Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
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.
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.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.
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 !!!!
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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
Did you really type that? Non conformist religion?
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]
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]
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!
Homosexuality is not a mental illness. Nothing mentioned afterward is relevant due to this original mistake.OT - Not Really - Healing is very relevant to the Topic . Given that Homosexuality is a Mental Illness
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.
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?
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.
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.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.
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?
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.
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.
Oh I'm not mistaken. You dont have anything that proves homosexuality is a mental illness.
