Avesther
New Member
[b said:
I almost don't want to respond to this again. If you read what I posted six posts after the post of mine you quoted, you'd see I have already address your concern.
Is Banning Gay Marriage Christian?
- Thread starter MichaelLogos
- Start date
I almost don't want to respond to this again. If you read what I posted six posts after the post of mine you quoted, you'd see I have already address your concern.
k, did you guys know that we are able not to sin? see, when we're saved, God progressively cleanses us from our sinful nature. Now, this doesn't happen overnight and it's no guarantee that you're not going to sin for the rest of your life, but the fact of the matter is that through salvation and sanctification we have the option not to sin. In case you're curious, read Romans 4-6 and I John. It's laid out pure and simple - God desires that we not sin, and we have Jesus as our example for that. But in case we do slip and sin, we're covered thanks to the cross. But it's not acceptable to say that it's okay that we sin because we're human - God eliminated that excuse when Christ came to fulfill the Law.
Now, just in case someone's planning to attack me personally, I would like to clarify and say that I haven't gotten to the point where I don't sin at all - it's a progressive work, one in which my desire to sin lessens more and more everyday. For those Arminians out there, this is called progressive sanctification.
Now, just in case someone's planning to attack me personally, I would like to clarify and say that I haven't gotten to the point where I don't sin at all - it's a progressive work, one in which my desire to sin lessens more and more everyday. For those Arminians out there, this is called progressive sanctification.
Grand Master
New Member
A practicing homosexual is doing no worse than any of you with regards to living a sinful life. You all "sin" repeatedly, day after day, and it is a conscious thing - you are completely aware of it WHILE you are doing it. If you disagree with that statement, I will have to call you a liar.
Kidan, what you are referring to there is an extremely simplistic way of looking at things, and it is a very general statement that cannnot be applied in most cases. It assumes one gene -> one trait. That's not how things work in most cases, but you refuse to recognize that fact.
Kidan, what you are referring to there is an extremely simplistic way of looking at things, and it is a very general statement that cannnot be applied in most cases. It assumes one gene -> one trait. That's not how things work in most cases, but you refuse to recognize that fact.
This is going to be very long, but please read it in full.[b said:
I'm not going to bother retorting to your post in particular..becuase we need to go further down the hierarchy of topics first.. One thing tho...you cannot compare homosexuality to alcoholism...for one thing, alcohol is an addictive drug..and is certainly more socially acceptable than homosexuality is. There are biological predispositions to becoming addicted, but that's an entirely different issue. If you cannot answer that question though, YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ARGUEMENT.
Now..ok..you want 'proof'? I'll bring out some bigger guns...but know that I don't feel I should have to do so...as you don't seem to have a verifiable argument as is either. That site I sent you, you seemed to have ignored all that went toward my point of view and only focused on those items that supported yours. That's called confirmation bias, by the way...and you should try to work on that...it's leading you down the path of severe bigotry. But aaanyway…onto the goodies. I won’t be giving you links for any of this shtuff…would take too long..but I will cite my sources for your reading pleasures. (if it sounds essayish at times…it’s because I’m taking a lot of this info from a paper I wrote a ways back)
Cultures vary in their in their attitudes toward homosexuality, but whether a culture condemns or accepts homosexuality, heterosexuality prevails and homosexuality survives. This is what first triggered me to delve deeper into the subject…and I found that homosexuality is highly likely (but granted, not with absolute certainty) not a choice.
Most psychologists today view sexual orientation as neither willfully chosen nor willfully changed. Sexual orientation is in some ways like handedness: Most people are one way, some (mostly men) are the other. A very few are truly ambidextrous. Nor is sexual orientation linked with some psychological disorder or sexual crime. “Child molester” is not a sexual orientation. Some child molesters are homosexuals, but most are heterosexual males (Gonsiorek, 1982). It was partly for these reasons that the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 dropped homosexuality from its list of “mental illnesses.”
Consider the findings of lengthy Kinsey Institute interviews with nearly 1000 homosexuals and 500 heterosexuals (Bell and others, 1981) The investigators assessed nearly every imaginable psychological cause of homosexuality—parental relationships, childhood sexual experiences, peer relationships, dating experiences. Their findings: Apart from homosexuals’ somewhat greater nonconformity, the reported backgrounds of homosexuals and heterosexuals were very similar. Homosexuals were no more likely to have been smothered by maternal love, neglected by their father, or sexually abused. In more recent studies, as I’ve said before, scientists have found that sons of homosexual men were NOT more likely to become gay if they lived with their gay dad, and that 9 in 10 children of lesbian mothers developed into heterosexuals (Bailey and others, 1995; Golombok and Tasker, 1996). If even being reared by a homosexual parent has no appreciable influence on sexual orientation, then having a gay or lesbian teacher also seems unlikely to have an appreciable influence, as you seem so afraid of. (And really…if you’re way of thinking is so right..and only 3.33% of the world population is homosexual…what are you so afraid of with your son? And is it right to let such a comparatively small worry so greatly influence others’ ability to get a well-rounded education?)
Gay men and lesbians often recall childhood play preferences like those of the other sex (Baily and Zucker, 1995). Gay men have fingerprint patterns that are very similar to those of heterosexual women (Hall and Kimura, 1994). Curiously though, the same is not as true for lesbians. Lesbians do have a more male-typical anatomy though..for example..the cochlea and hearing system of lesbians develop in a way that is “intermediate to those of heterosexual females and heterosexual males” (McFadden and Pasanen, 1998, 1999) But these things are mere trifles in light of other physiological differences. Researcher Simon Levay discovered that certain sections of the hypothalamus is different in homosexual and heterosexual people. He was a gay scientist though, and I know you are rather cynical about that sort of thing.. But know that he did his experiments blindly for that very purpose, as in he did not know which donors were gay and which were not. As he says in his book, The Sexual Brain, “Gay men simply don’t have the brain cells to be attracted to women.” Laura Allen and Roger Gorski offered a similar conclusion to Levay’s after discovering that a section of the fibers connecting right and left hemispheres is one-third larger in homosexual men than in heterosexual men. “The emerging neuroanatomical picture,” notes Brian Gladue (1994), “is that, in some brain areas, homosexual men are more likely to have female-typical neuroanatomy than are heterosexual men.”
It should not be surprising that there are physiological differences…as the science of psychology’s maxim says, “everything psychological is simultaneously biological.” And of course, this evidence does much to imply that there is a genetic influence in sexual orientation. (Notice I keep using words like ‘influence’ and ‘plays a role’…it’s not all genetic; environmental factors do play a role, but almost no scientist believe that it’s entirely environmental as you seem to) One research team studied twin brothers of homosexual men. Among their identical twin brothers, 52% were homosexual, as were 22% of fraternal twin brothers (Bailey and Pillard, 1991, 1995). In a follow up study of homosexual women, 48% of their identical twins were homosexual, as were 16% of their fraternal twins (Bailey and others, 1993). Clearly, with more than half of the twins differing in sexual orientation, we know that genes are not the whole story. But since approximately 3.33% of the world population is homosexual, it is also very clear that there is some sort of biological, or genetic influence. Moreover, as you probably know, scientists can with a single transplanted gene cause male fruit flies to display homosexual behavior (Zhang and Odenwald, 1995). A single gene, yes..but that was for fruit flies..an organism of paralyzingly simplicity on the genetic level when compared to that of humans. So it is completely reasonable for a ‘gay gene’ to be so far undiscovered…because there probably isn’t one, as Grand Master has already tried to tell you all. Research is indicating that there is a level of heritability though, so something more complicated than a single gene can manage is going on.
Another theory for the causation of sexual orientation deals with abnormal prenatal hormone conditions. With humans, the critical period for the brain’s neural-hormonal control system may exist between the second and fifth months after conception (Ellis and Ames, 1987; Gladue, 1990; Meyer-Bahlburg, 1995). Exposure to the hormone levels typically experienced by female fetuses during this time appears to predispose the person (whether male or female) to be attracted to males later in life. Some tests reveal that homosexual men have spatial abilities typical of heterosexual women—a pattern consistent with the hypothesis that homosexuals were exposed to atypical prenatal hormones (Gladue, 1994l McCormick and Witelson, 1991; Sanders and Wright, 1997).
Regardless of the process, the consistency of the genetic, prenatal, and brain findings has swung the pendulum toward a physiological explanation. Nature more than nurture, most psychiatrists now believe, predisposes sexual orientation (Vreeland and others, 1995). If biological influences prove critical (perhaps especially so in certain environmental contexts), such would explain why sexual orientation is so difficult to change. Yes, I said difficult, not impossible. It is possible to change one’s sexual orientation, but such an ordeal is dauntingly difficult and traumatic, and so it is unfair and immoral for you to expect them to change their ways. It’s most likely not their fault they are the way they are, whether you can accept that or not is your own problem.
Thaddius
Member
Ok, I read that whole thing. It seems to me the point your trying to get across is that homosexuality is a birth defect, or atleast that is the conclusion it leads me to....
Cory
Cory
Defect? No no..what I'm saying is that homosexuality is a natural occurence..and that since it is, we should not discriminate on those grounds. There always have been homosexuals; there always will be homosexuals, regardless of how society treats them. You are still thinking along the lines of homosexuality being abnormal. It is in the sense that it's a minority, but in no other way than that.
Grand Master
New Member
Ok, here are two papers on studies describing concordances for homosexuality:
J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.
*52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
*22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
*11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,” American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277.
*48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
*16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
*6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual
J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.
*52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
*22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
*11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,” American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277.
*48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
*16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
*6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual
Yeah Grandmaster, those studies certainly are crippling to their arguement aren't they? I had not heard about the adoptive bit tho...that could be detrimental. But it makes sense, since there are environmental causes to homosexuality--there has to be--otherwise the identical twins would be closer to 100% homosexual.
Has anyone considered the possibility that Humanity is not a bi-gender race at all, and that we actually have a third gender (or possibly a third and fourth) that kicks in during times of population pressure?
Wouldn't it be a kick in the head in future times if we discovered we'd been supressing a perfectly natural segment of our population because we didn't understand its role in nature or society?
Eon
Wouldn't it be a kick in the head in future times if we discovered we'd been supressing a perfectly natural segment of our population because we didn't understand its role in nature or society?
Eon
Avesther
New Member
*52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of hetrosexual men were likewise hetrosexual
*78% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise hetrosexual
*89% of adoptive brothers of hetrosexual men were likewise hetrosexual
According to the studies, all these numbers are increasing with time, even in as few as a few short years. In 1991, we see for identical twins, the number was 48% and has now increased to 52%. On the whole, the number of homosexuals seem to be on the decrease. Logic would dictate that if homosexuallity is hereditary, there are less and less homosexuals procreating.
*78% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise hetrosexual
*89% of adoptive brothers of hetrosexual men were likewise hetrosexual
According to the studies, all these numbers are increasing with time, even in as few as a few short years. In 1991, we see for identical twins, the number was 48% and has now increased to 52%. On the whole, the number of homosexuals seem to be on the decrease. Logic would dictate that if homosexuallity is hereditary, there are less and less homosexuals procreating.
Avesther
New Member
[b said:
Wouldn't it be a kick in the head in future times if we discovered we'd been promoting a perfectly unnatural segment of our population because we didn't understand the that its role in nature or society is against God?
God? God? Find me a single case of persecution based on traits or beliefs that God is supposed to find offensive that survives 10, 20 or 100 years without coming to light as rank bigotry!
I'm afraid that this is just the Salem witch trials and the Cathar persecution and the genocide committed by the Spanish in South America all over again. It will take a little while before history gives us the perspective to appreciate it - but one day kids will read datafiles from sites like this and marvel that their ancestors were ever so closeminded and brutish.
Eon
I'm afraid that this is just the Salem witch trials and the Cathar persecution and the genocide committed by the Spanish in South America all over again. It will take a little while before history gives us the perspective to appreciate it - but one day kids will read datafiles from sites like this and marvel that their ancestors were ever so closeminded and brutish.
Eon
Thaddius
Member
hmmm...we are not talking about burning people at the stake here Eon. Marriage is a religous sanction. Homosexuality is not. You seem to think we want to kill them off or something, which I don't think was ever said...
Cory
Cory
Urg...no. Please think about this...[b said:Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Mar. 27 2004,2:20)]*52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of hetrosexual men were likewise hetrosexual
*78% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise hetrosexual
*89% of adoptive brothers of hetrosexual men were likewise hetrosexual
According to the studies, all these numbers are increasing with time, even in as few as a few short years. In 1991, we see for identical twins, the number was 48% and has now increased to 52%. On the whole, the number of homosexuals seem to be on the decrease. Logic would dictate that if homosexuallity is hereditary, there are less and less homosexuals procreating.
And Eon, yeah I have thought of that possibility. Since males are XY and females are XX (or maybe I have that backwards...), what if there's an YY? What would it look like? And what woult that do to our marriage system? Insternesting shtuff, methinks...
I've already said that you guys are free to stop them having a Christian union, in the same way that the muslims are free to stop them having a Muslim union and so on.
However marriage is a civil union these days - you are not free to pretend that you own the word marriage and thus prevent them from having a civil union that is EQUAL IN ALL RESPECTS to a normal marriage. This is the same as denying Pagan handfastings a legal significance, or Buddhist weddings or Muslim weddings.
This might not seem to be the same as burning them at the stake - you're right, it's not as significant, but it is still opression and persecution.
However marriage is a civil union these days - you are not free to pretend that you own the word marriage and thus prevent them from having a civil union that is EQUAL IN ALL RESPECTS to a normal marriage. This is the same as denying Pagan handfastings a legal significance, or Buddhist weddings or Muslim weddings.
This might not seem to be the same as burning them at the stake - you're right, it's not as significant, but it is still opression and persecution.
1. It is natural; Go read my uber long post of doom.[b said:
2. We're not going to be promoting homosexuality--all we need is acceptance, and even that is going to be excruciatingly difficult to achieve. It's depressing that you all just can't seem to understand..
3. Evem if it is an unnatural segment of our population, which it just plain isn't, it's not our place to dictate who they can and cannot love. Sure, christians can choose not to marry them in their churches, but it isn't right for the to try and control who gets married in this country just becuase they are the majority religion. That would be breach of the seperation between church and state, not to mention inhibitory of the civil rights. You cannot seem to understand the homosexuals position on this--fine; it's your perogative to be that way or not--but don't try to play big brother. You may claim that even accepting homosexuality can hurt you in some obscure way, but no plight of yours is as significant as theirs is now.
Kidan
Moderator
mr. bill- if you knew as much about genetics as you claimed you'd realize that YY would be normal guy (actually a girl, but you had the sex gene backwards in your post).
XX, XY, YX, YY those are the four possible (non-mutated) sex pairs for humans (we're not going into the mutations of 3 chromosomes sex linkage ie XYY). Being a female is a recessive trait, so you must have both y chromosomes to be so. whereas the other three possibilities you come out as male (which is why the sex of the child is dependent upon the male).
Besides, if you stop to consider this point, without the possibility of mutation (again the three sex genes in the female YYX ) double male is literally impossible. for the female will ALWAYS provide a Y to the sex.
Also, of course it's natural. Everything's natural. My point is that they're not controlled by their genetics. They have self-determination and self-will and self-control. Otherwise, they're nothing more than a lesser animal. But everything natural is not right. It's natural for you to eat everything in sight all day long, but doing so will end up hurting you.
I'm still looking at the studies that were provided, yet they appear to be older studies. As well, you claim that I picked and chose from the article. My point was that I was showing you that the article held self-contradictory information. You claimed it was a pro-genetic article, yet within, they repeatedly say that homosexuality does not breed true.
Eon -- what about marriage as a universal social institution developed for the natural protection of children. Who are we to destroy an ages-old tradition? You talk often about early Christians coming in and destroying Norse and Celtic traditions, how is the homosexual's attack on marriage any different?
XX, XY, YX, YY those are the four possible (non-mutated) sex pairs for humans (we're not going into the mutations of 3 chromosomes sex linkage ie XYY). Being a female is a recessive trait, so you must have both y chromosomes to be so. whereas the other three possibilities you come out as male (which is why the sex of the child is dependent upon the male).
Besides, if you stop to consider this point, without the possibility of mutation (again the three sex genes in the female YYX ) double male is literally impossible. for the female will ALWAYS provide a Y to the sex.
Also, of course it's natural. Everything's natural. My point is that they're not controlled by their genetics. They have self-determination and self-will and self-control. Otherwise, they're nothing more than a lesser animal. But everything natural is not right. It's natural for you to eat everything in sight all day long, but doing so will end up hurting you.
I'm still looking at the studies that were provided, yet they appear to be older studies. As well, you claim that I picked and chose from the article. My point was that I was showing you that the article held self-contradictory information. You claimed it was a pro-genetic article, yet within, they repeatedly say that homosexuality does not breed true.
Eon -- what about marriage as a universal social institution developed for the natural protection of children. Who are we to destroy an ages-old tradition? You talk often about early Christians coming in and destroying Norse and Celtic traditions, how is the homosexual's attack on marriage any different?
But then we don't prevent fat people from marrying each other, now do we? I'm sorry if I offended you with my incorrect sequencing of sex genes...it's been a while since I have taken biology, and I wasn't sure. I do find it kind of humorous that you chose to attack that particular thing that I said, as opposed to certain other things... You are not argueing against Mr. Bill; you are argueing against Mr. Bill's position on homosexuality.[b said:
Your point is that it's not controlled by genetics...and yet..they've all but proven that genetics play a major role in determining sexual orientation. The twin studies alone reveal that. But again, of course it's not only genetics...there are environmental causes as well. As I said in my first post here, think of it as genetics deciding a person's tendency to be attracted to a certain type of person, and depending on environmental contexts, that person will go that route or that person will not. Is this what you mean by choice? It's not really a choice..as the choice's very existance is predisposed by genetics and other biological factors. But if you want to call it that, go ahead. What you should not do, however, is discriminate homosexuals on the grounds of their "immoral 'choice.'"
Yes, most of them are older studies, but they are still credible. You're going to need better reason than that to discount them... My point on you 'picking and choosing' was that you tend to ignore evidence that disagrees with your arguement and focus on evidence that agrees, regardless of abundance on either side. I did not say it was a pro-genetic article; I gave it to you to prove my point that homosexuals are perfectly fine parents. Contrary to your fervent belief, children are not necessarily best off in a home with a mother and a father.
"what about marriage as a universal social institution developed for the natural protection of children. Who are we to destroy an ages-old tradition?"
You keep saying this. First of all, as I just said...the protection of children is not needed, nor is that why marriage is the way it is. It's been that way for 'ages' becuase it's a decision of arbitration! It means absolutely nothing that it's been the same way for thousands of years! Of course it's always been between a man and a women (except in certain cultures, as in Greece)--when else in the world's history has there been enough social freedom and liberty for homosexuals to dare even attempt this? Who are we to 'destroy an ages old tradition?' Exactly the right people to do it; it should have been done a long time ago. There always hae been homosexuals. There always will be homosexuals. It's not their fault they are the way they are. They should be allowed to marry. Deal with it, but don't inhibit their ability to share affection at the same time.
LionOfJudah
Member, Dreamcast Fishing Guru
and mr bill was the one coming from another forum "banned" and wanting to enlighten us and bring us to the light of what True christianity is.......
Haha...yeah I know..perty darn ironic. I was in a bad mood when I posted that tho..so...meh.[b said:Quote[/b] (LionOfJudah @ Mar. 28 2004,11:58)]and mr bill was the one coming from another forum "banned" and wanting to enlighten us and bring us to the light of what True christianity is.......