Brokeback Propaganda

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
2388

[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Their environment has changed, and thus their behavior has changed – by choice (and I guess by a percieved necessity).

Yet again…don’t confuse behavior with orientation.

The only way to know a person’s orientation is to see what gender they choose, in the ABSENCE OF ARTIFICIAL RESTRAINTS. Social pressures, religious beliefs, physical imprisonment, etc. can all influence BEHAVIOR without touching the core ORIENTATION of the individual.[/quote]

That is utter nonsense!

If one is “homosexual” how can they “choose” to have sex with a female? Yet, the majority of them do.

How is this phyisically possible?

A male has to be aroused enough to do that and that is not going to happen unless there is at least some attraction. Therefore, your theory is all wet.

Again…I don’t know any heterosexual men who would even be capable of having sex with another man.

You have no explanation for this forlife. You simply dodge the question!

2389

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
No, I think you might have missed my point. My point was that these men are not gay, but have behaved in a gay manner due to their environmental conditions. Thus, this would be a strong indication that there is not a genetic component, but only an environmental one.

Please read my post again…

[/quote]

And what I meant was they weren’t acting in a gay way - they were sticking their dick in a hole. Not all of a sudden finding men sexy and women not.

2390

[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
However, if “gayness” was genetic, then nobody would ever come out – you couldn’t.

Again, don’t confuse sexual orientation with behavior. You can hide your orientation for various reasons (religious beliefs, social pressures, etc.) but that doesn’t change who you actually find attractive. Sexual orientation is determined by who you would choose to have sex with, lacking any external pressures to the contrary.

Trying to live contrary to your orientation has the potential for damaging people’s lives, as noted by the conclusions I shared earlier from the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, etc.

The one thing I like about you as opposed to some of the others in this thread is that you are very clear on why you oppose homosexuality. You don’t pull selective statistics while ignoring contradicting statistics from the major medical and mental health organizations in the world. Instead, you simply say that your religious belief is that homosexuality is wrong.

Of course, I disagree with your religious beliefs and even if I didn’t, I don’t believe people should try to enforce their religious beliefs on others. But I do appreciate your honesty.[/quote]

Well, I appreciate that. Again, I have nothing against homosexual PEOPLE. I actually like all people and I am concerned for all people and thier eternal destiny.

My worldview is based upon God’s Word and of course, I take His Word on faith.

That being said, I do think you might wish to look at your interpretations of certain statements of the medical and psychological community to make certain that there are not alternate explanations for certain findings. Since none of these findings are from an experimental process, there are not cause and effect determinations that can be made. Therefore, conclusions based on these studies are highly subjective and depends upon who is doing the “interpretation.”

I understand that if I were gay and wanted to find reasons to stay that way, I would want to interpret certain things from that point of view.

2391

[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
However, if “gayness” was genetic, then nobody would ever come out – you couldn’t.

Again, don’t confuse sexual orientation with behavior. You can hide your orientation for various reasons (religious beliefs, social pressures, etc.) but that doesn’t change who you actually find attractive. Sexual orientation is determined by who you would choose to have sex with, lacking any external pressures to the contrary.

Trying to live contrary to your orientation has the potential for damaging people’s lives, as noted by the conclusions I shared earlier from the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, etc.
[/quote]

So a child molester must then go find a kid to have sex with because that is whom he finds attractive? And it’s going to damage his brain if he can’t act out these thoughts?

Dude, you are devoid of logic.

Everyone has impulses and thoughts to do things that are destructive to themselves or others. But not everyone feels they will get brain damage if they don’t act on these thoughts. No, only homosexuals feel that they have the “right” to act on whatever twisted impulse hits their brain regardless of the consequences to them or others.

2392

[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Their environment has changed, and thus their behavior has changed – by choice (and I guess by a percieved necessity).

Yet again…don’t confuse behavior with orientation.

The only way to know a person’s orientation is to see what gender they choose, in the ABSENCE OF ARTIFICIAL RESTRAINTS. Social pressures, religious beliefs, physical imprisonment, etc. can all influence BEHAVIOR without touching the core ORIENTATION of the individual.[/quote]

Yes, but how about the point I made before. If you have a 25 y/o that goes to jail and begins to have sex with men, well we would say that this behavior was trigged by enviromental pressures. It would be obvious.

However, how about pressures that are subtle and continuous in the life of a young person. They will not see the pressures, but they will be affected by them, become “oriented” toward the same sex and then believe that they were “born that way.” Do you see what I am pointing out here? The cause would be the same, but it would not be obvious, and thus we would assume a incorrect conclusion.

2393

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
No, I think you might have missed my point. My point was that these men are not gay, but have behaved in a gay manner due to their environmental conditions. Thus, this would be a strong indication that there is not a genetic component, but only an environmental one.

Please read my post again…

And what I meant was they weren’t acting in a gay way - they were sticking their dick in a hole. Not all of a sudden finding men sexy and women not.[/quote]

Right, but over time – many years, he might find them attractive. Then he gets out and wants men and not women. That could be possible, and we would see that it was caused by the environment and not by genetics. The choices we follow often become a habit and then a habit becomes repeated until it is “normal” for the person.

2394

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
…because everyone around them sees that their behavior is not normal. The same would go for someone who would have the “orientation” of not wearing pants when they go outside. Should we all just sit around and not tell them that this is not normal behavior?
[/quote]

Not normal, in the sense less people are gay than hetero, but that doesn’t make it good or bad, does it?

It’s not normal that a pet dog can burp the word ‘sausage’ but I’ve seen it done.

Why should anyone make such critical judgements about other people?

This is a similar argument many atheists use about the existence of God, and yet for people of faith what ‘they know’ with no hard evidence is evidence enough. Why would you choose to disbelieve the anecdotal evidence of so many thousands of gay people about what is is to be gay when they have nothing to prove to you?

They might have stopped having homosexual relations. That doesn’t stop them being homosexual.

2395

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Since none of these findings are from an experimental process, there are not cause and effect determinations that can be made. Therefore, conclusions based on these studies are highly subjective and depends upon who is doing the “interpretation.”
[/quote]

You’re kidding me, right??? Are you actually claiming that every major medical and mental health organization in the world reached these conclusions on homosexuality without first reviewing the SCIENTIFIC STUDIES and AVAILABILE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE which informed those conclusions?

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Counseling Association
American Association of School Administrators
American Federation of Teachers
American Psychological Association
American School Health Association
Interfaith Alliance Foundation
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
National Education Association

Just for starters, here are some of the references provided by the above organizations in their “Just the Facts” policy statement on homosexuality. You will note that these are scientific experiments which have been published in respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals:

Garofalo, R, Wolf, R.C., Kessel, S., Palfrey, J., & Du Rant, R.H. (1998). The association between health risk behaviors and sexual orientation among a school-based sample of adolescents. Pediatrics, 101(5), 895-902.

Resnick, M.D., Bearman, P.S., Blum, R.W., Bauman, K.E., Harris, K.S., Jones, J., Tabor, J., Beuhring, T., Sieving, R.E., Shew, M., Ireland, M., Bearing, L.H., & Udry, J.R., (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(10), 823-832.

Garofalo, et al. 1998; Remafedi, G., Frendh, S., Story, M., Resnick, M.D., & Blum, R. (1998). The relationship between suicide risk and sexual orientation: Results of a population-based study. American Journal of Public Health, 88 (1), 57-60.

Garofalo et al. 1998; Resnick et al. 1997.

Ryan, C., & Futterman, D. (1997). Lesbian and gay youth: Care and counseling. Adolescent Medicine: State of the Art Reviews, 8(2). [Also published in 1998 by Columbia University Press.]

Haldeman, D.C. (1994). The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 62(2), 221-227.

Davison, G.C. (1991). Constructionism and morality in therapy for homosexuality. In J.C. Gonsiorek & J.D. Weinrich, Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; Gonsiorek, J.C., & Weinrich, J.D.

(1991). Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; Haldeman, D.C. (1994).

Romer v. Evans, 116 S. Ct. 1620 (1996)

Nabozny v. Podlesny, 92 F. 3d 446 (7th Cir. 1996)

2396

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So a child molester must then go find a kid to have sex with because that is whom he finds attractive?
[/quote]

A child molester causes damage to the child, and thus should be prevented from acting. Sex between two consenting adults hurts nobody, and is none of your damn business.

2397

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
No, I think you might have missed my point. My point was that these men are not gay, but have behaved in a gay manner due to their environmental conditions. Thus, this would be a strong indication that there is not a genetic component, but only an environmental one.

Please read my post again…

And what I meant was they weren’t acting in a gay way - they were sticking their dick in a hole. Not all of a sudden finding men sexy and women not.

Right, but over time – many years, he might find them attractive. Then he gets out and wants men and not women. That could be possible, and we would see that it was caused by the environment and not by genetics. The choices we follow often become a habit and then a habit becomes repeated until it is “normal” for the person.
[/quote]

That is pure speculation on your part though. It IS possible. In the same way it is POSSIBLE that your religious beliefs are wrong without a full and total knowledge of absolutely everything. I don’t say that to anger you, but to highlight the specious nature of that particular argument. For MY sins, I know a few people who have been in prison and they all wanted to find a woman pretty much straight after they got out!

2398

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Yes, but how about the point I made before. If you have a 25 y/o that goes to jail and begins to have sex with men, well we would say that this behavior was trigged by enviromental pressures. It would be obvious.
[/quote]

The BEHAVIOR was triggered by environmental pressures. The ORIENTATION was not. If the guy left prison and chose, in the absence of physical restraints, to have sex with men the rest of his life you might have a point. But in reality his orientation hasn’t changed…once he is out of prison he will be humping women again.

2399

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
That could be possible, and we would see that it was caused by the environment and not by genetics. The choices we follow often become a habit and then a habit becomes repeated until it is “normal” for the person.
[/quote]

If that were true, I would have turned into a heterosexual after being married for 10 years. By external measures, I lived the life of a heterosexual. The only person I ever had sex with was my wife. I never let myself even fantasize about other men, but the attraction to men was always there. It never changed. I was gay before I got married, and I have been gay ever since.

That is why every major medical and mental health organization has concluded that people can’t change their sexual orientation. There may be a small population of bisexuals that can be equally happy with men or women, but not everyone is or can be like them.

2400

[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
You have shown nothing of the sort. You have shown opinions

Wrong. Every major medical and mental health organization in the world REVIEWED THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON HOMOSEXUALITY, AND DREW THEIR CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THAT EVIDENCE. To dismiss their universal conclusions as merely “opinions” is outright dishonest and disingenuous.

If you really expect people to believe that all of these organizations (the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, and the long list of other highly respected scientific organizations) are merely sharing an “opinion” rather than basing on their conclusions on objective facts, you are doing nothing but burying your head in the sand. You know that as well as I do, even if you won’t admit it.
[/quote]

I expect intelligent people to understand the difference between correlation study and experiment. Correlations only show that there is a relationship between two things, but not a “cause and effect.” Therefore, interpretation of the data is highly subjective – depending upon who is doing the interpretation.

Therefore, what I want intelligent people to see is that with the above argument plus the heavy gay lobby that is out there, plus the proverbial PC that is rampant everywhere – the conclusions are faulty at best and, at worst, a bold faced lie.

2401

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
However, if “gayness” was genetic, then nobody would ever come out – you couldn’t.

Again, don’t confuse sexual orientation with behavior. You can hide your orientation for various reasons (religious beliefs, social pressures, etc.) but that doesn’t change who you actually find attractive. Sexual orientation is determined by who you would choose to have sex with, lacking any external pressures to the contrary.

Trying to live contrary to your orientation has the potential for damaging people’s lives, as noted by the conclusions I shared earlier from the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, etc.

So a child molester must then go find a kid to have sex with because that is whom he finds attractive? And it’s going to damage his brain if he can’t act out these thoughts?

Dude, you are devoid of logic.

Everyone has impulses and thoughts to do things that are destructive to themselves or others. But not everyone feels they will get brain damage if they don’t act on these thoughts. No, only homosexuals feel that they have the “right” to act on whatever twisted impulse hits their brain regardless of the consequences to them or others.

[/quote]

Excellent point!

2402

[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Since none of these findings are from an experimental process, there are not cause and effect determinations that can be made. Therefore, conclusions based on these studies are highly subjective and depends upon who is doing the “interpretation.”

You’re kidding me, right??? Are you actually claiming that every major medical and mental health organization in the world reached these conclusions on homosexuality without first reviewing the SCIENTIFIC STUDIES and AVAILABILE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE which informed those conclusions?

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Counseling Association
American Association of School Administrators
American Federation of Teachers
American Psychological Association
American School Health Association
Interfaith Alliance Foundation
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
National Education Association

Just for starters, here are some of the references provided by the above organizations in their “Just the Facts” policy statement on homosexuality. You will note that these are scientific experiments which have been published in respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals:

Garofalo, R, Wolf, R.C., Kessel, S., Palfrey, J., & Du Rant, R.H. (1998). The association between health risk behaviors and sexual orientation among a school-based sample of adolescents. Pediatrics, 101(5), 895-902.

Resnick, M.D., Bearman, P.S., Blum, R.W., Bauman, K.E., Harris, K.S., Jones, J., Tabor, J., Beuhring, T., Sieving, R.E., Shew, M., Ireland, M., Bearing, L.H., & Udry, J.R., (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(10), 823-832.

Garofalo, et al. 1998; Remafedi, G., Frendh, S., Story, M., Resnick, M.D., & Blum, R. (1998). The relationship between suicide risk and sexual orientation: Results of a population-based study. American Journal of Public Health, 88 (1), 57-60.

Garofalo et al. 1998; Resnick et al. 1997.

Ryan, C., & Futterman, D. (1997). Lesbian and gay youth: Care and counseling. Adolescent Medicine: State of the Art Reviews, 8(2). [Also published in 1998 by Columbia University Press.]

Haldeman, D.C. (1994). The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 62(2), 221-227.

Davison, G.C. (1991). Constructionism and morality in therapy for homosexuality. In J.C. Gonsiorek & J.D. Weinrich, Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; Gonsiorek, J.C., & Weinrich, J.D.

(1991). Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; Haldeman, D.C. (1994).

Romer v. Evans, 116 S. Ct. 1620 (1996)

Nabozny v. Podlesny, 92 F. 3d 446 (7th Cir. 1996)
[/quote]

What is so hard to understand? Nobody did an EXPERIMENT – i.e. bombarded one child over 15 years with gay images and distorted views of gender roles and then took his twin brother and exposed him to heterosexual images for 15 years and then see what happens.

You can throw all the organizational names, Ph.D’s, etc. around all you want, but the fact remains that none of these “scientific” studies were experimental. Therefore, the interpretations to these correlational or case studies is highly SUBJECTIVE.

That is all I am saying and the facts are on my side, because I know that no experimentation has been done because it would be illegal to do so.

2403

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So a child molester must then go find a kid to have sex with because that is whom he finds attractive?

A child molester causes damage to the child, and thus should be prevented from acting. Sex between two consenting adults hurts nobody, and is none of your damn business.[/quote]

Unless you want my tax money or to adopt a child. Then it does affect and hurt someone and it is our D**N business!

You want to make it not our business? Then close your doors, do what you want and leave me, my country, and everyone of us alone. Be gay and be gone.

2404

[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Yes, but how about the point I made before. If you have a 25 y/o that goes to jail and begins to have sex with men, well we would say that this behavior was trigged by enviromental pressures. It would be obvious.

The BEHAVIOR was triggered by environmental pressures. The ORIENTATION was not. If the guy left prison and chose, in the absence of physical restraints, to have sex with men the rest of his life you might have a point. But in reality his orientation hasn’t changed…once he is out of prison he will be humping women again.
[/quote]

Precisely my point! It is a choice – the only difference here in the scenerio is that the environmental trigger was obvious.

With many of you, I don’t think the trigger was obvious, so you ASSUME that it is genetic. This works for you, because if it is genetic, then it is not sin, etc. etc. etc…ad nauseum…

2405

[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
That could be possible, and we would see that it was caused by the environment and not by genetics. The choices we follow often become a habit and then a habit becomes repeated until it is “normal” for the person.

If that were true, I would have turned into a heterosexual after being married for 10 years. By external measures, I lived the life of a heterosexual. The only person I ever had sex with was my wife. I never let myself even fantasize about other men, but the attraction to men was always there. It never changed. I was gay before I got married, and I have been gay ever since.

That is why every major medical and mental health organization has concluded that people can’t change their sexual orientation. There may be a small population of bisexuals that can be equally happy with men or women, but not everyone is or can be like them.[/quote]

Again, this is your INTERPRETATION of the particular facts. You had sinful impulses which you suprressed for quite some time. Then you acted upon them and like any addict, you were hooked. You feel better about it if you have “gayness” as a genetic factor, then you are not RESPONSIBLE for your sin, and thus you get comfort that it is all right.

Sorry…as the old song goes, “it ain’t necessarily so…”

2406

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
I expect intelligent people to understand the difference between correlation study and experiment. Correlations only show that there is a relationship between two things, but not a “cause and effect.”[/quote]

How stupid do you think people are? Do you really think the American Medical Association, the American Pediatric Association, and every other major medical and mental health organization in the world would draw scientific conclusions based on correlations alone? In the studies that have been published in respected scientific journals, either controlled experiments are conducted or potential extrinsic factors for the data are statistically controlled. Scientific standards are applied before conclusions are drawn. Believe me, as someone that has tried to publish research in well-respected journals, I know how high the standards are.

Instead of pretending that you know more about science than the experts, maybe you should consider giving their unanimous conclusions some credence.

2407

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So a child molester must then go find a kid to have sex with because that is whom he finds attractive?

A child molester causes damage to the child, and thus should be prevented from acting. Sex between two consenting adults hurts nobody, and is none of your damn business.

Unless you want my tax money or to adopt a child. Then it does affect and hurt someone and it is our D**N business!

You want to make it not our business? Then close your doors, do what you want and leave me, my country, and everyone of us alone. Be gay and be gone.[/quote]

I’m sure if you’re suggesting gay people should no longer have to pay taxes in return for some people not liking what they do behind closed doors then they’d take that deal in a heartbeat! lol