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus. In order for the claim that they were raised to be Christian fanatics to be true they would have to grow up incredibly fast back then, wouldn't they?
> 
> Maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I say anything in that post was wrong?  Is English your native tongue?
Click to expand...


You implied I made a fool of myself, I want to know what you think justified your statement. Where you just trying to show moral superiority by making a specious claim that I am foolish, or did you actually have a point?

My guess is that it is the former, but feel free to prove me wrong.


----------



## RKMBrown

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is amazing is that you think a guy that deliberately chose the user name I did in any way cares about making a foll of himself.
> 
> That said, how was anything I said in the post you quoted wrong? The first Christian martyr was named Stephen, and he was killed less than a year after the birth of Christianity. Thereafter the persecution of Christians spread among the Jews, and continued even after the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus. In order for the claim that they were raised to be Christian fanatics to be true they would have to grow up incredibly fast back then, wouldn't they?
> 
> Maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything in that post was wrong?  Is English your native tongue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You implied I made a fool of myself, I want to know what you think justified your statement. Where you just trying to show moral superiority by making a specious claim that I am foolish, or did you actually have a point?
> 
> My guess is that it is the former, but feel free to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...


Well we could start with your incorrect use of the word "where," where in this case you should have used the word "were."

My point was perfectly clear.  What part of my point didn't you understand?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything in that post was wrong?  Is English your native tongue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You implied I made a fool of myself, I want to know what you think justified your statement. Where you just trying to show moral superiority by making a specious claim that I am foolish, or did you actually have a point?
> 
> My guess is that it is the former, but feel free to prove me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well we could start with your incorrect use of the word "where," where in this case you should have used the word "were."
> 
> My point was perfectly clear.  What part of my point didn't you understand?
Click to expand...


that wasn't in the post you quoted and claimed I was making a fool of myself, but it would be pretty easy to go through your posts and find typos, would that make you a fool?

I guess I made the mistake of assuming you actually had a point that you could actually expound on. I will strive to restrain myself from assuming that you are actually trying to discuss the issue again, even if you continue to post in the CDZ.


----------



## RKMBrown

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You implied I made a fool of myself, I want to know what you think justified your statement. Where you just trying to show moral superiority by making a specious claim that I am foolish, or did you actually have a point?
> 
> My guess is that it is the former, but feel free to prove me wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well we could start with your incorrect use of the word "where," where in this case you should have used the word "were."
> 
> My point was perfectly clear.  What part of my point didn't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that wasn't in the post you quoted and claimed I was making a fool of myself, but it would be pretty easy to go through your posts and find typos, would that make you a fool?
> 
> I guess I made the mistake of assuming you actually had a point that you could actually expound on. I will strive to restrain myself from assuming that you are actually trying to discuss the issue again, even if you continue to post in the CDZ.
Click to expand...


Where did I say using the wrong word made you a fool?  How many times am I going to have to point it out to you that I did not say you made a fool of yourself in that post?  Are you on some sort of medication today that is making you make stuff up?  Are you incapable of understanding the difference between the past and current discussions?

If you want me to expand on your foolishness, I would point out that claiming one superior over others has it pitfalls.


----------



## RKMBrown

Here QW, I'll help you out.  My response was focused solely on what you said to tuatara, when you said "Wow, you actually ignored the examples in my post *and pretended that made you smarter than I am. I am not impressed*."  

Now read that in context with my response.

Amazing to me how many times you've made a fool of yourself Windbag. You are not nearly as smart as you think you are.

The point being we can all be foolish from time to time, and bragging .. yeah that's foolish.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RKMBrown said:


> Here QW, I'll help you out.  My response was focused solely on what you said to tuatara, when you said "Wow, you actually ignored the examples in my post *and pretended that made you smarter than I am. I am not impressed*."
> 
> Now read that in context with my response.
> 
> Amazing to me how many times you've made a fool of yourself Windbag. You are not nearly as smart as you think you are.
> 
> The point being we can all be foolish from time to time, and bragging .. yeah that's foolish.



The guy was wrong, period. I just took some pleasure in pointing it out. If you define that as foolish, feel free.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> I POST GOD'S WORD ON SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION NOT MY WORD!!! Just face the truth and stop compounding your sin of sexual perversion by denying the truth of GOD'S WORD which is an even worse sin!!



Hi [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
again the issue here with you is not about God's word in the Bible, which speaks for itself as truth without needing either you nor I to make it true, it already is what it always has been.

The issue here is the SPIRIT and FOCUS of 
1. how
2. why and 
3. who you are addressing.

Jesus was able to communicate about the Kingdom of God to plain fishermen and farmers
using mere parables from real life. If these people were not literate and not readers of the Bible, he did not preach to them using that.

Why can't you talk with people here like Jesus did with the fishermen and farmers using explanations from real life?

So far you have
1. one person calling you a False Prophet
2. another person thinking you must be some troll without other redeeming things of value
in life to direct your time toward

How does this further any understanding of truth
by seeing you a troll or a false witness?
=============================
how, why and who you are addressing here:

a. you seem to assume "others are denying God so you are trying to call them to 
pay serious attention"
but that is not happening, you are coming across wrong and creating the opposite effect

how can this be changed or improved to express and share the truth as you intend?

b. your tone is about judgment of others, but what about correction that is mutual?

which person and which particular act are you trying to correct?
Can you focus on what/who is SPECIFICALLY your goal, 
so the most effective way to achieve that can follow from there.

just preaching randomly to any passersby who respond, tells me you are shopping
for help because you don't know a better way to share that is more effective.

c. if you can figure out which people you CONNECT with in Christ
any number of corrections can be received through that CONNECTION

Can you be more specific so the focus can be directed there,
and where THOSE PEOPLE
agree on what changes need to take place, there is support to receive that. 

Which people, which issues, what particular things do you want to correct
to resolve conflicts in understanding and reach agreement in truth? Thanks GISMYS!


----------



## Slyhunter

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I POST GOD'S WORD ON SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION NOT MY WORD!!! Just face the truth and stop compounding your sin of sexual perversion by denying the truth of GOD'S WORD which is an even worse sin!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
> again the issue here with you is not about God's word in the Bible, which speaks for itself as truth without needing either you nor I to make it true, it already is what it always has been.
> 
> The issue here is the SPIRIT and FOCUS of
> 1. how
> 2. why and
> 3. who you are addressing.
> 
> Jesus was able to communicate about the Kingdom of God to plain fishermen and farmers
> using mere parables from real life. If these people were not literate and not readers of the Bible, he did not preach to them using that.
> 
> Why can't you talk with people here like Jesus did with the fishermen and farmers using explanations from real life?
> 
> So far you have
> 1. one person calling you a False Prophet
> 2. another person thinking you must be some troll without other redeeming things of value
> in life to direct your time toward
> 
> How does this further any understanding of truth
> by seeing you a troll or a false witness?
> =============================
> how, why and who you are addressing here:
> 
> a. you seem to assume "others are denying God so you are trying to call them to
> pay serious attention"
> but that is not happening, you are coming across wrong and creating the opposite effect
> 
> how can this be changed or improved to express and share the truth as you intend?
> 
> b. your tone is about judgment of others, but what about correction that is mutual?
> 
> which person and which particular act are you trying to correct?
> Can you focus on what/who is SPECIFICALLY your goal,
> so the most effective way to achieve that can follow from there.
> 
> just preaching randomly to any passersby who respond, tells me you are shopping
> for help because you don't know a better way to share that is more effective.
> 
> c. if you can figure out which people you CONNECT with in Christ
> any number of corrections can be received through that CONNECTION
> 
> Can you be more specific so the focus can be directed there,
> and where THOSE PEOPLE
> agree on what changes need to take place, there is support to receive that.
> 
> Which people, which issues, what particular things do you want to correct
> to resolve conflicts in understanding and reach agreement in truth? Thanks GISMYS!
Click to expand...

Does Gismys really come across as someone who could be swayed by logic to you?


----------



## GISMYS

Slyhunter said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I POST GOD'S WORD ON SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION NOT MY WORD!!! Just face the truth and stop compounding your sin of sexual perversion by denying the truth of GOD'S WORD which is an even worse sin!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
> again the issue here with you is not about God's word in the Bible, which speaks for itself as truth without needing either you nor I to make it true, it already is what it always has been.
> 
> The issue here is the SPIRIT and FOCUS of
> 1. how
> 2. why and
> 3. who you are addressing.
> 
> Jesus was able to communicate about the Kingdom of God to plain fishermen and farmers
> using mere parables from real life. If these people were not literate and not readers of the Bible, he did not preach to them using that.
> 
> Why can't you talk with people here like Jesus did with the fishermen and farmers using explanations from real life?
> 
> So far you have
> 1. one person calling you a False Prophet
> 2. another person thinking you must be some troll without other redeeming things of value
> in life to direct your time toward
> 
> How does this further any understanding of truth
> by seeing you a troll or a false witness?
> =============================
> how, why and who you are addressing here:
> 
> a. you seem to assume "others are denying God so you are trying to call them to
> pay serious attention"
> but that is not happening, you are coming across wrong and creating the opposite effect
> 
> how can this be changed or improved to express and share the truth as you intend?
> 
> b. your tone is about judgment of others, but what about correction that is mutual?
> 
> which person and which particular act are you trying to correct?
> Can you focus on what/who is SPECIFICALLY your goal,
> so the most effective way to achieve that can follow from there.
> 
> just preaching randomly to any passersby who respond, tells me you are shopping
> for help because you don't know a better way to share that is more effective.
> 
> c. if you can figure out which people you CONNECT with in Christ
> any number of corrections can be received through that CONNECTION
> 
> Can you be more specific so the focus can be directed there,
> and where THOSE PEOPLE
> agree on what changes need to take place, there is support to receive that.
> 
> Which people, which issues, what particular things do you want to correct
> to resolve conflicts in understanding and reach agreement in truth? Thanks GISMYS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does Gismys really come across as someone who could be swayed by logic to you?
Click to expand...


LOL!!! HEY GUY YOU POST IN YOUR STYLE AND I POST IN MY STYLE AND know your opinion of my style means less than zero to me!!!  GOD IS WHO I SEEK MTO PLEASE NOT SILLY little pharisee type selfrighteous man!!!


----------



## emilynghiem

Slyhunter said:


> Does Gismys really come across as someone who could be swayed by logic to you?



As long as he is a believer in Christ, there is some way to speak to him by conscience.

When he practically ordered me to depart, claiming I was speaking deception from Satan,
I explained since we are both believers in Christ, we are supposed to reconcile in full.

Only if he is a nonbeliever, and he asks me to depart, then I respect his wishes.
So I asked if he would admit he is not a believer after all, if he really wants me gone.
He did not agree to that. He is a believer, and just doesn't believe he has as much work to do on his side as he thinks he must preach to others. There is some disconnect there causing him to project externally. There is always a way to find and resolve it.

If nobody here can help him come to terms with whatever internal conflicts
he is projecting outwardly onto others, he will go elsewhere and post and post
until he finds someone who can help normalize the situation
where he works equally in a balanced relationships, not just one-way preaching.

I'm sure there's people you address and make points to,
which other people would say are beyond reasoning with.
It's just hit or miss, trial and error until we find those points that both people relate to.


----------



## GISMYS

YES!! WE HAVE CHOICE BUT GOD DOES NOT WANT US TO CHOSE SIN!!! THINK!! GOD wants no one to chose to murder,steal or live in sick abomination of sexual perversion!!  GOD DID NOT WANT TO SEE 40,000,000+ DIE FROM AIDS.
===HEAR GOD'S WORD ON THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION=-God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in [t]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Romans 1:26-32


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> LOL!!! HEY GUY YOU POST IN YOUR STYLE AND I POST IN MY STYLE AND know your opinion of my style means less than zero to me!!!  GOD IS WHO I SEEK MTO PLEASE NOT SILLY little pharisee type selfrighteous man!!!



Hi [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
so how are you posts here "seeking God"
Can you explain how this helps you "seek God"

If we can understand your process,
maybe more people can  help and support you in that
instead of thinking you are just trolling or preaching and not trying to achieve anything real.

1. What effect/results do you want to come from your posts
2. Are you addressing God or certain people, who are those people
3. Or do you just believe God is calling you to post this way, so you do it on faith?


----------



## emilynghiem

OK so if you look up the programs that have HELPED people overcome unhealthy sexual relations they didn't want, and went through a spiritual process to change or recover
from abuse (such as People Can Change - An alternative, healing response to unwanted homosexual desires.)

1. where is there any posting or "PREACHING OF GOD NOT WANTING" people to choose or dies from sickness or perversion

ANYWHERE on that site or in their testimonies of what helped them and others?

2. Look what their site does say:
*"You are valuable and good just as you are -- today, unchanged and even if you never change." -- from the Journey into Manhood weekend program*

 [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] if this group is SUCCESSFUL in helping people to overcome and free themselves of their pasts with lesbian, gay or other such unwanted sexual lifestyles,

*WHY ARE YOU TALKING IN THE EXACT OPPOSITE TONE?*

COMPARE:
1. the language and approach their support group USES and SUCCEEDS to help others

2. now look at your language and approach that
people are
a. rejecting as a "false prophet" spouting off religion without practicing what they preach
b. ignoring as a "troll" that is just trying to disrupt or disturb others

If their way WORKS to help CHANGE and SAVE Lives
and your way is NOT WORKING to change anyone's mind or heart to understand, 

What is your real purpose then?



GISMYS said:


> YES!! WE HAVE CHOICE BUT GOD DOES NOT WANT US TO CHOSE SIN!!! THINK!! GOD wants no one to chose to murder,steal or live in sick abomination of sexual perversion!!  GOD DID NOT WANT TO SEE 40,000,000+ DIE FROM AIDS.
> ===HEAR GOD'S WORD ON THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION=-God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in [t]their own persons the due penalty of their error.
> 
> 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
> Romans 1:26-32


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! HEY GUY YOU POST IN YOUR STYLE AND I POST IN MY STYLE AND know your opinion of my style means less than zero to me!!!  GOD IS WHO I SEEK MTO PLEASE NOT SILLY little pharisee type selfrighteous man!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
> so how are you posts here "seeking God"
> Can you explain how this helps you "seek God"
> 
> If we can understand your process,
> maybe more people can  help and support you in that
> instead of thinking you are just trolling or preaching and not trying to achieve anything real.
> 
> 1. What effect/results do you want to come from your posts
> 2. Are you addressing God or certain people, who are those people
> 3. Or do you just believe God is calling you to post this way, so you do it on faith?
Click to expand...


I HAVE FOUND GOD MANY YEARS AGO NOW I SEEK TO WARN AND HELP OTHERS. and you??


----------



## GISMYS

HEAR GOD WORD TO THOSE THT CHOSE TO LIVE IN SEXUAL PERVERSION AND DENY THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD!!!====Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 1 Corinthians 6:9-10===YES!! WE HAVE CHOICE BUT GOD DOESNOT WANT US TO CHOSE SIN!!! THINK!! GOD wants no one to chose to murder,steal or live in sick abomination of sexual perversion!! 
===HEAR GOD'S WORD ON THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION=-God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Romans 1:26-32


----------



## AntiParty

emilynghiem said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should try no sex and no masturbation for a spell. Puberty was the period of your life, as a NEW adult, with no sex and no masturbation........
> 
> How did puberty go for you? (I'm assuming you are an adult and didn't have sex education to guide emotions and other things)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi [MENTION=47936]AntiParty[/MENTION]: maybe male hormones being more driven in some ways than female hormones, I have an advantage in being female and past the stages of strongest drives.
> 
> As a matter of fact I have been celibate for quite a long time, and have been focusing on trying to resolve these political and religious conflicts that affected saving the historic neighborhood where I live in a 100 year battle with city govt (where I spent the last 20 trying to address control issues that everyone seems to project).
> 
> I don't think we would have HALF the political conflicts we do now,
> if everyone took the time to resolve differences directly, one on one,
> get all the control and division issues out of the way, and quit projecting
> that angst and need for compensation onto bigger and bigger situations
> to create more and more messes to clean up.
> 
> Conflicts are going to happen, but if we resolve them instead of letting them build up and pass down from one generation to the next, we do not overload ourselves with so much that we need to resort to manipulation to deal with the excess.
> 
> Instead of seeing it as substituting masturbation to prevent that projection of stress,
> I am saying why not resolve the internalized source of the unresolved stress building up to begin with.
> 
> If we address the inner conflicts first, then the physical and sexual drives take care of themselves. They stay at normal levels that can be managed in healthy relationships.
> 
> But if the inner conflicts go unresolved, and you add the sexual and survival drives to compete with other people or groups on top of that, this causes more problems.
> So why do that.
> 
> I am into resolving issues at the root. There is no substitute for doing the work at the foundation. Any other issues will follow naturally and don't need manipulation when things are brought back in balance at manageable levels.
> 
> Maybe I have an advantage in not having as many distracting desires, but just wanting to focus on the root cause of why there is imbalance and suppression blocking resolution of problems between people -- get to those points where the process can be normalized, so all the other issues can be resolved after that. No masturbation needed, either verbally or sexually, if people are too busy relating directly together in productive fruitful ways.
Click to expand...


"If we address the inner conflicts first, then the physical and sexual drives take care of themselves." <-----------LOL. Explain "address"


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! HEY GUY YOU POST IN YOUR STYLE AND I POST IN MY STYLE AND know your opinion of my style means less than zero to me!!!  GOD IS WHO I SEEK MTO PLEASE NOT SILLY little pharisee type selfrighteous man!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
> so how are you posts here "seeking God"
> Can you explain how this helps you "seek God"
> 
> If we can understand your process,
> maybe more people can  help and support you in that
> instead of thinking you are just trolling or preaching and not trying to achieve anything real.
> 
> 1. What effect/results do you want to come from your posts
> 2. Are you addressing God or certain people, who are those people
> 3. Or do you just believe God is calling you to post this way, so you do it on faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I HAVE FOUND GOD MANY YEARS AGO NOW I SEEK TO WARN AND HELP OTHERS. and you??
Click to expand...

You found God? Where was he?


----------



## RKMBrown

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here QW, I'll help you out.  My response was focused solely on what you said to tuatara, when you said "Wow, you actually ignored the examples in my post *and pretended that made you smarter than I am. I am not impressed*."
> 
> Now read that in context with my response.
> 
> Amazing to me how many times you've made a fool of yourself Windbag. You are not nearly as smart as you think you are.
> 
> The point being we can all be foolish from time to time, and bragging .. yeah that's foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was wrong, period. I just took some pleasure in pointing it out. If you define that as foolish, feel free.
Click to expand...

Yeah well, even blind squirrels get lucky every so often.


----------



## Bush92

Moderators:Can we please get a separate board for the homosexual stuff? It's the same people talking about it over, and over and over again just to keep the issue HOT on the board. Give them their own page to talk to each other.


----------



## Inevitable

Bush92 said:


> Moderators:Can we please get a separate board for the homosexual stuff? It's the same people talking about it over, and over and over again just to keep the issue HOT on the board. Give them their own page to talk to each other.


You don't have to read the threads.


----------



## kaz

Bush92 said:


> Moderators:Can we please get a separate board for the homosexual stuff? It's the same people talking about it over, and over and over again just to keep the issue HOT on the board. Give them their own page to talk to each other.



The title is clearly marked, why did you click on it?


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moderators:Can we please get a separate board for the homosexual stuff? It's the same people talking about it over, and over and over again just to keep the issue HOT on the board. Give them their own page to talk to each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The title is clearly marked, why did you click on it?
Click to expand...


I think he's complaining about the gay title's showing on his list of threads.  Sort of like playboy titles showing up on your channel list, even if you don't subscribe it shows up.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moderators:Can we please get a separate board for the homosexual stuff? It's the same people talking about it over, and over and over again just to keep the issue HOT on the board. Give them their own page to talk to each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The title is clearly marked, why did you click on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he's complaining about the gay title's showing on his list of threads.  Sort of like playboy titles showing up on your channel list, even if you don't subscribe it shows up.
Click to expand...


Maybe I should have phrased it why does he click on "them" as opposed to "it."  There are 24 threads on page 1 if I counted right, and 2 of them relate to gay.  There were a lot more than 2 I wasn't interested in.

On the plus side, if gay threads were taken out of the political forum, that would annoy the snot out of the left, I could see doing that...


----------



## GISMYS

Inevitable said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
> so how are you posts here "seeking God"
> Can you explain how this helps you "seek God"
> 
> If we can understand your process,
> maybe more people can  help and support you in that
> instead of thinking you are just trolling or preaching and not trying to achieve anything real.
> 
> 1. What effect/results do you want to come from your posts
> 2. Are you addressing God or certain people, who are those people
> 3. Or do you just believe God is calling you to post this way, so you do it on faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I HAVE FOUND GOD MANY YEARS AGO NOW I SEEK TO WARN AND HELP OTHERS. and you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You found God? Where was he?
Click to expand...


DUH!!!! GOD IS EVERYWHERE BUT IF YOU WANT TO SEEK GOD OUT and know Him better then read His word, GOD is reviled to us through his word and by the HOLYSPIRIT!!


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I HAVE FOUND GOD MANY YEARS AGO NOW I SEEK TO WARN AND HELP OTHERS. and you??
> 
> 
> 
> You found God? Where was he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUH!!!! GOD IS EVERYWHERE BUT IF YOU WANT TO SEEK GOD OUT and know Him better then read His word, GOD is reviled to us through his word and by the HOLYSPIRIT!!
Click to expand...


Why would you have to seek God of he was everywhere? Whywould God be reviled though the holy spirit of he is everywhere? You don't read his word because he never wrote it. If he iseverywhere he simply speaks to you. 

And your derisive statements are rather trite coming from somebody that had to find something that he admitsis everywhere.  

When you wake up in the morning do you have to find air?

You can't have found God because he was never lost or hiding.


----------



## GISMYS

BOTTOMLINE = YOU will believe GOD'S WORD or satan's lies. Little sin loving,GOD rejecting man has been trying to attack GOD and GOD'S INSPIRED (GOD BREATHED) ETERNAL LIVING WORD FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS,MOST are long dead and in hell today,will you join them there??? your choice!! == if you really seek to know God , you can find GOD revealed in his inspired (GOD BREATHED) ETERNAL LIVING WORD!! or you can chose to be a fool!!! your choice!


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> BOTTOMLINE = YOU will believe GOD'S WORD or satan's lies. Little sin loving,GOD rejecting man has been trying to attack GOD and GOD'S INSPIRED (GOD BREATHED) ETERNAL LIVING WORD FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS,MOST are long dead and in hell today,will you join them there??? your choice!! == if you really seek to know God , you can find GOD revealed in his inspired (GOD BREATHED) ETERNAL LIVING WORD!! or you can chose to be a fool!!! your choice!


So basically put you rant about an untreated topic mostly because you said something incredibly stupid and don't want to face up to it?

Once again, if God is everywhere why must you seek him?

In all likelihood you will stand by your ignorant comments and stone wall with some more ridiculously unrelated garbage as per usual. At least it's amusing to watch fundies scramble away from hard questions, it proves you aren't as faithful or knowledgeable as you make yourself out to be. Thus you are the hypocrites Jesus warned about.


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Persecution started long before Nero got around to it, read my response to the other idiot that doesn't know history.
> 
> That said, feel free to point out where I claimed that persecution is restricted to Christians. My point was, and still is, that people chose to affiliate with regions that will cause them to be persecuted. You tried to claim that they were raised that way, and I pointed out that that was a ridiculous claim. The proof of how ridiculous it is is your attempt to deflect by attacking straw men.
> 
> Thanks for making my point for me.


Sorry but the second testament is not history. Also if the Stephen account were true he didn't enter into a situation where he knew he was going to be persecuted. Apple meet Orange. You didn't claim persecution was restricted to christians but you made them out to be the kings of persecution which they are not. Especially when they have done way more persecuting themselves. So your argument rests on undocumented passages from the second testament that the christians endured more persecution than homosexual persecution which was around long before Christianity was even heard of. The actual documented persecution of early christians in history was ample time for many generations. Thus people were born into it. 

Also enough of the rhetoric and ad-hominems. Did I ever claim I was smarter than anyone here? Retract the BS.


----------



## GISMYS

Inevitable said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> BOTTOMLINE = YOU will believe GOD'S WORD or satan's lies. Little sin loving,GOD rejecting man has been trying to attack GOD and GOD'S INSPIRED (GOD BREATHED) ETERNAL LIVING WORD FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS,MOST are long dead and in hell today,will you join them there??? your choice!! == if you really seek to know God , you can find GOD revealed in his inspired (GOD BREATHED) ETERNAL LIVING WORD!! or you can chose to be a fool!!! your choice!
> 
> 
> 
> So basically put you rant about an untreated topic mostly because you said something incredibly stupid and don't want to face up to it?
> 
> Once again, if God is everywhere why must you seek him?
> 
> In all likelihood you will stand by your ignorant comments and stone wall with some more ridiculously unrelated garbage as per usual. At least it's amusing to watch fundies scramble away from hard questions, it proves you aren't as faithful or knowledgeable as you make yourself out to be. Thus you are the hypocrites Jesus warned about.
Click to expand...


PRAY for wisdom and understanding!!  WOULD YOU KNOW JESUS IF YOU SAW HIM???  2000 YEARS AGO EVEN THE selfrightious pharisees did not know who JESUS WAS!!!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Persecution started long before Nero got around to it, read my response to the other idiot that doesn't know history.
> 
> That said, feel free to point out where I claimed that persecution is restricted to Christians. My point was, and still is, that people chose to affiliate with regions that will cause them to be persecuted. You tried to claim that they were raised that way, and I pointed out that that was a ridiculous claim. The proof of how ridiculous it is is your attempt to deflect by attacking straw men.
> 
> Thanks for making my point for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but the second testament is not history. Also if the Stephen account were true he didn't enter into a situation where he knew he was going to be persecuted. Apple meet Orange. You didn't claim persecution was restricted to christians but you made them out to be the kings of persecution which they are not. Especially when they have done way more persecuting themselves. So your argument rests on undocumented passages from the second testament that the christians endured more persecution than homosexual persecution which was around long before Christianity was even heard of. The actual documented persecution of early christians in history was ample time for many generations. Thus people were born into it.
> 
> Also enough of the rhetoric and ad-hominems. Did I ever claim I was smarter than anyone here? Retract the BS.
Click to expand...


Luke, the guy who wrote both Luke and Acts, is recognized for his historical accuracy. 

https://archive.org/stream/lukethehistorian00robeuoft/lukethehistorian00robeuoft_djvu.txt

That places the burden on you to prove that his account of Stephen was fiction, not history. Good luck with that.

If you aren't smarter than anyone else, why can't you admit you made a mistake in your claim that everyone who believes was raised to believe? Wouldn' that be a lot easier than trying to blame me for your mistakes?


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> BOTTOMLINE = YOU will believe GOD'S WORD or satan's lies. Little sin loving,GOD rejecting man has been trying to attack GOD and GOD'S INSPIRED (GOD BREATHED) ETERNAL LIVING WORD FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS,MOST are long dead and in hell today,will you join them there??? your choice!! == if you really seek to know God , you can find GOD revealed in his inspired (GOD BREATHED) ETERNAL LIVING WORD!! or you can chose to be a fool!!! your choice!
> 
> 
> 
> So basically put you rant about an untreated topic mostly because you said something incredibly stupid and don't want to face up to it?
> 
> Once again, if God is everywhere why must you seek him?
> 
> In all likelihood you will stand by your ignorant comments and stone wall with some more ridiculously unrelated garbage as per usual. At least it's amusing to watch fundies scramble away from hard questions, it proves you aren't as faithful or knowledgeable as you make yourself out to be. Thus you are the hypocrites Jesus warned about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PRAY for wisdom and understanding!!  WOULD YOU KNOW JESUS IF YOU SAW HIM???  2000 YEARS AGO EVEN THE selfrightious pharisees did not know who JESUS WAS!!!
Click to expand...

So you prefer to avoid addressing your comments?

Praying for wisdom and understanding is a great idea, you should be doing that verses making idiotic comments and cowering away from them when challenged.

All you are doing is making yourself a fool.


----------



## GISMYS

Inevitable said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically put you rant about an untreated topic mostly because you said something incredibly stupid and don't want to face up to it?
> 
> Once again, if God is everywhere why must you seek him?
> 
> In all likelihood you will stand by your ignorant comments and stone wall with some more ridiculously unrelated garbage as per usual. At least it's amusing to watch fundies scramble away from hard questions, it proves you aren't as faithful or knowledgeable as you make yourself out to be. Thus you are the hypocrites Jesus warned about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRAY for wisdom and understanding!!  WOULD YOU KNOW JESUS IF YOU SAW HIM???  2000 YEARS AGO EVEN THE selfrightious pharisees did not know who JESUS WAS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you prefer to avoid addressing your comments?
> 
> Praying for wisdom and understanding is a great idea, you should be doing that verses making idiotic comments and cowering away from them when challenged.
> 
> All you are doing is making yourself a fool.
Click to expand...


YES!! ALMIGHTY GOD IS AWESOME!!! HE SPOKE THE UNIVERSE INTO BEING WITH JUST HIS WORDS. GOD'S WORD SAYS=Not even a little bird falls to earth without Him knowing and that God even knows the number of hairs on every believer's heas!! WOW!!! PTL.


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> PRAY for wisdom and understanding!!  WOULD YOU KNOW JESUS IF YOU SAW HIM???  2000 YEARS AGO EVEN THE selfrightious pharisees did not know who JESUS WAS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> So you prefer to avoid addressing your comments?
> 
> Praying for wisdom and understanding is a great idea, you should be doing that verses making idiotic comments and cowering away from them when challenged.
> 
> All you are doing is making yourself a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!! ALMIGHTY GOD IS AWESOME!!! HE SPOKE THE UNIVERSE INTO BEING WITH JUST HIS WORDS. GOD'S WORD SAYS=Not even a little bird falls to earth without Him knowing and that God even knows the number of hairs on every believer's heas!! WOW!!! PTL.
Click to expand...


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luke, the guy who wrote both Luke and Acts, is recognized for his historical accuracy.
> 
> https://archive.org/stream/lukethehistorian00robeuoft/lukethehistorian00robeuoft_djvu.txt
> 
> That places the burden on you to prove that his account of Stephen was fiction, not history. Good luck with that.
> 
> If you aren't smarter than anyone else, why can't you admit you made a mistake in your claim that everyone who believes was raised to believe? Wouldn' that be a lot easier than trying to blame me for your mistakes?


Please find another source of written history that shares the same account of Stephen. Surely there must be at least one piece of evidence for such a momentus historical moment in time. Also before we go on, do you believe everything in the bible to be historically acurate?
I also said "most people" not "everyone" was raised to believe which is a fact.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Luke, the guy who wrote both Luke and Acts, is recognized for his historical accuracy.
> 
> https://archive.org/stream/lukethehistorian00robeuoft/lukethehistorian00robeuoft_djvu.txt
> 
> That places the burden on you to prove that his account of Stephen was fiction, not history. Good luck with that.
> 
> If you aren't smarter than anyone else, why can't you admit you made a mistake in your claim that everyone who believes was raised to believe? Wouldn' that be a lot easier than trying to blame me for your mistakes?
> 
> 
> 
> Please find another source of written history that shares the same account of Stephen. Surely there must be at least one piece of evidence for such a momentus historical moment in time. Also before we go on, do you believe everything in the bible to be historically acurate?
> I also said "most people" not "everyone" was raised to believe which is a fact.
Click to expand...


Why should I, you are the one that made the claim that the book of Acts isn't historical, even though multiple modern, non Christian, historians consider Luke to have written history. There are hundreds of unique sources that are considered historical, among them are Caesar's Commentaries. Does the fact that he is the only one to describe the campaign in Gaul somehow make it not history to you, or does standard only apply to things you don't want to believe?

Like I said, the burden is on you to prove it is fiction. Keep in mind that, no matter how hard you try, you can't prove that history isn't history.

And, in answer to your question, what difference does it make what I believe about the historical accuracy of the Bible? We are discussing your misconception that nothing in the New Testament counts as history, not the what my beliefs are.


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Luke, the guy who wrote both Luke and Acts, is recognized for his historical accuracy.
> 
> https://archive.org/stream/lukethehistorian00robeuoft/lukethehistorian00robeuoft_djvu.txt
> 
> That places the burden on you to prove that his account of Stephen was fiction, not history. Good luck with that.
> 
> If you aren't smarter than anyone else, why can't you admit you made a mistake in your claim that everyone who believes was raised to believe? Wouldn' that be a lot easier than trying to blame me for your mistakes?
> 
> 
> 
> Please find another source of written history that shares the same account of Stephen. Surely there must be at least one piece of evidence for such a momentus historical moment in time. Also before we go on, do you believe everything in the bible to be historically acurate?
> I also said "most people" not "everyone" was raised to believe which is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I, you are the one that made the claim that the book of Acts isn't historical, even though multiple modern, non Christian, historians
Click to expand...

Although you used a christian link.




> consider Luke to have written history.


 Just because he puts in a few historical figures and places in his story goes not make it true. Many scholars dispute it's histrocity. 





> There are hundreds of unique sources that are considered historical, among them are Caesar's Commentaries. Does the fact that he is the only one to describe the campaign in Gaul somehow make it not history to you, or does standard only apply to things you don't want to believe?


Caesar's commentarires have no impact on what we are discussing. If they did, I would research and check the validity. 



> Like I said, the burden is on you to prove it is fiction.


 There is not much in ancient history that anyone can prove is correct even from several sources. 





> Keep in mind that, no matter how hard you try, you can't prove that history isn't history.


Some things you can prove exteme doubt about certain parts of history. Of course the longer in history something is the harder it is to authenticate it is.



> And, in answer to your question, what difference does it make what I believe about the historical accuracy of the Bible? We are discussing your misconception that nothing in the New Testament counts as history, not the what my beliefs are.


I feel anyone who believes the bible as history is blinded by their faith and cannot qualify as anyone who can determine anything as history. Whenever I read anything pertaining to the new Testament I also find out that there are no other souces to match it or give it any authentication. Just because Luke got some names and places right does not mean everything he wrote about was right. I read a lot of fiction set in real places with real people in the story. Doesn't make the story true.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please find another source of written history that shares the same account of Stephen. Surely there must be at least one piece of evidence for such a momentus historical moment in time. Also before we go on, do you believe everything in the bible to be historically acurate?
> I also said "most people" not "everyone" was raised to believe which is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I, you are the one that made the claim that the book of Acts isn't historical, even though multiple modern, non Christian, historians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although you used a christian link.
Click to expand...


Feel free to prove me wrong.

Wait, if you could you would have already done it. All you have is your close minded belief that nothing in the Bible is true.



Tuatara said:


> Just because he puts in a few historical figures and places in his story goes not make it true. Many scholars dispute it's histrocity. Caesar's commentarires have no impact on what we are discussing. If they did, I would research and check the validity.



Just because you don't believe him does not mean it is false.

AS for Caesar's Commentaries, I chose it because it dates from the same period as the New Testament. I could have used the works of Josephus to make the same point. There exist far more evidence that for the historical accuracy of the New Testament than there does the Commentaries of Caesar or any historical document form the same period. The fact that you ignore this is simply proof of your personal intellectual blind spots.



Tuatara said:


> There is not much in ancient history that anyone can prove is correct even from several sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that, no matter how hard you try, you can't prove that history isn't history.
> 
> 
> 
> Some things you can prove exteme doubt about certain parts of history. Of course the longer in history something is the harder it is to authenticate it is.
Click to expand...


And the more evidence there is the easier it is to authenticate. Unfortunately for the idiots that hate the Bible, the New Testament has multiple sources to check its accuracy, is widely quoted in contemporary writings, and it has multiple copies in various languages that lead an honest investigator to admit that it is better sourced than anything else from the time period.



Tuatara said:


> And, in answer to your question, what difference does it make what I believe about the historical accuracy of the Bible? We are discussing your misconception that nothing in the New Testament counts as history, not the what my beliefs are.
> 
> 
> 
> I feel anyone who believes the bible as history is blinded by their faith and cannot qualify as anyone who can determine anything as history. Whenever I read anything pertaining to the new Testament I also find out that there are no other souces to match it or give it any authentication. Just because Luke got some names and places right does not mean everything he wrote about was right. I read a lot of fiction set in real places with real people in the story. Doesn't make the story true.
Click to expand...


Are you claiming that there is no evidence that Herod existed? Do you actually want me to believe that Pontius Pilate is a fictional character? Would you like me to cite the evidence that makes your absurd claim look as silly as you do for making it?

Feel whatever you want. I refuse to treat idiots like you with any respect because stupidity like yours deserves nothing but contempt.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Tuatara said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please find another source of written history that shares the same account of Stephen. Surely there must be at least one piece of evidence for such a momentus historical moment in time. Also before we go on, do you believe everything in the bible to be historically acurate?
> I also said "most people" not "everyone" was raised to believe which is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I, you are the one that made the claim that the book of Acts isn't historical, even though multiple modern, non Christian, historians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although you used a christian link.
> 
> 
> Just because he puts in a few historical figures and places in his story goes not make it true. Many scholars dispute it's histrocity. Caesar's commentarires have no impact on what we are discussing. If they did, I would research and check the validity.
> 
> There is not much in ancient history that anyone can prove is correct even from several sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that, no matter how hard you try, you can't prove that history isn't history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some things you can prove exteme doubt about certain parts of history. Of course the longer in history something is the harder it is to authenticate it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, in answer to your question, what difference does it make what I believe about the historical accuracy of the Bible? We are discussing your misconception that nothing in the New Testament counts as history, not the what my beliefs are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I feel anyone who believes the bible as history is blinded by their faith and cannot qualify as anyone who can determine anything as history. Whenever I read anything pertaining to the new Testament I also find out that there are no other souces to match it or give it any authentication. Just because Luke got some names and places right does not mean everything he wrote about was right. I read a lot of fiction set in real places with real people in the story. Doesn't make the story true.
Click to expand...


Correct. 

This is consistent with the fact that the bible is indeed not 'history,' it's a collection of myths and legends, fables, fantasies and like contrivances common to all religions  the bible was written by men, not 'inspired' by a 'god' that doesn't exist as perceived by theists.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I, you are the one that made the claim that the book of Acts isn't historical, even though multiple modern, non Christian, historians
> 
> 
> 
> Although you used a christian link.
> 
> 
> Just because he puts in a few historical figures and places in his story goes not make it true. Many scholars dispute it's histrocity. Caesar's commentarires have no impact on what we are discussing. If they did, I would research and check the validity.
> 
> There is not much in ancient history that anyone can prove is correct even from several sources. Some things you can prove exteme doubt about certain parts of history. Of course the longer in history something is the harder it is to authenticate it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, in answer to your question, what difference does it make what I believe about the historical accuracy of the Bible? We are discussing your misconception that nothing in the New Testament counts as history, not the what my beliefs are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I feel anyone who believes the bible as history is blinded by their faith and cannot qualify as anyone who can determine anything as history. Whenever I read anything pertaining to the new Testament I also find out that there are no other souces to match it or give it any authentication. Just because Luke got some names and places right does not mean everything he wrote about was right. I read a lot of fiction set in real places with real people in the story. Doesn't make the story true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> This is consistent with the fact that the bible is indeed not 'history,' it's a collection of myths and legends, fables, fantasies and like contrivances common to all religions  the bible was written by men, not 'inspired' by a 'god' that doesn't exist as perceived by theists.
Click to expand...


You know this because, unlike the rest of us who have to rely on evidence, you were actually there, right?


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> This is consistent with the fact that the bible is indeed not 'history,' it's a collection of myths and legends, fables, fantasies and like contrivances common to all religions  the bible was written by men, not 'inspired' by a 'god' that doesn't exist as perceived by theists.



Hi [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]
I hope you are not basing all your thinking on the condition that there is nothing true in the Bible representing the spiritual history and future of man.
To create a whole system of thought "contigent" on that being false
is as problematic and biased as creating a whole religion "contigent" on it being true.

The healthiest neutral attitude to remain objective and OPEN MINDED
(ie without imposing a bias either way by depending on an assumption to be fixed)
is to leave it open either way, there could be universal truth or it could be just symbolism.

What I find helpful is interpreting it loosely to represent
the stages of human history in moving from 
the past (OT history of retributive justice and abusing laws politically for power and greed)
to the future (NT focus on Restorative Justice and sharing "equal justice" under
law for all people universally inclusive.

So if you see anything negative in religion or history, then the OT refers to the
problems from the past.

Anything positive you believe in moving toward reforms and correcting problems in society
is what the NT refers to.

So together these represent the basic stages in progression,
from innocence to gaining awareness of laws and free will,
fighting politically for control of authority and dominance over land and people,
learning to correct and resolve conflicts that otherwise repeat in cycles of
abuse, poverty, oppression and war; and finally maturing into a society
where people tribes and nations can work together collaboratively
to create sustainable economy and living to benefit all of humanity as one.

Even if the Bible uses figurative or outdated references to explain these patterns,
the overall map still reflect where humanity is going collectively.

So the point in the Bible is how faith in Justice and Peace brings new life,
where without divine forgiveness and grace, the cycles of unforgiveness
from the past would continue to kill relations and humanity in endless suffering and strife.

The point is still to overcome sin or separation causing suffering.

We may all have different language for this process,
especially if you prefer secular terms using political or social science or sociology,
but it is one process unique for each person but collectively affecting all humanity.
And that is ultimately what the Bible represents, a univeral process of justice to find peace.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> This is consistent with the fact that the bible is indeed not 'history,' it's a collection of myths and legends, fables, fantasies and like contrivances common to all religions  the bible was written by men, not 'inspired' by a 'god' that doesn't exist as perceived by theists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]
> I hope you are not basing all your thinking on the condition that there is nothing true in the Bible representing the spiritual history and future of man.
> To create a whole system of thought "contigent" on that being false
> is as problematic and biased as creating a whole religion "contigent" on it being true.
> 
> The healthiest neutral attitude to remain objective and OPEN MINDED
> (ie without imposing a bias either way by depending on an assumption to be fixed)
> is to leave it open either way, there could be universal truth or it could be just symbolism.
> 
> What I find helpful is interpreting it loosely to represent
> the stages of human history in moving from
> the past (OT history of retributive justice and abusing laws politically for power and greed)
> to the future (NT focus on Restorative Justice and sharing "equal justice" under
> law for all people universally inclusive.
> 
> So if you see anything negative in religion or history, then the OT refers to the
> problems from the past.
> 
> Anything positive you believe in moving toward reforms and correcting problems in society
> is what the NT refers to.
> 
> So together these represent the basic stages in progression,
> from innocence to gaining awareness of laws and free will,
> fighting politically for control of authority and dominance over land and people,
> learning to correct and resolve conflicts that otherwise repeat in cycles of
> abuse, poverty, oppression and war; and finally maturing into a society
> where people tribes and nations can work together collaboratively
> to create sustainable economy and living to benefit all of humanity as one.
> 
> Even if the Bible uses figurative or outdated references to explain these patterns,
> the overall map still reflect where humanity is going collectively.
> 
> So the point in the Bible is how faith in Justice and Peace brings new life,
> where without divine forgiveness and grace, the cycles of unforgiveness
> from the past would continue to kill relations and humanity in endless suffering and strife.
> 
> The point is still to overcome sin or separation causing suffering.
> 
> We may all have different language for this process,
> especially if you prefer secular terms using political or social science or sociology,
> but it is one process unique for each person but collectively affecting all humanity.
> And that is ultimately what the Bible represents, a univeral process of justice to find peace.
Click to expand...


My comments are based on the fact that the bible is not 'history,' and it's pointless to present it as such. 

Consequently it's devoid of any objective evidentiary value, authority, or merit.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> This is consistent with the fact that the bible is indeed not 'history,' it's a collection of myths and legends, fables, fantasies and like contrivances common to all religions  the bible was written by men, not 'inspired' by a 'god' that doesn't exist as perceived by theists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi  @C_Clayton_Jones
> I hope you are not basing all your thinking on the condition that there is nothing true in the Bible representing the spiritual history and future of man.
> To create a whole system of thought "contigent" on that being false
> is as problematic and biased as creating a whole religion "contigent" on it being true.
> 
> The healthiest neutral attitude to remain objective and OPEN MINDED
> (ie without imposing a bias either way by depending on an assumption to be fixed)
> is to leave it open either way, there could be universal truth or it could be just symbolism.
> 
> What I find helpful is interpreting it loosely to represent
> the stages of human history in moving from
> the past (OT history of retributive justice and abusing laws politically for power and greed)
> to the future (NT focus on Restorative Justice and sharing "equal justice" under
> law for all people universally inclusive.
> 
> So if you see anything negative in religion or history, then the OT refers to the
> problems from the past.
> 
> Anything positive you believe in moving toward reforms and correcting problems in society
> is what the NT refers to.
> 
> So together these represent the basic stages in progression,
> from innocence to gaining awareness of laws and free will,
> fighting politically for control of authority and dominance over land and people,
> learning to correct and resolve conflicts that otherwise repeat in cycles of
> abuse, poverty, oppression and war; and finally maturing into a society
> where people tribes and nations can work together collaboratively
> to create sustainable economy and living to benefit all of humanity as one.
> 
> Even if the Bible uses figurative or outdated references to explain these patterns,
> the overall map still reflect where humanity is going collectively.
> 
> So the point in the Bible is how faith in Justice and Peace brings new life,
> where without divine forgiveness and grace, the cycles of unforgiveness
> from the past would continue to kill relations and humanity in endless suffering and strife.
> 
> The point is still to overcome sin or separation causing suffering.
> 
> We may all have different language for this process,
> especially if you prefer secular terms using political or social science or sociology,
> but it is one process unique for each person but collectively affecting all humanity.
> And that is ultimately what the Bible represents, a univeral process of justice to find peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My comments are based on the fact that the bible is not 'history,' and it's pointless to present it as such.
> 
> Consequently it's devoid of any objective evidentiary value, authority, or merit.
Click to expand...


Your comments are based on your belief that everyone else is wrong.

Life doesn't work that way, some of the Bible is actually history.


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Your comments are based on your belief that everyone else is wrong.
> 
> Life doesn't work that way, some of the Bible is actually history.


Not much but let's focus on the New Testament especially The Act of the Apostles by Luke which you brought up. There is way too much to go over every detail and we would be arguing it for years but here is a good sumarization from wiki.

Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stephen is not mentioned in either Passages consistent with the historical background or Passages of disputed historical accuracy. The only primary source for information about Stephen is the New Testament book Acts of the Apostles. There is nothing else to confirm the authenticity of the story of Stephen.


----------



## Bush92

Yes it is. If your a guy you can choose to suck another guy off...or eat pussy. There is your choice. Hate to be crude, but it's the truth.


----------



## DriftingSand

We're all born with a sin nature.  Whether or not we choose to follow our lusts and sinful nature is a choice.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Everything we do if not in bed asleep is a conscious choice. Who we have sexual experiences with is always the result of a conscious choice and decision-making process. But whether who our sexual partners are is the result of choices we make or not is moot. What's it matter?

Sexual behaviours exist on a spectrum. Not in how whether 100% one thing or the other but in the actual activities are shared by more than just one group. Homosexual men have sex in two primary ways. But heterosexuals can do both those things as well thus neither's inherent homo or heterosexual in nature. Like kissing. Everyone kisses (even some non-human animals,) but kissing doesn't then mean you're gay, straight, or other.

Even vaginal intercourse isn't unique to heterosexuals. Ask a lesbian.  So if none of the sexual acts define homo or heterosexuality, do homo and heterosexuality even exist? Isn't it instead all just sex?


----------



## Inevitable

​


Bush92 said:


> Yes it is. If your a guy you can choose to suck another guy off...or eat pussy. There is your choice. Hate to be crude, but it's the truth.



you can also choose to slice somebody open but that doesn't make you a surgeon.

So choosing to "suck another guy off" doesn't really cut the mustard. It'spreferring that over as you say "eat[ing] pussy."


----------



## Inevitable

DriftingSand said:


> We're all born with a sin nature.  Whether or not we choose to follow our lusts and sinful nature is a choice.


Everybody chooses to follow their lusts unless they choose celibacy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments are based on your belief that everyone else is wrong.
> 
> Life doesn't work that way, some of the Bible is actually history.
> 
> 
> 
> Not much but let's focus on the New Testament especially The Act of the Apostles by Luke which you brought up. There is way too much to go over every detail and we would be arguing it for years but here is a good sumarization from wiki.
> 
> Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Stephen is not mentioned in either Passages consistent with the historical background or Passages of disputed historical accuracy. The only primary source for information about Stephen is the New Testament book Acts of the Apostles. There is nothing else to confirm the authenticity of the story of Stephen.
Click to expand...


As I said before, there are plenty of historical sources that are unique It seems that the only ones you categorically reject is the Bible. That is a personal bias on your part, and I don't see you exercising any rational judgement about it at all. In fact, you seem to be ignoring all the evidence that counters your assertions, and insisting on focusing on events that are unique to the Bible to prove that the Bible is fiction.

The way real scholars approach the subject is to weigh all the historical evidence for the accuracy of a document, and judge it as a whole. They don't pick one event as an excuse to ignore everything else, even if they cannot find evidence of that event anywhere else. If they did that we would ignore the works of Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, and all the other historians of that period because they all mention things that are not mentioned anywhere else.

By the way, all of those historical people that I mentioned mention events and/or people mentioned in the New Testament. There are many others that don't, but they weren't writing about the Middle East. That doesn't prove that the New Testament is true, but it does destroy your claim that none of the biblical stories are mentioned outside the New Testament.


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments are based on your belief that everyone else is wrong.
> 
> Life doesn't work that way, some of the Bible is actually history.
> 
> 
> 
> Not much but let's focus on the New Testament especially The Act of the Apostles by Luke which you brought up. There is way too much to go over every detail and we would be arguing it for years but here is a good sumarization from wiki.
> 
> Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Stephen is not mentioned in either Passages consistent with the historical background or Passages of disputed historical accuracy. The only primary source for information about Stephen is the New Testament book Acts of the Apostles. There is nothing else to confirm the authenticity of the story of Stephen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said before, there are plenty of historical sources that are unique It seems that the only ones you categorically reject is the Bible.
Click to expand...

If other historical sources had ridiculous stories like worldwide floods and talking snakes I would reject everything associated with that source. See how that works.



> That is a personal bias on your part, and I don't see you exercising any rational judgement about it at all.


 No it is not. Many stories in the bible were plagerized from other folklore and religions. Also some of the stories would be considered very important historical events yet no other historical source even mentioned it.




> In fact, you seem to be ignoring all the evidence that counters your assertions, and insisting on focusing on events that are unique to the Bible to prove that the Bible is fiction.


I'm reading a Stephen King novel right now. It mentions historical figures like Bush and Obama. It mentions cities I know exist like Chicago and New York. Just because somone puts in accurate figures and places in a book does not make the story true.



> The way real scholars approach the subject is to weigh all the historical evidence for the accuracy of a document, and judge it as a whole. They don't pick one event as an excuse to ignore everything else, even if they cannot find evidence of that event anywhere else


I'm not picking one event. There are many many falsehoods within the stories. Even the manusrcipts differ from each other. Even maximalists argue with each other pertaining to what is true and what is not.



> If they did that we would ignore the works of Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, and all the other historians of that period because they all mention things that are not mentioned anywhere else.


I;m not familiar with every historic writer in history but I know Tacitus used the acta senatus, the official sources of the Roman State along with the acta diurna populi Romani, which were official daily Roman notices. His works are also mentioned by Cluvius Rufus, Fabius Rusticus and Pliny the Elder.



> By the way, all of those historical people that I mentioned mention events and/or people mentioned in the New Testament. There are many others that don't, but they weren't writing about the Middle East. That doesn't prove that the New Testament is true, but it does destroy your claim that none of the biblical stories are mentioned outside the New Testament.


Like I said, the bible does not have any creedance with me for historical accuracy. 

Also we should get back on topic.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not much but let's focus on the New Testament especially The Act of the Apostles by Luke which you brought up. There is way too much to go over every detail and we would be arguing it for years but here is a good sumarization from wiki.
> 
> Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Stephen is not mentioned in either Passages consistent with the historical background or Passages of disputed historical accuracy. The only primary source for information about Stephen is the New Testament book Acts of the Apostles. There is nothing else to confirm the authenticity of the story of Stephen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, there are plenty of historical sources that are unique It seems that the only ones you categorically reject is the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If other historical sources had ridiculous stories like worldwide floods and talking snakes I would reject everything associated with that source. See how that works.
Click to expand...


Funny, I thought we were talking about the historical accuracy of acts. I guess you thought we were talking about the entire Bible.

One of us is in desperate need of counseling, and it isn't me. Can you stick to the actual subject we are discs sung, or are you going to pretend that I am saying things I am not and prove me wrong when I refuse to rise to the bait?



Tuatara said:


> No it is not. Many stories in the bible were plagerized from other folklore and religions. Also some of the stories would be considered very important historical events yet no other historical source even mentioned it.



We are not talking about the Bible, we are discussing the Book of Acts. The fact that you have to resort to deflections is evidence that you cannot refute my arguments.




Tuatara said:


> I'm reading a Stephen King novel right now. It mentions historical figures like Bush and Obama. It mentions cities I know exist like Chicago and New York. Just because somone puts in accurate figures and places in a book does not make the story true.



And this bears on our discussion because...



Tuatara said:


> I'm not picking one event. There are many many falsehoods within the stories. Even the manusrcipts differ from each other. Even maximalists argue with each other pertaining to what is true and what is not.



Which explains why you totally ignored the argument I am making about a specific author of a specific book and resorted to attacking a position I never stated.

Good for you.

By the way, there are discrepancies in the copies of every historical record from that period. There are even parts that were obvious added to them after the author wrote them. The reason for that would be obvious to any thinking person, people make mistakes, copyists have an agenda, and everything was done by hand. That is why scholars developed the field of textual criticism. Maybe you should do some studying in it before you try and prove how smart you are for pointing out the obvious.



Tuatara said:


> If they did that we would ignore the works of Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, and all the other historians of that period because they all mention things that are not mentioned anywhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> I;m not familiar with every historic writer in history but I know Tacitus used the acta senatus, the official sources of the Roman State along with the acta diurna populi Romani, which were official daily Roman notices. His works are also mentioned by Cluvius Rufus, Fabius Rusticus and Pliny the Elder.
Click to expand...


Good for you. Are you aware of all the discrepancies in the copies of their work, or does your knowledge of that only extend to the bible? 



Tuatara said:


> By the way, all of those historical people that I mentioned mention events and/or people mentioned in the New Testament. There are many others that don't, but they weren't writing about the Middle East. That doesn't prove that the New Testament is true, but it does destroy your claim that none of the biblical stories are mentioned outside the New Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, the bible does not have any creedance with me for historical accuracy.
> 
> Also we should get back on topic.
Click to expand...


That is because you refuse to actually examine the evidence, which you just proved with this post. That means you have a closed mind, which I cannot fix.


----------



## DriftingSand

Inevitable said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're all born with a sin nature.  Whether or not we choose to follow our lusts and sinful nature is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody chooses to follow their lusts unless they choose celibacy.
Click to expand...


Nevertheless, homosexuality is a choice.


----------



## Inevitable

DriftingSand said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're all born with a sin nature.  Whether or not we choose to follow our lusts and sinful nature is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody chooses to follow their lusts unless they choose celibacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, homosexuality is a choice.
Click to expand...

Claiming something without proof is logical fallacy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody chooses to follow their lusts unless they choose celibacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming something without proof is logical fallacy.
Click to expand...


No it is not. A logical fallacy is an logical flaw in an argument that renders it false.


----------



## DriftingSand

Inevitable said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody chooses to follow their lusts unless they choose celibacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming something without proof is logical fallacy.
Click to expand...


That works both ways. You can claim that you "have no choice" but you can't prove it.  The living fact of the matter is that we all make choices day in and day out.  Like it or not I don't have to "prove" that you can make choices because I already know that you do. You can literally choose to be with a woman, a man, an animal, or nobody at all.  How you choose is up to you but regardless of *how* you choose doesn't change the fact that you chose.


----------



## RKMBrown

DriftingSand said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming something without proof is logical fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That works both ways. You can claim that you "have no choice" but you can't prove it.  The living fact of the matter is that we all make choices day in and day out.  Like it or not I don't have to "prove" that you can make choices because I already know that you do. You can literally choose to be with a woman, a man, an animal, or nobody at all.  How you choose is up to you but regardless of *how* you choose doesn't change the fact that you chose.
Click to expand...


If homosexuality is a choice.. so is heterosexuality.  What's your point?  That we can choose to kill ourselves?  That we can choose to jump off a cliff?  That we can vote for a marxist to run this country? A guy who claimed he was gonna fix this gay marriage thing to get elected then does squat about it?


----------



## Inevitable

DriftingSand said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming something without proof is logical fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That works both ways. You can claim that you "have no choice" but you can't prove it.  The living fact of the matter is that we all make choices day in and day out.  Like it or not I don't have to "prove" that you can make choices because I already know that you do. You can literally choose to be with a woman, a man, an animal, or nobody at all.  How you choose is up to you but regardless of *how* you choose doesn't change the fact that you chose.
Click to expand...

Choosing to be with a woman wouldn't make me straight. It would make me a liar.

I think I know myself better than you know me, and I don't recall making any decision to be attracted to the same sex. I have internal knowledge that you do not.

You made the claim, I did not. My claim is that I don't know. I don't claim it to be genetic, I don't claim to be born this way, I don't know, I don't remember my birth.  But I tried to not be homosexual for many years.

The burden of proof is on you, you made the claim. I did not. Shifting the burden to me to prove your claim wrong isn't how logic works.

If it's your opinion, that's cool, you have the right to that. But it isn't fact untilyou prove it.


----------



## Inevitable

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming something without proof is logical fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not. A logical fallacy is an logical flaw in an argument that renders it false.
Click to expand...


I don't think you should talk about logic until you understand it completely.  A flaw in logic doesn't render the argument false unless the opposition has a logically flawless argument.

You just made the fallacy fallacy, look it up.


----------



## warwulf

Inevitable said:


> You do realize you contradicted yourself I hope? People don't choose mental illness. If it was a mental illness it wouldn't be a perverted lifestyle.



What a moron! HOW do you explain that last sentence of yours? What? Like the retards can't live a disgusting, perverted lifestyle because they're retarded? So basically, you're making excuses for the faggots. 
  That is expected, considering you have a fag for your avatar.


----------



## Noomi

warwulf said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize you contradicted yourself I hope? People don't choose mental illness. If it was a mental illness it wouldn't be a perverted lifestyle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a moron! HOW do you explain that last sentence of yours? What? Like the retards can't live a disgusting, perverted lifestyle because they're retarded? So basically, you're making excuses for the faggots.
> That is expected, considering you have a fag for your avatar.
Click to expand...


You need to remember that this is the Clean Debate Zone and no personal insults are accepted.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Noomi said:


> warwulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize you contradicted yourself I hope? People don't choose mental illness. If it was a mental illness it wouldn't be a perverted lifestyle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a moron! HOW do you explain that last sentence of yours? What? Like the retards can't live a disgusting, perverted lifestyle because they're retarded? So basically, you're making excuses for the faggots.
> That is expected, considering you have a fag for your avatar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to remember that this is the Clean Debate Zone and no personal insults are accepted.
Click to expand...


To be fair, personal insults are all most conservatives have, since facts and the truth are rarely on their side; otherwise they wouldn't be able to participate at all.


----------



## Inevitable

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> warwulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a moron! HOW do you explain that last sentence of yours? What? Like the retards can't live a disgusting, perverted lifestyle because they're retarded? So basically, you're making excuses for the faggots.
> That is expected, considering you have a fag for your avatar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to remember that this is the Clean Debate Zone and no personal insults are accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be fair, personal insults are all most conservatives have, since facts and the truth are rarely on their side; otherwise they wouldn't be able to participate at all.
Click to expand...


Some people aren't worthy of a response from me.

I don't think anybody should respond to them, it might just help the forum.


----------



## RKMBrown

Inevitable said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to remember that this is the Clean Debate Zone and no personal insults are accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, personal insults are all most conservatives have, since facts and the truth are rarely on their side; otherwise they wouldn't be able to participate at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people aren't worthy of a response from me.
> 
> I don't think anybody should respond to them, it might just help the forum.
Click to expand...


A decade back, I was pro-civil unions only while striking the term marriage from government regulations as the solution.   Now I see that won't work.   I changed my mind only through active conversation and understanding of just how divisive, bigoted and heartless many people  are when it comes to authoritarian tyranny over smaller groups.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Inevitable said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming something without proof is logical fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not. A logical fallacy is an logical flaw in an argument that renders it false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you should talk about logic until you understand it completely.  A flaw in logic doesn't render the argument false unless the opposition has a logically flawless argument.
> 
> You just made the fallacy fallacy, look it up.
Click to expand...


Seriously?

Are you saying that if both sides use a fallacy neither side is using a fallacy? How does that work in your world?

By the way, I took your advice and looked up fallacy fallacy just to be sure I remembered it right, it turns out I did.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Since I never actually claimed that your argument was false just because you used a fallacy, I didn't commit a fallacy fallacy. 

All I did was  point out that your definition of fallacy was wrong.


----------



## Mathbud1

Quantum Windbag said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not. A logical fallacy is an logical flaw in an argument that renders it false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you should talk about logic until you understand it completely.  A flaw in logic doesn't render the argument false unless the opposition has a logically flawless argument.
> 
> You just made the fallacy fallacy, look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Are you saying that if both sides use a fallacy neither side is using a fallacy? How does that work in your world?
> 
> By the way, I took your advice and looked up fallacy fallacy just to be sure I remembered it right, it turns out I did.
> 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
> 
> Since I never actually claimed that your argument was false just because you used a fallacy, I didn't commit a fallacy fallacy.
> 
> All I did was  point out that your definition of fallacy was wrong.
Click to expand...


Hold on, did inevitable just commit a fallacy fallacy fallacy or only misapply the fallacy fallacy. (I'm really hoping for the fallacy fallacy fallacy just because I think that would be something worth seeing.)

Lol.


----------



## Ibentoken

Yes, homosexuality is a choice.  Homo sapiens are heterosexual by nature.


----------



## Inevitable

Ibentoken said:


> Yes, homosexuality is a choice.  Homo sapiens are heterosexual by nature.


So what?

Are you saying something it's right because it's natural?


----------



## Marie888

Inevitable said:


> Marie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe 100% that it is a choice, because one can "live without it" or rather that it is not a bare necessity at all,  (food, shelter, etc) therefore it is a choice coming from the mind.  I believe a person may "struggle" with it as I also believe it is a form a lust and lust is definitely a choice also which can also become a temptation, just as there are many "lust/fleshly" choices including fornication. (sex before holy matrimony)
> 
> Please know that my reply is not to put down or attack any homosexuals personally, as the Good Lord knows I've struggled and struggle with my own things I've done wrong or sinned.  Daily I ask Him for forgiveness even in my mind, as we all fall short.
> 
> But overall, I believe it's a choice and goes directly along with these verses in The Bible and that it is a sin against God/how He created us to be and He wants to restore us from things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 1
> 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
> 
> 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
> 
> 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
> 
> 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
> 
> 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
> 
> 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
> 
> 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When one reads all these verses very carefully, even asking God for help to read them if needed, it becomes clear that it's a "lust" which is a "choice".
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [MENTION=25198]Marie888[/MENTION]
> What makes homosexuality lust?
Click to expand...



Please see the verses, especially verses 27.  His Word talks specifically about it.."burned in their lust one toward another;"


----------



## Little-Acorn

I'm not a psychologist, and I don't know the answer. (I'm pretty sure psychologists don't know the answer either.)

All I can do is guess.

But what about this scenario:

A boy is raised normally, and in all likelihood will develop into a normal, heterosexual man.

But when he's 9 or 10 years old, he's sexually abused a number of times by a twisted uncle.

This changes his course, and he winds up being homosexual.

Was he born homosexual? No.

Did he choose to be homosexual? No.

This is an (imaginary) guess at a way a person can turn out homosexual, while neither being born that way nor choosing that "lifestyle" either.


----------



## Inevitable

Marie888 said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe 100% that it is a choice, because one can "live without it" or rather that it is not a bare necessity at all,  (food, shelter, etc) therefore it is a choice coming from the mind.  I believe a person may "struggle" with it as I also believe it is a form a lust and lust is definitely a choice also which can also become a temptation, just as there are many "lust/fleshly" choices including fornication. (sex before holy matrimony)
> 
> Please know that my reply is not to put down or attack any homosexuals personally, as the Good Lord knows I've struggled and struggle with my own things I've done wrong or sinned.  Daily I ask Him for forgiveness even in my mind, as we all fall short.
> 
> But overall, I believe it's a choice and goes directly along with these verses in The Bible and that it is a sin against God/how He created us to be and He wants to restore us from things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> When one reads all these verses very carefully, even asking God for help to read them if needed, it becomes clear that it's a "lust" which is a "choice".
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=25198]Marie888[/MENTION]
> What makes homosexuality lust?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please see the verses, especially verses 27.  His Word talks specifically about it.."burned in their lust one toward another;"
Click to expand...

So if you are homosexual and don't "burn in your lust" it's all good than? Thanks.


----------



## Inevitable

Little-Acorn said:


> I'm not a psychologist, and I don't know the answer. (I'm pretty sure psychologists don't know the answer either.)
> 
> All I can do is guess.
> 
> But what about this scenario:
> 
> A boy is raised normally, and in all likelihood will develop into a normal, heterosexual man.
> 
> But when he's 9 or 10 years old, he's sexually abused a number of times by a twisted uncle.
> 
> This changes his course, and he winds up being homosexual.
> 
> Was he born homosexual? No.
> 
> Did he choose to be homosexual? No.
> 
> This is an (imaginary) guess at a way a person can turn out homosexual, while neither being born that way nor choosing that "lifestyle" either.



I think there is a flaw in your theory. How would anybody know that a 9 or 10 year old was going to be heterosexual or homosexual? Most homosexuals have a normal life, I know I did.


----------



## Inevitable

Mathbud1 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you should talk about logic until you understand it completely.  A flaw in logic doesn't render the argument false unless the opposition has a logically flawless argument.
> 
> You just made the fallacy fallacy, look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Are you saying that if both sides use a fallacy neither side is using a fallacy? How does that work in your world?
> 
> By the way, I took your advice and looked up fallacy fallacy just to be sure I remembered it right, it turns out I did.
> 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
> 
> Since I never actually claimed that your argument was false just because you used a fallacy, I didn't commit a fallacy fallacy.
> 
> All I did was  point out that your definition of fallacy was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold on, did inevitable just commit a fallacy fallacy fallacy or only misapply the fallacy fallacy. (I'm really hoping for the fallacy fallacy fallacy just because I think that would be something worth seeing.)
> 
> Lol.
Click to expand...

People that talk about things they don't understand are the funniest. 
The fallacy fallacy is an argument from fallacy. Or argumentum ad logical. Look it up, educate yourself, or continue being a boob in a world where we have round the clock access to the biggest amount of knowledge ever to exist FOR FREE.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Inevitable said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a psychologist, and I don't know the answer. (I'm pretty sure psychologists don't know the answer either.)
> 
> All I can do is guess.
> 
> But what about this scenario:
> 
> A boy is raised normally, and in all likelihood will develop into a normal, heterosexual man.
> 
> But when he's 9 or 10 years old, he's sexually abused a number of times by a twisted uncle.
> 
> This changes his course, and he winds up being homosexual.
> 
> Was he born homosexual? No.
> 
> Did he choose to be homosexual? No.
> 
> This is an (imaginary) guess at a way a person can turn out homosexual, while neither being born that way nor choosing that "lifestyle" either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is a flaw in your theory. How would anybody know that a 9 or 10 year old was going to be heterosexual or homosexual? Most homosexuals have a normal life, I know I did.
Click to expand...


Most 9-10 year olds develop into normal heterosexual men.

Suppose one of those got abused as I said?


----------



## GISMYS

Little-Acorn said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a psychologist, and I don't know the answer. (I'm pretty sure psychologists don't know the answer either.)
> 
> All I can do is guess.
> 
> But what about this scenario:
> 
> A boy is raised normally, and in all likelihood will develop into a normal, heterosexual man.
> 
> But when he's 9 or 10 years old, he's sexually abused a number of times by a twisted uncle.
> 
> This changes his course, and he winds up being homosexual.
> 
> Was he born homosexual? No.
> 
> Did he choose to be homosexual? No.
> 
> This is an (imaginary) guess at a way a person can turn out homosexual, while neither being born that way nor choosing that "lifestyle" either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is a flaw in your theory. How would anybody know that a 9 or 10 year old was going to be heterosexual or homosexual? Most homosexuals have a normal life, I know I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most 9-10 year olds develop into normal heterosexual men.
> 
> Suppose one of those got abused as I said?
Click to expand...


BOTTOMLINE= WE ALL CHOOSE TO LIVE IN SIN OR NOT TO LIVE IN SIN. DOING ACTS OF SEXUAL PERVERSION IS CHOICE,A VERY POOR CHOICE WITH A VERY HIGH COST! Think!


----------



## Inevitable

​


Little-Acorn said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a psychologist, and I don't know the answer. (I'm pretty sure psychologists don't know the answer either.)
> 
> All I can do is guess.
> 
> But what about this scenario:
> 
> A boy is raised normally, and in all likelihood will develop into a normal, heterosexual man.
> 
> But when he's 9 or 10 years old, he's sexually abused a number of times by a twisted uncle.
> 
> This changes his course, and he winds up being homosexual.
> 
> Was he born homosexual? No.
> 
> Did he choose to be homosexual? No.
> 
> This is an (imaginary) guess at a way a person can turn out homosexual, while neither being born that way nor choosing that "lifestyle" either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is a flaw in your theory. How would anybody know that a 9 or 10 year old was going to be heterosexual or homosexual? Most homosexuals have a normal life, I know I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most 9-10 year olds develop into normal heterosexual men.
> 
> Suppose one of those got abused as I said?
Click to expand...

not sure that would make him grow up to be gay.


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is a flaw in your theory. How would anybody know that a 9 or 10 year old was going to be heterosexual or homosexual? Most homosexuals have a normal life, I know I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most 9-10 year olds develop into normal heterosexual men.
> 
> Suppose one of those got abused as I said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BOTTOMLINE= WE ALL CHOOSE TO LIVE IN SIN OR NOT TO LIVE IN SIN. DOING ACTS OF SEXUAL PERVERSION IS CHOICE,A VERY POOR CHOICE WITH A VERY HIGH COST! Think!
Click to expand...


----------



## Slyhunter

Inevitable said:


> ​
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is a flaw in your theory. How would anybody know that a 9 or 10 year old was going to be heterosexual or homosexual? Most homosexuals have a normal life, I know I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most 9-10 year olds develop into normal heterosexual men.
> 
> Suppose one of those got abused as I said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not sure that would make him grow up to be gay.
Click to expand...


There is plenty of actual anecdotal evidence that points to abused children become gay abusers. If it's homosexual in nature than their abusive nature is also homosexual in nature.


----------



## Inevitable

Slyhunter said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most 9-10 year olds develop into normal heterosexual men.
> 
> Suppose one of those got abused as I said?
> 
> 
> 
> not sure that would make him grow up to be gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is plenty of actual anecdotal evidence that points to abused children become gay abusers. If it's homosexual in nature than their abusive nature is also homosexual in nature.
Click to expand...

Not really.


----------



## Slyhunter

Inevitable said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​not sure that would make him grow up to be gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of actual anecdotal evidence that points to abused children become gay abusers. If it's homosexual in nature than their abusive nature is also homosexual in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really.
Click to expand...


Yes really.


----------



## Inevitable

Slyhunter said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of actual anecdotal evidence that points to abused children become gay abusers. If it's homosexual in nature than their abusive nature is also homosexual in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes really.
Click to expand...

No, not really. You can insist until you are blue. It's still nit true.


----------



## GISMYS

Ex-Homosexuals Offering Truth and Hope
 By Bill Muehlenberg 

There is nothing that the homosexual lobby hates more than the reality of ex-homosexuals. Just as Islam cannot stand anyone who leaves the religion, treating them as apostates worthy of death, and just as any ex-atheists are treated like the plague by other atheists, so too are any former homosexuals. 

The militant homosexual activists pour out their greatest hatred, scorn and derision (which they seem to have huge supplies of) on anyone who dares to celebrate his freedom from the dangerous homosexual lifestyle. They absolutely go ballistic when a person bravely and courageously renounces this dead-end lifestyle and moves on to liberty and freedom, wholeness and life. 

This outpouring of diabolical hatred and bile is explained quite easily. One, homosexuals of course deep down know they are living a lie, and that what they are doing is unnatural, unhealthy and wrong. So they utterly hate it when anyone points out these simple truths to them. 

Two, when homosexuals turn their lives around and find healing and freedom as they go back to the way they were intended to be, their very lives are a massive antidote to the lies and indoctrination campaigns of the activists that homosexuals are born that way and cannot change. 

This is the biggest myth of all in the homosexual community, and when it is proven to be utterly false, with real life stories of those who most certainly have left the lifestyle, then the activist will foam at the mouth in rage that their entire agenda has been caught out. 

Indeed, to challenge the claims of homosexual immutability is to challenge the entire homosexual edifice - the foundation has been irrevocably undermined, and the whole house of cards must come crashing down. So no wonder the militants hate all those who have found new life, cleansing and restoration. 
Ex-Homosexuals Offering Truth and Hope


----------



## Little-Acorn

Inevitable said:


> ​
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is a flaw in your theory. How would anybody know that a 9 or 10 year old was going to be heterosexual or homosexual? Most homosexuals have a normal life, I know I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most 9-10 year olds develop into normal heterosexual men.
> 
> Suppose one of those got abused as I said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not sure that would make him grow up to be gay.
Click to expand...


Neither am I. But is the scenario plausible?


----------



## Inevitable

Little-Acorn said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most 9-10 year olds develop into normal heterosexual men.
> 
> Suppose one of those got abused as I said?
> 
> 
> 
> not sure that would make him grow up to be gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither am I. But is the scenario plausible?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't think so.


----------



## Inevitable

GISMYS said:


> Ex-Homosexuals Offering Truth and Hope
> By Bill Muehlenberg
> 
> There is nothing that the homosexual lobby hates more than the reality of ex-homosexuals. Just as Islam cannot stand anyone who leaves the religion, treating them as apostates worthy of death, and just as any ex-atheists are treated like the plague by other atheists, so too are any former homosexuals.
> 
> The militant homosexual activists pour out their greatest hatred, scorn and derision (which they seem to have huge supplies of) on anyone who dares to celebrate his freedom from the dangerous homosexual lifestyle. They absolutely go ballistic when a person bravely and courageously renounces this dead-end lifestyle and moves on to liberty and freedom, wholeness and life.
> 
> This outpouring of diabolical hatred and bile is explained quite easily. One, homosexuals of course deep down know they are living a lie, and that what they are doing is unnatural, unhealthy and wrong. So they utterly hate it when anyone points out these simple truths to them.
> 
> Two, when homosexuals turn their lives around and find healing and freedom as they go back to the way they were intended to be, their very lives are a massive antidote to the lies and indoctrination campaigns of the activists that homosexuals are born that way and cannot change.
> 
> This is the biggest myth of all in the homosexual community, and when it is proven to be utterly false, with real life stories of those who most certainly have left the lifestyle, then the activist will foam at the mouth in rage that their entire agenda has been caught out.
> 
> Indeed, to challenge the claims of homosexual immutability is to challenge the entire homosexual edifice - the foundation has been irrevocably undermined, and the whole house of cards must come crashing down. So no wonder the militants hate all those who have found new life, cleansing and restoration.
> Ex-Homosexuals Offering Truth and Hope


I have nothing against ex gay people. It's a free country, you want to be exgay, be ex gay, more power to you.

I simply don't feel that it is wrong. And I don't buy the religious spin saying that it is. So it's nit the proper path for all of us.

I do get a little irritated when people say "you can heal" when there isnothing to heal from. ButI have no animosity what so ever toward ex gays. I don't see why anybody would or that anybodydoes.


----------



## Slyhunter

Inevitable said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ex-Homosexuals Offering Truth and Hope
> By Bill Muehlenberg
> 
> There is nothing that the homosexual lobby hates more than the reality of ex-homosexuals. Just as Islam cannot stand anyone who leaves the religion, treating them as apostates worthy of death, and just as any ex-atheists are treated like the plague by other atheists, so too are any former homosexuals.
> 
> The militant homosexual activists pour out their greatest hatred, scorn and derision (which they seem to have huge supplies of) on anyone who dares to celebrate his freedom from the dangerous homosexual lifestyle. They absolutely go ballistic when a person bravely and courageously renounces this dead-end lifestyle and moves on to liberty and freedom, wholeness and life.
> 
> This outpouring of diabolical hatred and bile is explained quite easily. One, homosexuals of course deep down know they are living a lie, and that what they are doing is unnatural, unhealthy and wrong. So they utterly hate it when anyone points out these simple truths to them.
> 
> Two, when homosexuals turn their lives around and find healing and freedom as they go back to the way they were intended to be, their very lives are a massive antidote to the lies and indoctrination campaigns of the activists that homosexuals are born that way and cannot change.
> 
> This is the biggest myth of all in the homosexual community, and when it is proven to be utterly false, with real life stories of those who most certainly have left the lifestyle, then the activist will foam at the mouth in rage that their entire agenda has been caught out.
> 
> Indeed, to challenge the claims of homosexual immutability is to challenge the entire homosexual edifice - the foundation has been irrevocably undermined, and the whole house of cards must come crashing down. So no wonder the militants hate all those who have found new life, cleansing and restoration.
> Ex-Homosexuals Offering Truth and Hope
> 
> 
> 
> I have nothing against ex gay people. It's a free country, you want to be exgay, be ex gay, more power to you.
> 
> I simply don't feel that it is wrong. And I don't buy the religious spin saying that it is. So it's nit the proper path for all of us.
> 
> I do get a little irritated when people say "you can heal" when there isnothing to heal from. ButI have no animosity what so ever toward ex gays. I don't see why anybody would or that anybodydoes.
Click to expand...


It's a genetic defect and someday we'll find the switch and permanently fix the problem.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Slyhunter said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most 9-10 year olds develop into normal heterosexual men.
> 
> Suppose one of those got abused as I said?
> 
> 
> 
> not sure that would make him grow up to be gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is plenty of actual anecdotal evidence that points to abused children become gay abusers. If it's homosexual in nature than their abusive nature is also homosexual in nature.
Click to expand...


Anecdotal  not systematic, not objective, not documented, and not accepted as fact.


----------



## Inevitable

Slyhunter said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ex-Homosexuals Offering Truth and Hope
> By Bill Muehlenberg
> 
> There is nothing that the homosexual lobby hates more than the reality of ex-homosexuals. Just as Islam cannot stand anyone who leaves the religion, treating them as apostates worthy of death, and just as any ex-atheists are treated like the plague by other atheists, so too are any former homosexuals.
> 
> The militant homosexual activists pour out their greatest hatred, scorn and derision (which they seem to have huge supplies of) on anyone who dares to celebrate his freedom from the dangerous homosexual lifestyle. They absolutely go ballistic when a person bravely and courageously renounces this dead-end lifestyle and moves on to liberty and freedom, wholeness and life.
> 
> This outpouring of diabolical hatred and bile is explained quite easily. One, homosexuals of course deep down know they are living a lie, and that what they are doing is unnatural, unhealthy and wrong. So they utterly hate it when anyone points out these simple truths to them.
> 
> Two, when homosexuals turn their lives around and find healing and freedom as they go back to the way they were intended to be, their very lives are a massive antidote to the lies and indoctrination campaigns of the activists that homosexuals are born that way and cannot change.
> 
> This is the biggest myth of all in the homosexual community, and when it is proven to be utterly false, with real life stories of those who most certainly have left the lifestyle, then the activist will foam at the mouth in rage that their entire agenda has been caught out.
> 
> Indeed, to challenge the claims of homosexual immutability is to challenge the entire homosexual edifice - the foundation has been irrevocably undermined, and the whole house of cards must come crashing down. So no wonder the militants hate all those who have found new life, cleansing and restoration.
> Ex-Homosexuals Offering Truth and Hope
> 
> 
> 
> I have nothing against ex gay people. It's a free country, you want to be exgay, be ex gay, more power to you.
> 
> I simply don't feel that it is wrong. And I don't buy the religious spin saying that it is. So it's nit the proper path for all of us.
> 
> I do get a little irritated when people say "you can heal" when there isnothing to heal from. ButI have no animosity what so ever toward ex gays. I don't see why anybody would or that anybodydoes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a genetic defect and someday we'll find the switch and permanently fix the problem.
Click to expand...

I am notso sure it is genetic.


----------



## Inevitable

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​not sure that would make him grow up to be gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of actual anecdotal evidence that points to abused children become gay abusers. If it's homosexual in nature than their abusive nature is also homosexual in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anecdotal  not systematic, not objective, not documented, and not accepted as fact.
Click to expand...

Yeah, anecdotal evidence isn't really confirming. After all there isplenty of anecdotal evidence that Elvis is alive and well.


----------



## EverCurious

I browsed through most of this thread the past couple nights and I didn't see it mentioned that not one species on the planet has been found in which homosexual behavior has *not* been shown to exist (with the exception of species that don't have sex) 

Your God created all those creatures too, so unless he made a crap ton of mistakes, it's "normal" so just stop. 

People are more than welcome to believe it is a sin and abstain from doing it themselves - and I believe they also have the right to teach their children (and anyone else who wishes to be taught) that they believe it is a sin. 
However, it is _not_ the churches place to force their personal religious beliefs upon fellow Americans. It is also not acceptable for the happiness and civil unions of same-sex couples to be denied based upon said religious belief.

The only plausible argument I hear from the faithful boils down to them feeling that God invented marriage and thus the church has the right to dictate that it is a union between a man and a woman alone. 
Basically a copyright on coining the term and its meaning - and I can accept that. 

So make up a new word for same-sex couples and add "or <new term for &#8216;other&#8217; civil unions>" to all the instances of "marriage" on the books and just be done with it. 

I personally think it would be easier to strike it off the legal/government side entirely. Eliminate &#8220;married&#8221; tax brackets (average out "Single" and "Married" rates or w/e,) and do some extra paperwork for legal &#8220;assumption&#8221; type situations (custody, property, wills, etc.) Folks can then, if they so desire, have whatever on the side ceremony to show (other people) or (God) they are together and, everyone&#8217;s happy. 

Somewhat ironically, the term marriage has now been so extensively integrated within our legal system that its religious context has necessarily become meaningless in order that it comply with the law of the land it was unwittingly injected into. I do not believe there is, nor ever was, any malicious intent to specifically degrade or deface the religious context of marriage, it was merely a lack of foresight on the part of legal writers who did not prophesize how integrated marriage would become in laws, and further, had no societal context for a possible conversation about same-sex union rights. 

Perhaps with the term &#8220;marriage&#8221; returned to full church control, and freed of social/government onus and obligation, the sanctity of marriage in the eyes of the Lord could be reclaimed and brought to its former importance and respect, not only within the walls of the churches, but in the eyes of the country, and perhaps even the world. I mean I&#8217;m agnostic and I find the way people flippantly marry and divorce disturbing - I cannot imagine how frustrating it is for those that &#8216;truly&#8217; believe in the words written in the bible regarding marriage.


----------



## emilynghiem

Quantum Windbag said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's sum up and go get brunch.
> 
> - If homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, then homosexuals can't be faulted for being that way.
> 
> - If homosexuality is a choice or preference, they can be condemned for choosing what some religions consider a sin.
> 
> Choose your position and move on. Sheesh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science has conclusively proven that homosexuality is not genetic, so your first point is moot.
> 
> Why do you believe that people can be condemned based on a religion they don't believe?
Click to expand...

Dear Quantum Windbag and Inevitable :
Are you still around on here?
A new member OffensivelyOpenMinded just posted on another thread
about the genetic research done on identical twins:
There Is No Such Thing As Gay "PRIDE"

So that makes 3 of us saying the research on identical twins
shows it's not genetic or there would be 100% correlation.

Do you know of any research into possible hormonal
changes in the womb that could explain forming the
opposite gender identity or orientation? That's one theory
I read somewhere. If you are still around, can we consolidate
the threads asking the same thing, and reach agreement that
genetic research shows no correlation between identical twins,
but it could still be that changes in the womb could lead to born conditions.

Where do you suggest we start? I will look for other threads
and see who else seemed serious about the research on this. Thanks!


----------



## MaryL

All things being equal, (perhaps homosexuality is genetic). Let's give the devil his due. So? What if, ( I think this is probably true) "Racism" may also be GENETIC? Wouldn't that blow a lot of holes through liberals minds?And if so, do we just accept it? Or perhaps this is more about which delusions you accept and which you reject. Maybe they are all equally as invalid?


----------



## Moonglow

> I browsed through most of this thread the past couple nights and I didn't see it mentioned that not one species on the planet has been found in which homosexual behavior has *not* been shown to exist (with the exception of species that don't have sex)



I understand that amoebas sex themselves....


----------



## Moonglow

MaryL said:


> All things being equal, (perhaps homosexuality is genetic). Let's give the devil his due. So? What if, ( I think this is probably true) "Racism" may also be GENETIC? Wouldn't that blow a lot of holes through liberals minds?And if so, do we just accept it? Or perhaps this is more about which delusions you accept and which you reject. Maybe they are all equally as invalid?


I have a bush that burns but is never consumed, in my garden..


----------



## MaryL

Moonglow said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> All things being equal, (perhaps homosexuality is genetic). Let's give the devil his due. So? What if, ( I think this is probably true) "Racism" may also be GENETIC? Wouldn't that blow a lot of holes through liberals minds?And if so, do we just accept it? Or perhaps this is more about which delusions you accept and which you reject. Maybe they are all equally as invalid?
> 
> 
> 
> I have a bush that burns but is never consumed, in my garden..
Click to expand...

Did you name it George and kneel and say lots of stupid things to it, too?


----------



## Moonglow

MaryL said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> All things being equal, (perhaps homosexuality is genetic). Let's give the devil his due. So? What if, ( I think this is probably true) "Racism" may also be GENETIC? Wouldn't that blow a lot of holes through liberals minds?And if so, do we just accept it? Or perhaps this is more about which delusions you accept and which you reject. Maybe they are all equally as invalid?
> 
> 
> 
> I have a bush that burns but is never consumed, in my garden..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you name it George and kneel and say lots of stupid things to it, too?
Click to expand...

I named it Holy Shit!


----------



## MaryL

Meanwhile back on the board...


----------



## MaryL

IF homosexuality is genetic, IF racism is genetic, where is free will? Hello? I am talking to YOU.


----------



## JoeMoma

Moonglow said:


> I browsed through most of this thread the past couple nights and I didn't see it mentioned that not one species on the planet has been found in which homosexual behavior has *not* been shown to exist (with the exception of species that don't have sex)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that amoebas sex themselves....
Click to expand...

A dog tried to hump (have sex with) my leg.  I was none to happy and gave the dog a swift kick.  There are many perverts in the animal kingdom.


----------



## JoeMoma

Doesn't the existence of bisexuals prove that homosexuality is a choice for many people?


----------



## MaryL

JoeMoma said:


> Doesn't the existence of bisexuals prove that homosexuality is a choice for many people?


Not sure what it proves, but if we do have a conscience and free will, we aren't slaves to passions, either.  And nobody has to accept X cause out of political  correctness. No, we don't.


----------



## JoeMoma

MaryL said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't the existence of bisexuals prove that homosexuality is a choice for many people?
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what it proves, but if we do have a conscience and free will, we aren't slaves to passions, either.  And nobody has to accept X cause out of political  correctness. No, we don't.
Click to expand...

Seems like there is a lot of switching back and forth between same sex relationships and heterosexual relationships.


----------



## Divine Wind

Little-Acorn said:


> I'm not a psychologist, and I don't know the answer. (I'm pretty sure psychologists don't know the answer either.)
> 
> All I can do is guess.
> 
> But what about this scenario:
> 
> A boy is raised normally, and in all likelihood will develop into a normal, heterosexual man.
> 
> But when he's 9 or 10 years old, he's sexually abused a number of times by a twisted uncle.
> 
> This changes his course, and he winds up being homosexual.
> 
> Was he born homosexual? No.
> 
> Did he choose to be homosexual? No.
> 
> This is an (imaginary) guess at a way a person can turn out homosexual, while neither being born that way nor choosing that "lifestyle" either.


The exact nature of sexual preference isn't completely understood although it appears to have a large genetic component.  People don't "turn gay" anymore than they turn straight.  However, they can choose to behave one way or another.

Example; a teenage girl is attracted to boys.  That's her natural sexual preference.  When she chooses to blow the entire football team after a game, that's sexual behavior.


----------



## 320 Years of History

The few views I have on gayness, gay people and gay politics are informed by thought such as the following.

Sexual Orientation and Reason: On the Implications of False Beliefs about Homosexuality
Being Gay Not a Choice: Science Contradicts Ben Carson

Homosexuality is innate - it isn't a choice

Beliefs about the Etiology of Homosexuality and about the Ramifications of Discovering Its Possible Genetic Origin

Changing the Immutable

Introducing the ‘gay gene’: media and scientific representations

From _My Genes Made Me Do It_:
In 1993, the West was told that a scientist had discovered a “gay gene”—a gene causing homosexuality. The details were confusing for non-scientists, but the headline stuck. For Mr and Ms Average Citizen, it seemed that homosexuality might be genetic. 

Actually there was no “gay gene.” Even the scientist referred to, Dean Hamer of the United States National Institutes of Health, never claimed to have found a gene determining homosexuality. “We have not found the gene—which we don’t think exists— for sexual orientation,” he said.  However, he claimed to have found evidence that some male homosexuality was passed through female members of a family. More specifically, he claimed to have found a linkage between homosexuality in males and a small stretch of the DNA on the X-chromosome. 

Scientists now believe large number of genes are involved in behaviours. Studies on changes in histone proteins suggest that thousands of genes may be involved in almost any trait and that their expression can be greatly impacted by environmental events and even social interactions. Gene patterns may be a recipe for bodies, but are not a reliable recipe for behaviours. 

The scientific community realises that “our genes do not make us do it”. Hamer has always believed that. To give him the last word: “There will never be a test that will say for certain whether a child will be gay. We know that for certain.”​
What I think about the nature and origin of homosexuality in humans probably doesn't matter to or for anyone, including myself.  I haven't really considered whether it is or isn't a choice.  What I have considered is that: 

Gay people declare that they are gay, and I have zero basis, will or need to tell them they are not.
Seeing as gay people do exist, and insofar as I don't give a damn whether they do or don't, it's irrelevant to me why they exist.  
I have no need or desire to alter gay folks' sexual orientation, so unless they do have such a desire, I don't know why they give a damn why they are gay.  I don't enter into relationships with an aim of "fixing" the other person, and I certainly have no desire to "fix" someone with whom I have no relationship.
There are literally thousands of things and people that attempt to interject themselves into my life.  I have no difficulty dismissing any and all of them that hold no appeal for me.  If and when any gay person or group thereof merits my disregard, I will have neither joy nor pain giving it to them.
Gay people are just that, people.  Accordingly, I will treat them in all respects as I do every other person on the planet.
It is not in my or the U.S.' economic interest to deny to anyone that which may enable their contributing to the productivity and growth of our nation.  That is so of whites, blacks, men, women, old and young.  It's my observation that individuals in each of those groups may consider themselves gay.  Since their contributions are beneficial to the whole, I am not about to take actions that disincline, fetters or extirpates their efforts to contribute as best they can.


----------



## MaryL

The human mind, when a disease or dysfunction takes place , is a riddle. "The man that mistook his wife for a hat" , for instance, by the late great Oliver Sacks. The Human brain and it's maladies are  still a great unexplored  area. And sexuality, wow, that adds even more mystery. I am astounded by how defending what is obviously a major brain malfunction, is disturbing and humorous in much the same sad way.


----------



## Chuz Life

Inevitable said:


> The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, though there are some hypotheses.  What do you think and why?



I believe that homosexuality is genetic. I also believe that geneticists probably already know the genetic connection / cause but they (for whatever reason) don't want the rest of the world to know. I am willing to be wrong about that because it's just a gut feeling that I have at this point.

As it's a little related to this issue, I have wondered what the reaction would be to someone requesting a government grant to "find the genetic link" to homosexuality, develop a prenatal test and then offer a genetic remedy or even abortions to parents who decide they don't want a gay child.

After all, it's not a human being or a baby or a person before it is "born." Right?

And of course, if the woman / couple WANT a gay child?. . . the diagnosis might be good for them too.


----------



## Moonglow

JoeMoma said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I browsed through most of this thread the past couple nights and I didn't see it mentioned that not one species on the planet has been found in which homosexual behavior has *not* been shown to exist (with the exception of species that don't have sex)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that amoebas sex themselves....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A dog tried to hump (have sex with) my leg.  I was none to happy and gave the dog a swift kick.  There are many perverts in the animal kingdom.
Click to expand...

Just think, when you sleep all  those insects are having their way with you...


----------



## JoeMoma

Moonglow said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I browsed through most of this thread the past couple nights and I didn't see it mentioned that not one species on the planet has been found in which homosexual behavior has *not* been shown to exist (with the exception of species that don't have sex)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that amoebas sex themselves....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A dog tried to hump (have sex with) my leg.  I was none to happy and gave the dog a swift kick.  There are many perverts in the animal kingdom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just think, when you sleep all  those insects are having their way with you...
Click to expand...

And I'm having my way with them.


----------



## 320 Years of History

JoeMoma said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, when you sleep all  those insects are having their way with you...
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm having my way with them.
Click to expand...


Off Topic:
You know....One need not be asleep to have one's way with insects. 





(Click the pic for details.)​


----------



## Slyhunter

MaryL said:


> IF homosexuality is genetic, IF racism is genetic, where is free will? Hello? I am talking to YOU.


I was born bi-polar.
Basically I was born with a predilection to tell my bosses to go fuck themselves.
Where is my free will.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeMoma said:


> Doesn't the existence of bisexuals prove that homosexuality is a choice for many people?


Some people have character, a moral compass, honor, and valor.
Some just don't give a fuck and want to get a nut.


----------



## Slyhunter

320 Years of History said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, when you sleep all  those insects are having their way with you...
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm having my way with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Off Topic:
> You know....One need not be asleep to have one's way with insects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Click the pic for details.)​
Click to expand...

Does cricket flour have crickets in it?


----------



## 320 Years of History

Slyhunter said:


> 320 Years of History said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, when you sleep all  those insects are having their way with you...
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm having my way with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Off Topic:
> You know....One need not be asleep to have one's way with insects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Click the pic for details.)​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does cricket flour have crickets in it?
Click to expand...

Yes.  That's why it's called cricket flour, although you wouldn't know there are crickets in it if you just looked at the flour.  Powdered cricket isn't obviously cricket.


----------



## Mac1958

I'd be interested in seeing national poll results on this topic that included where respondents were born and raised.

I was born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I barely give a crap about this topic.  To me, it's pretty obvious that a vast majority of gays were "born that way", and we all just move on with our freakin' lives.

Surely much of this stuff is regional, so that data would be interesting.
.


----------



## 320 Years of History

Mac1958 said:


> I'd be interested in seeing national poll results on this topic that included where respondents were born and raised.
> 
> I was born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I barely give a crap about this topic.  To me, it's pretty obvious that a vast majority of gays were "born that way", and we all just move on with our freakin' lives.
> 
> Surely much of this stuff is regional, so that data would be interesting.
> .



I was born on the completely opposite side of the country, albeit in a similarly small city, but I share your view.

P.S.
I don't much care for national polls because I believe they inspire people to follow the crowd rather than gathering credible information and making well informed choices.  Obviously, I don't care what a poll would reveal.  I have no problem with research surveys provided they are rigorously and neutrally (re: the questions asked) composed.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

I see homosexuality as a product of genetics, hormones experienced in the womb, and various experiences during life.

 The more important question has to do with morality, however -- true morality rather than arbitrary prejudice, as the basis for morality lies in the harm principle. The persecution of people who are not causing harm is the true exhibition of immorality.

 One might as well discuss the causes of left-handedness as far as the significance. 

  From where I sit, I'd say that there is a large portion of the right that does not question what they have been taught.  Since people living 2000 years ago thought homosexuality was icky-poo, that's good enough for them. It doesn't matter WHY these views came about, only that hey have been taught to hate homosexuals.

 Interestingly enough, an equally large part of the left is quick to defend the absolutely most heinous homophobes on God's green earth. The recent shooting in Orlando is a prime example, as leftist after leftist indulged in nothing but apologia for the culture that produces this extreme homophobia. They do so for the same reason the homophobes of the right do what they do -- they never question WHY they must defend Islamists as all they know is defend them they must.

  At the psychological level, what motivates both is the desire to conform. Whenever a person's identity is tied to a group, the stronger this group identification, the greater the need to conform. Conformists do not question why they hold certain attitudes, as all they know is that thinking for themselves runs the risk of ostracism.  This is so evident in both the left and the right as to be obvious, yet extremely few people are free enough thinkers to notice. That is because their partisanship is hardwired to their ego and anything non conformist makes them uncomfortable.


----------

