Gay Agenda?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
223

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
http://www.narth.com/docs/nearly.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/concluded.html
http://www.narth.com/menus/cstudies.html

Dude, take a step back and look at your source. Narth is a political organization specifically dedicated to the eradication of homosexuality from society.

You can’t compare what they say to the scientific conclusions unanimously reached by every major medical and mental health organization.

[/quote]

So far, you haven’t provided any. Makkun did your dirty work for you, and all he provided were the latest findings showing the relationship b/w maternal fecundity and FBO w/the incidence of homosexuality, but even those results don’t account for all of the homosexuals. He also provided links showing the ineffectiveness of conversion therapy. You’ve stated numerous times that you think genetics make up a part of homosexual orientation. I agree. Now where are the studies exploring the other parts? This “hundreds of peer-reviewed studies” mantra is starting to sound like homosexual propaganda, especially since the evidence for a genetic cause of homosexuality is very recent(and doesn’t account for all of the cases), yet it was de-listed from the DSM-IV over 35 years ago, before any genetic causes were even known. Since that’s the case, it’s ludicrous for you sit there and tell us that the science, in the case of homosexuality, hasn’t been influenced by homosexual activism. Completely ludicrous.

224

This is so laughable. Researchers are interested in getting funding. And who provides a lot of that funding? Politicians. Who influences politicians? Lobbyists.

225

[quote]StephenD wrote:
thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

leviticus 18:22

abomination = a vile, shamefull or detestable action.

in gods opinion[/quote]

Keep reading, there are a few other interesting abominations listed in Leviticus.

What about god’s opinion on shellfish being an abomination:

[quote]Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.[/quote]

What about god’s opinion on the evils of wearing mixed fibers:

What about god’s opinion on having sex with a woman during her menstrual period:

Not to mention eating pork:

And cutting your hair in a certain way:

All from the same book you just quoted.

Of course, someone will point out that everything in Leviticus no longer applies because Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses.

But then they ignore all the prohibitions in the New Testament which are along similar lines (women can’t have their heads uncovered or speak in church, slaves should obey their masters in all things, women should be stoned to death if found not to be a virgin on their wedding night, etc.)

226

I already addressed this on page 1 of this thread. If it would address the promiscuity issue that causes disease spreading, I probably would. But I think the idea that making gay “marriage” available will lead to a decrease in promiscuity to be absurd. People are promiscuous because they want to be promiscuous, not because marriage is or isn’t available. I have straight friends who’ve been with hundreds of women even though they can marry one of their choosing. They simply like to sleep around.

228

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yes, I understand the arguments for the traditional family. Is a traditional upbringing an necessary upbringing? Can children not develop to the their utmost potential in the care of a same-sex couple? If not, why not?[/quote]

I agree with you. The research conducted on children of same sex parents shows that these children develop normally, are equally healthy, and are no more likely to be gay than children of straight parents.

229

That’s not in the New Testament.

230

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
You’ve stated numerous times that you think genetics make up a part of homosexual orientation. I agree.[/quote]

Then why discuss it further? We both agree that sexual orientation is due to a combination of both genetics and other factors (hormonal, environmental, etc.).

231

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
This is so laughable. Researchers are interested in getting funding. And who provides a lot of that funding? Politicians. Who influences politicians? Lobbyists.
[/quote]

As I said before, the nice thing about science is that you can conduct the same study under the same conditions and observe the same results.

Politicians and funding potentially affect people on both sides of the issue. However, people basing their conclusions solely on personal opinion aren’t able to objectively demonstrate evidence for their conclusions, nor can others independently validate such evidence.

232

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
You’ve stated numerous times that you think genetics make up a part of homosexual orientation. I agree.

Then why discuss it further? We both agree that sexual orientation is due to a combination of both genetics and other factors (hormonal, environmental, etc.).
[/quote]

Earth to ForLife: because environmental, hormonal, psychological, and (soon) genetic issues can be addressed. Many parents would rather their kids not be homosexual.

233

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
If it would address the promiscuity issue that causes disease spreading, I probably would.[/quote]

Good to hear. What do you think about the study I shared earlier showing that gay married couples have lower rates of siphilus compared to unmarried gays?

If your straight friends are married, don’t you think it is less likely they will sleep with hundreds of women than if they’re not married? Obviously adultery exists, but marriage reduces the prevalence to some degree.

234

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
stoned to death if found not to be a virgin on their wedding night, etc.

That’s not in the New Testament.
[/quote]

Good call, I missed that it was actually in Deuteronomy. I stand by the other New Testament verses which people ignore:

“Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering.” (1 Corinthians 11:13-15)

“Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says.” (1 Corinthians 14:34)

“Slaves are to be submissive to their masters in everything, and to be well-pleasing, not talking back .” (Titus 2:9)

“Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5)

“Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don’t work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.” (Colossians 3:22)

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. " (1 Peter 2:18)

235

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Earth to ForLife: because environmental, hormonal, psychological, and (soon) genetic issues can be addressed. Many parents would rather their kids not be homosexual. [/quote]

Still, sexual orientation can’t currently be changed and there are many people that wouldn’t want to change their orientation even if they had the choice to do so.

Equally important, attempting to change the sexual orientation of gays has been shown to have significant negative effects including double the risk of depression, anxiety, drug/alcohol abuse, and suicidal thoughts.

237

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
This is so laughable. Researchers are interested in getting funding. And who provides a lot of that funding? Politicians. Who influences politicians? Lobbyists.

As I said before, the nice thing about science is that you can conduct the same study under the same conditions and observe the same results.

Politicians and funding potentially affect people on both sides of the issue. However, people basing their conclusions solely on personal opinion aren’t able to objectively demonstrate evidence for their conclusions, nor can others independently validate such evidence.[/quote]

The problem is not the repeatability of results, but the direction of the research. “We simply must find a genetic cause!” Why? “Because that’s what we need to find!” Where are the studies exploring the other causes? If, at the end of the day, the cause is 100% genetic, fine. But you can’t know that if you are unwilling look for other causes.

238

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
stoned to death if found not to be a virgin on their wedding night, etc.

That’s not in the New Testament.

Good call, I missed that it was actually in Deuteronomy. I stand by the other New Testament verses which people ignore:

“Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering.” (1 Corinthians 11:13-15)

“Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says.” (1 Corinthians 14:34)

“Slaves are to be submissive to their masters in everything, and to be well-pleasing, not talking back .” (Titus 2:9)

“Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5)

“Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don’t work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.” (Colossians 3:22)

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. " (1 Peter 2:18)
[/quote]

I’m the wrong guy to get into a Bible discussion with. But if you want to trail off into that non-sequitur, fine.

239

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Earth to ForLife: because environmental, hormonal, psychological, and (soon) genetic issues can be addressed. Many parents would rather their kids not be homosexual.

Still, sexual orientation can’t currently be changed and there are many people that wouldn’t want to change their orientation even if they had the choice to do so.

Equally important, attempting to change the sexual orientation of gays has been shown to have significant negative effects including double the risk of depression, anxiety, drug/alcohol abuse, and suicidal thoughts.[/quote]

It can’t currently be changed because it has been declared unethical to try. This argument is circular. Current conversion therapies have produced bad results, which you have mentioned. Now, it is unethical to try better therapy with better results.

Just b/c sexual orientation can’t currently be changed, doesn’t mean that it won’t be changeable in the future. It wasn’t always possible to make yourself into a woman, was it? Now it is. But if it’s “unethical” to try to change it, then I guess we’ll never know if it’s possible, now will we?

240

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
The problem is not the repeatability of results, but the direction of the research. “We simply must find a genetic cause!” Why? “Because that’s what we need to find!” Where are the studies exploring the other causes? If, at the end of the day, the cause is 100% genetic, fine. But you can’t know that if you are unwilling look for other causes. [/quote]

I don’t see selective research happening on this issue, but even if it did the data won’t support a hypothesis which is unsupportable. The vast majority of researchers on sexual orientation have concluded that it develops in response to both genetic and environmental factors, just as you and I agree.