Good information on 'Born Gay' Studies

[Guest LadyC]

sylvan, people don't choose to be addicts either, yet once an addict it takes over their life and they are no longer in control. they are in bondage. people can be in bondage to any sin, and homosexuals are indeed in bondage.

2ndeve, there probably isn't an explanation that can satisfy an unbeliever. although even many unbelievers who are wise enough to acknowledge the pain they've experienced in their own lives (and witnessed in others) understand that sexual relationships without a life-commitment are emotionally harmful, and can be physically harmful as well.

I don't think that comparing sexual orientation to drug addiction is valid. Drug addiction has effects that are most definitely physically and sociologically detrimental. The argument that says this is the case regarding sexual orientation is shaky at best.

For example, one might argue that homosexual men run the risk of AIDS, but that won't hold true about gay women. Also, there would definitely be examples where homosexual couples have comported themselves in acceptable ways (i.e. have remained with one partner, contributed to society in a positive way).

i wasn't comparing homosexuality to anything. you missed my entire point, which is that homosexuals are in bondage to their sinful nature.

that being said, homosexuality can indeed be detrimental in all those ways, and aids is not the only physical risk. ALL sexual behaviour outside of God's plan is leaving the person wide open for all sorts of emotional, physical, and more imoprtantly eternal misery.

[sylvan3]

sylvan, people don't choose to be addicts either, yet once an addict it takes over their life and they are no longer in control. they are in bondage. people can be in bondage to any sin, and homosexuals are indeed in bondage.

2ndeve, there probably isn't an explanation that can satisfy an unbeliever. although even many unbelievers who are wise enough to acknowledge the pain they've experienced in their own lives (and witnessed in others) understand that sexual relationships without a life-commitment are emotionally harmful, and can be physically harmful as well.

I don't think that comparing sexual orientation to drug addiction is valid. Drug addiction has effects that are most definitely physically and sociologically detrimental. The argument that says this is the case regarding sexual orientation is shaky at best.

For example, one might argue that homosexual men run the risk of AIDS, but that won't hold true about gay women. Also, there would definitely be examples where homosexual couples have comported themselves in acceptable ways (i.e. have remained with one partner, contributed to society in a positive way).

i wasn't comparing homosexuality to anything. you missed my entire point, which is that homosexuals are in bondage to their sinful nature.

that being said, homosexuality can indeed be detrimental in all those ways, and aids is not the only physical risk. ALL sexual behaviour outside of God's plan is leaving the person wide open for all sorts of emotional, physical, and more imoprtantly eternal misery.

I did not miss your point. However, you mentioned addiction, saying that it "takes over their life" and, "they are in bondage". You then state that homosexuals are "in bondage." If that is not a comparison to addiction, why even mention it?

As for your point, I don't believe that homosexuals are more in bondage to their sexual desires, which you claim are sinful because they are outside God's "plan", than heterosexuals are to their sexual desires, which might be within God's "plan". It seems to me that many who have followed what they thought was God's plan regarding sexual behavior ended up in divorce, or worse in some cases.

Edited August 9, 2006 by sylvan3

[Pax]

It is very difficult to debate why homosexuality is wrong with a person who has little or no faith. This is one reason why homosexuality is becoming so accepted by our society. As our society gets farther away from God, we get blinded by sin. Then nothing is wrong, be it homosexuality, abortion, embryoinic stem cell research, drugs, pornography, premartial sex etc. The only thing that is wrong is religion. Kind of ironic isn't it.

Why is homosexuality wrong? If you are talking to a non Christian don't waste your time quoting the Bible. They don't care. You have to lay out an argument without using religion. What can heterosexuals do that homosexuals can't do??? Create children. Men and women are compatiable to engage in sexual acts, and when this happens there is a possibility that a new life will be created. Homosexuals can't do this. I might also add that two men having sex isn't natural and there is often times physical consequences involved.

How does homosexuality hurt others around them? First of all it undermines heterosexual relationships and especially the institution of marriage. It says to society that hey two men getting married is the same as a man and women getting married. As pointed out above it isn't the same. It also skews what is right and what is wrong, so that you have a whole generation of young people growing up thinking that homosexuality is o.k.

This part takes faith to understand, but sin affects everyone of us. Sin takes away grace not only from the person commiting the sin, but all of us. Grace is the super natural power we need to overcome temptation and sin and hopefully lead us to heaven.

As far as the argument of whether homosexuality is a choice or not isn't relavent. If a person has homosexual tendancies than they should fight the tempatation. Just like a heterosexual should fight the temptation not to have pre-maritial sex, or commit adulty.

[Floatingaxe]

I need to say something here about homosexuality. I have been thinking about how people have been so easily falling into this behaviour and I have a thought about how some young people are deluded into it.

Male qualities run the gamut from "manly man" to effeminate...all are accceptable. Females run from "girly girl" to masculine as well. I believe that very often a boy or young man who exhibits effeminate qualities while growing up is treated badly and mocked by others, and so they come to believe that they may be different and even homosexual. A girl, likewise. When they grow up they turn to that behaviour because they have learned that to be effeminate if you are a boy and "butchy" if you are a girl means homosexual! That is so far from the truth, and I do believe that this happens!

God made us all! Some men are effeminate, and we should embrace them and some women tend to masculine, and we should embrace them! There is room for all types! This early negative imprinting upon such children about their behaviour is harming them, and causing them to believe a lie from the pit of Hell about themselves!

We need to teach our youth to stand up to mockery and continue being themselves without believing that they are homosexual in any way.

I know a few effeminate men who are happily married with children today, and likewise I know of masculine women who have wonderful husbands and children. They have no doubt undergone negative stereotyping in their pasts and have endured. Let's teach our children about such endurance!

Let's counteract that lie!

[carrielles]

how are gay people producing any offspring? Doesn't that negate being gay? Sounds fishy to me.

[billie]

Homosexuals will counter this argument by saying there will always be straight people who don't want their kids so we can adopt them, or we can use a sperm/egg from one of us and a donor egg/sperm and male couples can use a surrogate mother, etc. With scientific advances today, almost anything's possible. Wrong, being outside of God's will, but possible.

[secondeve]

You have to lay out an argument without using religion. What can heterosexuals do that homosexuals can't do??? Create children. Men and women are compatiable to engage in sexual acts, and when this happens there is a possibility that a new life will be created. Homosexuals can't do this. I might also add that two men having sex isn't natural and there is often times physical consequences involved.

1. Sex is not, in nature, exclusively used for procreation. We have sex for pleasure - so do other intelligent species, like dolphins and monkeys. You'd be wrong if you thought that every time someone has sex they're thinking about kids; and while you possibly believe we should be thinking about children only as a motivation for intercourse, that's not the case and I don't think I'm alone in believing it shouldn't be. If sex was divinely ordained to be all about procreation, those who are barren or sterile would have no urge to engage in the act - nor should they, following this logic, because no children can ensue. We have sex to show love, affection, closeness or to share passion. It's a bonding experience between a pair as much as anything else.

2. By consequences, I assume you mean AIDS? How recent a disease is that? And, more to the point, it isn't exlcusive to gay men, any more that syphilis or any other historical STD's were exlusive to gay or straight folk. So the "consequences" are universal - not just because it's two blokes.

How does homosexuality hurt others around them? First of all it undermines heterosexual relationships and especially the institution of marriage. It says to society that hey two men getting married is the same as a man and women getting married. As pointed out above it isn't the same. It also skews what is right and what is wrong, so that you have a whole generation of young people growing up thinking that homosexuality is o.k.

You're just saying it undermines marriage without stating how this is so. To you, it seems, it is self-evident that gayness undermines the idea of marriages; not so to all of us. Give reasons why. We don't get married exclusively to have children. There are childless married couples, or barren ones. If having children - or the potential to have children - is what you define as the purpose of marriage, then only fertile heteros should be able to marry. Not the case. Specific to men and women, then? But why, if children isn't the only reason? People get married out of love, because love is intimate and marriage is a symbol expressing respect and intimacy. And love is not exlusive to hetero couples, as I think a US spreme court ruling upheld in recent months.

As for undermining hetero relationships - how is this even possible? Are people less in love with their partners because there are gay folk about? Do they refrain from marrying because the institution is tainted? No. This is a baseless assertion, unless you've some evidence to suggest otherwise. As for right and wrong - as you pointed out, that morality isn't necessarily commonsense or logical unless you're religious, and even then it isn't a certainty. So believe what you will, but don't act as though it should be blatantly obvious to the rest of us.

I need to say something here about homosexuality. I have been thinking about how people have been so easily falling into this behaviour and I have a thought about how some young people are deluded into it.

Male qualities run the gamut from "manly man" to effeminate...all are accceptable. Females run from "girly girl" to masculine as well. I believe that very often a boy or young man who exhibits effeminate qualities while growing up is treated badly and mocked by others, and so they come to believe that they may be different and even homosexual. A girl, likewise. When they grow up they turn to that behaviour because they have learned that to be effeminate if you are a boy and "butchy" if you are a girl means homosexual! That is so far from the truth, and I do believe that this happens!

I highly doubt this is true in all instances - as you have said yourself, there are muscly, butch blokes who nobody would ever think to call "gay," but who nonetheless are; and there are effeminate men who are straight, like the ones you've mentioned. Social conditioning is not responsible for sexuality in every instance - although, I'll grant you, it probably has been in certain cases.

Take me, for example. I'm a girl who, from years seven through twelve, was more often than not the only girl in a group of otherwise all-male friends. I get along better with men than women as a general rule of thumb, and have very few female friends. I got called a tomboy for most of my childhood and adolsecence. Parents of friends thought I was gay, and in more than one instance went and asked their child if I was (and of couse, the child told me. Much laughter). For all that, though, while I'm happy to appreciate that some women are more attractive than others, I'm really only interested in men.

how are gay people producing any offspring? Doesn't that negate being gay? Sounds fishy to me.

There's more than one case of someone gay who wants kids either going to a sperm bank (woman) or making an arrangement with a friend (male). Also, there's incidents of gay guys leading double lives, married with kids but with a gay lover. Being gay doesn't make you sterile; it just means you have to go out of your way to reproduce.

[secondeve]

Oh, one more thought. Marriage is not an exclusively Christian institution. Christianity doesn't "own" marriage as an idea; no religion does. I think individual churches should have the right to make up their minds on accpeting gay marriage or not, but the moralism of one group shouldn't be applied to a concept which is bigger, older and more universal than their faith.

[billie]

God created marriage. God owns marriage. You're right, Eve. No religion owns it. He owns it. It's a gift from Him to us, so we could experience oneness as husband and wife, just as He experiences Oneness in three in the Trinity. Our faith and the idea of marriage both come from the same source: God.

[secondeve]

God created marriage. God owns marriage. You're right, Eve. No religion owns it. He owns it. It's a gift from Him to us, so we could experience oneness as husband and wife, just as He experiences Oneness in three in the Trinity. Our faith and the idea of marriage both come from the same source: God.

I know what you mean: you believe that God created the world & everything in it, so that he created marraige for everyone. What I mean is that, historically, I don't think it's possible to believe that the world and all its cultures are 6000 years old, because we have evidence of cultures going back much longer than that. Ancient China, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Germany et al had concepts of marraige, which most certainly didn't stem from Judaism or Christianity. Now. If you believe this, it might still be possible to argue that God created the world and marriage in a different time-frame; but I don't think that adequately explains the cultural differences of the idea.