[quote]ZEB wrote:
You said that “behavior is not orientation.” That would mean that you can control your behavior. Blacks can’t control their skin color.
[/quote]
Actually, what I said was that ORIENTATION was comparable to SKIN COLOR in that neither can be changed. Ivan was the one that compared sexual behavior to skin color, not me.
Nice try though.
Now this statement is a steaming pile. Congrats on assuming your studies are all legit while everyone elses are not…
It’s truly sad to watch.
Remeber, it has GayOvisioN, 10 minutes in there and you’ll be cruising in no time.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
All he did several posts ago was rant and rave, calling people “homophobes” and “liars.” Ha ha…(shaking head) He threw a real hissy fit.[/quote]
I called you a homophobe and a liar (evidence provided for both). I didn’t rant and rave, and I didn’t throw a real hissy fit 
Actually, there are many who believe in Jesus without being homophobic or dishonest. It is primarily the fundamentalists who diverge from general Christianity on the subject of homosexuality.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chur2.htm
[quote]The more liberal denominations, like the United Church of Christ, have changing their positions on homosexuality, in recent years, to adopt a more inclusive stance.
Mainline denominations such as the Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians are actively debating the question. A future church schism may result., particularly in the case of the Presbyterian Church (USA), Similar splits have occurred in the past over human slavery, whether women should be ordained, and certain theological debates.
More conservative denominations are taking no significant action at this time, except to occasionally condemn homosexuality.
Fundamentalist denominations commit significant effort against homosexuality and homosexual rights. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention expelled three of their congregations who had conducted a study of homosexuality, had concluded that the denomination’s beliefs were invalid, and who welcomed gays and lesbians as members.
All movement appears to be towards greater inclusiveness towards homosexuality and homosexuals. This is reinforced by the more accepting stance of today’s youth. We are unaware of any religious groups becoming less inclusive.[/quote]
Because your research is valid and mine isn’t? If you’re so confident in your research, take my challenge.
Give me your best scientific study and let’s see how it holds up.
[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
BEING BORN A CERTAIN RACE CAN NOT CHANGE.
PUTTING MY PENIS IN ANOTHER MAN ONLY HAPPENS IF I MAKE IT HAPPEN.
We’re talking about ORIENTATION, not BEHAVIOR.
You can’t choose to be attracted to men, because your ORIENTATION is heterosexual.
A black man chan’t choose to be white, because his SKIN COLOR is black.
ORIENTATION IS THEREFORE COMPARABLE TO SKIN COLOR.
Is that clear enough for you?
[/quote]
You changed from being a straight male who was married with kids to being gay. Hmmm…
Interestingly enough, you are not the only one to make that switch. In fact, some guys have even switched back. Hmmm…
You may have to create a new definition for orientation because it makes no sence.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You said that “behavior is not orientation.” That would mean that you can control your behavior. Blacks can’t control their skin color.
Actually, what I said was that ORIENTATION was comparable to SKIN COLOR in that neither can be changed. Ivan was the one that compared sexual behavior to skin color, not me.
Nice try though.[/quote]
As long as we now see it as an action, let’s compare it to other destructive actions like shooting up heroin, eating to obesity, and driving really fast and recklessly.
I guess I have the same problem you have, only mine is with food. I love to eat. If I could, I would eat all day. I’d eat ice cream, cookies, cake, candybars. I’d eat bacon and sausage like pigs were going extinct.
Why would I eat like this? Because I have a PREDISPOSED ORIENTATION to really likeing food alot!
You and I are not so different after all.
Sorry, but I’d like to change the subjest for a second-
Who here acknowledges that Brokeback Mountain has pro-homosexual propaganda in it?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Actually, there are many who believe in Jesus without being homophobic or dishonest. It is primarily the fundamentalists who diverge from general Christianity on the subject of homosexuality.
[/quote]
Humorous link. Did you know you can call yourself whatever you want, but that doesn’t make it true? I could say I bench press 1200 lbs, but it is not true. I could also say I’m a muslim, but that is not true either. So, because liberal call themselves Christians is not a surprise to me.
BTW - the Bible is very clear about what causes homosexuality, and that homosexuality is an offense to God, so I guess your website is pretty misleading as well.
forlife,
you posted studies on issues pertaining to the homosexual lifestyle. When ZEB posted studies clearly contradicting the conclusions of yours, you alleged that his supports were biased and flawed. Likewise, ZEB alleges that the studies you posted are of a similar non-credible nature, as his excerpt on the APA & the DSM IV exhbits. It is evident that each side has studies but as I alluded to previously, more research needs to be conducted.
Regarding anal sex, I don’t think anyone here is discounting that the act is dangerous and risky. It is equally unhealthy for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Given this premise, and the element that homosexuals are quite promiscuous (often having in excess of hundreds of anal sex partners), it can be extrapolated that homosexuals spread disease at a [i]higher rate proportional to heterosexuals[/i] because b[/b] anal sex is the primary act which homosexual men engage in, and b[/b] they share far, far more partners than heterosexuals, thus spreading disease to a higher degree within a given sample set.
Secondly, the fact that 87% of homosexuals have swung both ways is alarming. Given the [i]higher rate proportional to heterosexuals[/i] of HIV in the United States, the last thing I’d want to do is stick my penis in a woman that has slept with a homosexual man. Not that I would premeditate such an act because I don’t condone fornication, but you get the idea… The fact that homosexual men have the capacity to attain erections with women under non-forced circumstances needs further investigation.
It’s just eerie to ponder how some humans can walk this earth, poke any living creature with a hole for sexual satisfaction, and feel fulfilled and happy about it instead of remorse and shame. The research on pedophilia from the U.S. Dept. of Justice and homosexual activists pushing for the sexual liberation of minors is further damaging the homosexual agenda. Granted, perhaps this isn’t an across-the-board phenomenon, but shouldn’t the public err on the side of caution when it comes to granting homosexuals rights to foster care & adoption?
Last but not least, the fact that some homosexuals have been able to adjust their preferences is well-documented and promising indeed. Maybe the protocol you followed wasn’t specific enough to suit you as an individual. As TC said in his most recent article, just because creatine doesn’t work for him, it doesn’t mean it won’t work for anyone else… Perhaps you needed another type of support system. Perhaps you were prematurely thrust into the extraordinary committment of marriage, perhaps she wasn’t the right spouse, perhaps your church wrongfully sugarcoated the heterosexual lifestyle, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…
Nevertheless, the fact that you hung in there 10 long years tells me something - you used to be a fighter. You endured longer in marriage than most heterosexuals do in America nowadays! My advice to you is to track down and speak with one of these former homosexual individuals. You tried to change because something made you want to change, whether it be due to religious convictions, accepting a personal challenge due to experimentation & curiosity, or purely due to the love of your ex-wife. That fact that you also conceived two children with your spouse tells me you have an impulse/attraction towards females (which probably still thrives).
You being unhappy in marriage and desiring someone else was commonplace as the cliche goes, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence… or in your case, the astroturf is greener when playing for the other team… I can tell you of guys I’ve spoken with who had loving, cherished girlfriends but felt they needed extraneous female relations for a sense of fulfillment and deeper satisfaction.
Your reaction was typical of what most heterosexual men feel on a regular basis only it’s tragic that you stumbled by such a temptation within the bond of marriage.
I’ll also dare to venture there were other issues besides your sexual preference leading to the divorce which you haven’t shared with us (and that’s your right). Only you know the complete truth.
For instance, I was talking with a female friend last night who confessed to me having a boyfriend for ~3 years before breaking it off with him after he admitted getting drunk and cheating on her. She told him (and others) the reason she broke it off was because he committed that one-time act.
Meanwhile, she admitted to me there were multiple, complicated matters like him enlisting in the military, family pressure, etc. which she could firmly base her decision on. It was far more easier for her to say, he cheated on me rather than getting into a long sob story of their multifaceted, troubled relations.
In essence, his one-time act of cheating served as the scapegoat for the demise of their relations. I strongly suspect you’re providing us with the same sort of half-shelled explanation and misleadingly scapegoating your sexual preference as being the culprit of your failed vows. Again, only you know the complete truth.
Furthermore, you once traveled as a missionary. You didn’t need studies from major medical organizations to insinuate that heterosexuals are as disease-ridden as homosexuals. You didn’t need to justify sodomy or pedophilia by saying, “but heterosexuals do it too”. The fact that heterosexuals and homosexuals alike participate in such acts tells me that most of the whole world is going to hell in a hand basket. Get out of that basket before it’s too late dude.
Peace be with you.
[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
There has been so much evidence presented in this thread and the gay marriage thread that providing more would only duplicate what has been said.
No, what you’ve done is dump a few tons of manure in the front yard and told people there is a pearl hidden somewhere inside if they will only dig through it.[/quote]
You think that was the best analogy to use? 
I have already responded to this. I have posted probably over 100 studies related to homosexual men.
YOU pick whichever one you want. Just make sure you do your homework as I will be ready!
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
forlife wrote:
Actually, there are many who believe in Jesus without being homophobic or dishonest. It is primarily the fundamentalists who diverge from general Christianity on the subject of homosexuality.
Humorous link. Did you know you can call yourself whatever you want, but that doesn’t make it true? I could say I bench press 1200 lbs, but it is not true. I could also say I’m a muslim, but that is not true either. So, because liberal call themselves Christians is not a surprise to me.
BTW - the Bible is very clear about what causes homosexuality, and that homosexuality is an offense to God, so I guess your website is pretty misleading as well.
[/quote]
Not to mention very liberal and politically correct.
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Regarding anal sex, I don’t think anyone here is discounting that the act is dangerous and risky. It is equally unhealthy for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Given this premise, and the element that homosexuals are quite promiscuous (often having in excess of hundreds of anal sex partners), it can be extrapolated that homosexuals spread disease at a [i]higher rate proportional to heterosexuals[/i] because b[/b] anal sex is the primary act which homosexual men engage in, and b[/b] they share far, far more partners than heterosexuals, thus spreading disease to a higher degree within a given sample set.[/quote]
This has been proven over and over again. There is no question about this…none at all!
I think that is a primary way that AIDS is spread into the general population.
Sick!
They ask killers this question in prison. The answer is usually “habituation.” In other words, the grow assustom to the act of killing. Oh sure the first one bothers them to no end…the second a little less. After the third or fourth murder they have no more remorse and in fact feel a perverted thrill from the act.
Every credible study performed by an unbiased source states that homosexual menmoleste boys at a far greater rate than heterosexual men. Anywhere from 5 times to 10 times more depending upon the study.
Why do you think the Boy Scouts of America will not allow gay men in their organization. And this was upheld by the courts based upon the lastest evidence involving homosexual men!
Exactly my point!
Many have dropped their same sex attracton and are currently happily married. The fact that he has not does not mean that it cannot be done.
Well said.
He and 87% of all homosexual men have this attraction and have acted on it as well.
[quote]Furthermore, you once traveled as a missionary. You didn’t need studies from major medical organizations to insinuate that heterosexuals are as disease-ridden as homosexuals. You didn’t need to justify sodomy or pedophilia by saying, “but heterosexuals do it too”. The fact that heterosexuals and homosexuals alike participate in such acts tells me that most of the whole world is going to hell in a hand basket. Get out of that basket before it’s too late dude.
Peace be with you.[/quote]
Well said stellar!
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
You changed from being a straight male who was married with kids to being gay. Hmmm…[/quote]
Wrong. I have always been gay. I told my wife that I was gay before I proposed to her. We still chose to get married because that is what our church leaders counseled us to do.
“Don’t worry…the Lord will help you. With God nothing is impossible. Have faith. Everything will work out!”
Sound familiar? Lol…the tripe you and your fundamentalist buddies are pushing in this thread was fed to me my whole life. They promised it would lead to happiness, but it only created pain.
I bought into it for 20 years, and tried with everything I had to change my orientation. Despite all that effort, it never happened. I was still gay.
Hmmm…maybe every major medical and mental health organization is actually RIGHT in their conclusion that sexual orientation isn’t chosen, that it cannot generally be changed, and that attempting to do so is NOT RECOMMENDED and can be DAMAGING!
Who’d have thought it??
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Why would I eat like this? Because I have a PREDISPOSED ORIENTATION to really likeing food alot![/quote]
The question being debated was whether or not orientation is a stable characteristic like skin color. You have yet to prove otherwise (and every major medical and mental health organization says that it is).
You’re now switching to a different argument. That’s fine, but don’t pretend that you’ve addressed the original point.
On the new subject being discussed, you are comparing sexual orientation to physical appetite. What you’re not acknowledging is that every major medical and mental health organization has concluded that trying to change one’s orientation is NOT RECOMMENDED, and can be DAMAGING. However, there’s no harm in eating fish rather than beef. Therefore, your analogy is inherently flawed.
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Did you know you can call yourself whatever you want, but that doesn’t make it true? [/quote]
Oh, I’m well aware that fundamentalists believe that only THEY are true Christians. All the others are false Christians.
However, I suspect that the people belonging to those other Christian faiths would beg to differ.
[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
You changed from being a straight male who was married with kids to being gay. Hmmm…
Wrong. I have always been gay. I told my wife that I was gay before I proposed to her. We still chose to get married because that is what our church leaders counseled us to do.
“Don’t worry…the Lord will help you. With God nothing is impossible. Have faith. Everything will work out!”
Sound familiar? Lol…the tripe you and your fundamentalist buddies are pushing in this thread was fed to me my whole life. They promised it would lead to happiness, but it only created pain.
I bought into it for 20 years, and tried with everything I had to change my orientation. Despite all that effort, it never happened. I was still gay.
Hmmm…maybe every major medical and mental health organization is actually RIGHT in their conclusion that sexual orientation isn’t chosen, that it cannot generally be changed, and that attempting to do so is NOT RECOMMENDED and can be DAMAGING!
Who’d have thought it??
[/quote]
Like TV, it is the preferred opiate of the masses, it seems.
[quote]forlife wrote:
The question being debated was whether or not orientation is a stable characteristic like skin color. You have yet to prove otherwise (and every major medical and mental health organization says that it is).
[/quote]
No, the question presented in this thread is, “does Brokeback Mountain have pro-homosexual propaganda?” and you have not answered it.
You keep changing the question once you get stuck. First it was disposition, now it’s orientation. And, again, you are living proof that their is a difference between homosexuality and race. Heck, you have two kids with your ex-wife and you still don’t see it. If your orientation argument held up, you would not have the children.
[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
You changed from being a straight male who was married with kids to being gay. Hmmm…
Wrong. I have always been gay. I told my wife that I was gay before I proposed to her. We still chose to get married because that is what our church leaders counseled us to do.
“Don’t worry…the Lord will help you. With God nothing is impossible. Have faith. Everything will work out!”
Sound familiar? Lol…the tripe you and your fundamentalist buddies are pushing in this thread was fed to me my whole life. They promised it would lead to happiness, but it only created pain.
I bought into it for 20 years, and tried with everything I had to change my orientation. Despite all that effort, it never happened. I was still gay.
Hmmm…maybe every major medical and mental health organization is actually RIGHT in their conclusion that sexual orientation isn’t chosen, that it cannot generally be changed, and that attempting to do so is NOT RECOMMENDED and can be DAMAGING!
Who’d have thought it??
[/quote]
I wonder if all the other men who went from being straight to gay and back to straight had the same experience.
Funny thing is, if your orientation argument was true, then every man who was gay could never be converted into a straight man. But, many men have converted. Do you know what that means?
Either all these men who converted were confused and misled, or you are confused and misled.
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
BTW - the Bible is very clear about what causes homosexuality, and that homosexuality is an offense to God, so I guess your website is pretty misleading as well.
[/quote]
I agree with the religious dogmas posted below which coincide with ancient Christian teachings on the matter. Posted on the site furnished by forlife, this is an excerpt of the Russian Orthodox Church’s position:
On 2000-AUG-15, the Church “adopted a strictly conservative social policy platform that contained harsh criticisms of homosexuality, euthanasia, abortion and artificial insemination. The social policy platform was adopted at jubilee-year meeting of the Council of Bishops, an assembly of top Orthodox clergy, held at Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior.” This is the church’s first “formal pronouncement on contemporary social issues” since the fall of the USSR. 1
The policy statement included the following:
“The Holy Bible and the Church doctrine unequivocally condemn homosexual ties as a perverse distortion of the God-given nature of the human being.”
Homosexuality is “a sinful injury to human nature.” (We assume that they are referring to homosexual behavior here, and not homosexual orientation or feelings.)
Homosexuality is to be “treated by sacraments, prayer, fasting, repentance and the reading of the Holy Scripture.”
“…people advocating homosexual practices should not be allowed to carry out teaching or educational work with children or young people or take positions of authority in the army or in penitentiary institutions.” We suspect that the term “advocating” here refers to persons who promote the belief that homosexual behavior is normal and natural for that minority of adults who have a homosexual orientation.
They oppose same-sex marriage.
“Discussions about the so-called sexual minorities in the modern society tend to recognize homosexuality not as a sexual perversion, but only as one of the ‘sexual orientations’, one that has an equal right for public demonstration and respect. Bearing pastoral responsibility for people with homosexual inclinations, the church at the same time decisively opposes attempts to present this sinful tendency as a ‘norm’ and even more, a subject of pride and an example to be followed.”
and also…
Essay by Priest Seraphim Holland: 4
Seraphim Holland of the Russian Orthodox Church of St. Nicholas in Dallas TX makes the following points: To have a homosexual orientation is not sinful. However, “we must struggle, fast, pray, and do everything within our power (with the help of God), to humble ourselves, and to uproot our passions, with great labour and toil. If a man is not struggling to do these things, he is not gaining the kingdom of heaven.”
All sexual impurities, such as homosexual behavior, are serious sins. The degree of sin is greater than that which results from a man and woman engaging in fornication (i.e. sex outside of marriage).
A gay or lesbian who has a same-sex encounter, and who does not repent of the act, commits a sin which separates themselves from God and their guardian angel.
“Any man can change - he can stop being a drunkard, or liar, or homosexual, or blasphemer, or pagan, or anything else, with God’s help.”
I won’t get into the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church, but when it comes to genuine Christianity, I’m not one who’s known to endorse Christian organizations / sects / denominations / churches / institutions which started a mere couple of hundreds of years ago. If you want the truth and nothing but the truth (without politically correct ingredients) start researching the Christian Church as it blossomed and thrived from 33 AD onwards rather than comparing the doctrines of denominations started in the 1900’s or March 04, 2006…
I find it comical how it’s supposed to make Christianity more appealing and authoritative when the site talks about some denominations “[b]changing their positions on homosexuality, in recent years, to adopt a more inclusive stance[/b].” As if the Church which Jesus Christ commissioned, His Body, His unblemished Bride… which the gates of Hades would never prevail against, needed reforms from liberals ~2,000 years later… That’s just plain silly.
Why not make Christianity more inclusive by saying you don’t need faith in Jesus Christ for salvation? Then hey, maybe we could even be approving of satan-worshippers who curse His Holy Name. Then churches would grow by the millions. Unfortunately for many, Jesus Christ and His Apostles left a precise, unwavering message. It’s not a take home message that can be brought back in a manipulated format. It’s take it or leave it.
I’m reminded of Saint Paul instructing the brethren:
Galatians 1:9
[b]As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.[/b]
The liberal denominations like the United Church of Christ are clearly accursed. Stay clear of them and their false dogmas.
Peace be with all.
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
It is evident that each side has studies but as I alluded to previously, more research needs to be conducted.[/quote]
Actually, it is the job of the professional medical and mental health organizations to sift through the body of research and draw conclusions for the general public based on what actually stands up to scientific scrutiny.
These organizations (American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Society of Social Workers, etc.) have done just that, and have concluded that homosexuality is not a mental illness, that sexual orientation isn’t a choice, that people cannot generally change their sexual orienation, and that attempting to do so can be damaging and is not recommended.
I’ve offered to go a step further. I’ve challenged Zeb to give me the very best of his studies. Let him sort through it all, and handpick the most scientifically rigorous study that he can find. I will then review the study and show specifically why its conclusions are REJECTED by the professional medical and mental health community.
That is more than fair, wouldn’t you agree?
Take a look at the rates of HIV infection outside of the US. You will find that by far, the large majority of new cases is happening in the heterosexual community. Instead of focusing on gays, why not educate everyone to practice safe sex?
It’s not really accurate to describe gays as having “swung both ways”, because you fail to differentiate between orientation and behavior. In a more accepting society, you would find far fewer gays trying to live like they were straight.
That fact that all the men in Sparta had the capacity to attain erections with other men also needs further investigation.
The publich should err on the side of the conclusions of every major medical and mental health organization. Do you really think the American Academy of Pediatrics would encourage fair treatment and acceptance of homosexuality if it was correlated with pedophilia?
Give me the best study you can find on the subject, and I’ll be happy to have a look.
Not the case. I’ve never been romantically attracted to a woman, including my wife. As discussed earlier, you can have sex with a watermelon, but it doesn’t prove that you have an “impulse/attraction toward watermelons”.
You are not in a position to judge the reason for our marital difficulty, because you weren’t there. The difference in sexual orientation was a major source of pain for both my wife and myself.
Thanks for acknowledging this.
You’re entitled to your religious views. But wanting something to be true doesn’t make it so. I’ll stick with objective scientific evidence (and personal experience).