Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Shane Roach]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Heterosexuality IS a high risk lifestyle and can lead to detrimental mental/physical/social health problems[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]well I guess gays and choose to lie and pretend to be straight. I'm pretty sure that is unhealthy mentally, socially and spiritually thou[/FONT]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-24/#post51416556

Not as risky as the gay lifestyle.

See also -

Reference in this link
http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-26/#post51417594

 

[Ben-AG]

sughaNspice, I believe you are missing the point of my posts. I am not providing evidence to give me a reason to discriminate. On the contrary, if I could refer you to one of my earlier posts, I LOVE them:

"Now, when I say I want to help them, that is not implying I am a better person than they are. We ALL are sinners, everyone of us is born bent; born into iniquity. Homosexuality is not the marquee sin. On the contrary, it's not any worse than any of the others; it's listed right among fornicators, thieves, drunkards, slanderers, & swindlers- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

And, I am called to love them...and I do. Just as I hope they can love me despite all my shortcomings and flaws because, the Lord knows, we all have them."


I love them like I love my alcoholic friends. I realize that both of them lead a life that is detrimental to them in many ways and only care about their well-being.

 

[Shane Roach]

This thread, like so many others on this subject, is moving really fast without any issues being directly addressed.

I'm going to take a break and look over it later when the shotgun posting stops.

 

[Philothei]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Its loving to call a minority group a “pathology'?[/FONT]

Is it loving to lie and twist scientific data to fit an agenda? ... If science has to be "loving" it has to be truthful.... Are we being loving without truth?

 

[Shane Roach]

sughaNspice, I believe you are missing the point of my posts. I am not providing evidence to give me a reason to discriminate. On the contrary, if I could refer you to one of my earlier posts, I LOVE them:

"Now, when I say I want to help them, that is not implying I am a better person than they are. We ALL are sinners, everyone of us is born bent; born into iniquity. Homosexuality is not the marquee sin. On the contrary, it's not any worse than any of the others; it's listed right among fornicators, thieves, drunkards, slanderers, & swindlers- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

And, I am called to love them...and I do. Just as I hope they can love me despite all my shortcomings and flaws because, the Lord knows, we all have them."


I love them like I love my alcoholic best friend. I realize that both of them lead a life that is detrimental to them in many ways and only care about their well-being.

Several people who post here do not acknowledge any motivation to believe homosexuality is wrong other than prejudice or hate. Therein lies the problem with trying to tell them you are not motivated by such, although you might get some mileage out of saying you are for gay marriage but still think homosexuality is unhealthy.

Decisions regarding motives tend to be directly related to the extent to which you are willing to capitulate to the view being proposed.

Luck to you, and welcome to the forums.

 

[roflcopter101]

Homosexuality is not a disease to be treated, but it is a temptation that some people encounter...homosexuality IS a high-risk lifestyle and CAN lead to detrimental mental/physical/social heath problems.

If a person was to be born with sickle-cell anaemia, can one be reviled for giving in for temptation due to having this disease? A behaviour possibly present from birth is not a negative temptation, and not necessarily a disease nor a conscious lifestyle.
It is unfair to condemn homosexuality as a dangerous lifestyle when it is possibly present from birth, while drugs and cigarettes are arguably more harmful as well as voluntary.
Additionally, is there proof that you can cite for me showing mental or social problems? I know that homosexual sexual activity does have a higher risk of AIDS due to its very nature, but not any mental or social problems resulting from homosexuality.

 

[SughaNSpice]

sughaNspice, I believe you are missing the point of my posts. I am not providing evidence to give me a reason to discriminate. On the contrary, if I could refer you to one of my earlier posts, I LOVE them:

"Now, when I say I want to help them, that is not implying I am a better person than they are. We ALL are sinners, everyone of us is born bent; born into iniquity. Homosexuality is not the marquee sin. On the contrary, it's not any worse than any of the others; it's listed right among fornicators, thieves, drunkards, slanderers, & swindlers- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

And, I am called to love them...and I do. Just as I hope they can love me despite all my shortcomings and flaws because, the Lord knows, we all have them."


I love them like I love my alcoholic friends. I realize that both of them lead a life that is detrimental to them in many ways and only care about their well-being.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]posting false information (knowingly or otherwise) and attacking a minority group is “loving”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I hope you never decide you love me[/FONT]

 

[Fenny the Fox]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]posting false information (knowingly or otherwise) and attacking a minority group is “loving”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I hope you never decide you love me[/FONT]

Well, he may have (even knowingly) posted false information. But I have not seen him actually attack anyone. And it is apparent through what I have seen of his posts that he is not trying to do so, at least to me it is.

There is a difference between simply telling someone that they are not being safe and being mean, hateful, etc. (which would constitute an attack).

 

[Ben-AG]

Several people who post here do not acknowledge any motivation to believe homosexuality is wrong other than prejudice or hate. Therein lies the problem with trying to tell them you are not motivated by such, although you might get some mileage out of saying you are for gay marriage but still think homosexuality is unhealthy.

Decisions regarding motives tend to be directly related to the extent to which you are willing to capitulate to the view being proposed.

Luck to you, and welcome to the forums.

I agree with you, for the most part, and thank you for the welcome. Even if I think homosexuality is unhealthy, which I do, and believe in what the Bible says about homosexuality, which I do, I do not believe that forcing people to abide by the standards I live by is going to solve anything. Using alcohol as an example, although I admit this is totally different monster in itself, prohibition made criminals out of people and thus ostracized them, entrenching them deeper into the problem.

I will never advocate alcoholism but I would never want to take that freedom of choice away from them because I cannot connect with them if I am seen as an enemy. Same thing goes for gay marriage.

I hope this clarifies things about my standpoint. Homosexuals are not different from fornicators, adulterers, thieves, or any other sinner. Thus, I love them....because everybody is a sinner and God in his immense love and Grace has provided us redemption.

 

[SughaNSpice]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-24/#post51416556

Not as risky as the gay lifestyle.

See also -

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Yeah I read. Still looking for an actual copy of this in the school stacks. From everything I have read your claim isn't supported. Its not saying gays are more promiscuous and it is not saying that they have a detrimental “lifestyle” [/FONT]

Reference in this link
http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-26/#post51417594

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I am sure you didn't actually read this table.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]There is no way to claim to be able to make generalizations from it. Take a look at the percentage of gay respondents to heterosexual respondents. Gays accounted for 0.01% of responses. That isn't representative of anything. No statistician would accept anything like that level of response.[/FONT]

 

[Fenny the Fox]

If a person was to be born with sickle-cell anaemia, can one be reviled for giving in for temptation due to having this disease? A behaviour possibly present from birth is not a negative temptation, and not necessarily a disease nor a conscious lifestyle.
It is unfair to condemn homosexuality as a dangerous lifestyle when it is possibly present from birth, while drugs and cigarettes are arguably more harmful as well as voluntary.
Additionally, is there proof that you can cite for me showing mental or social problems? I know that homosexual sexual activity does have a higher risk of AIDS due to its very nature, but not any mental or social problems resulting from homosexuality.

Well, you bring a good point up. I am having a hard time finding data for mental issues outside of NARTH sites...

And as for social issues, I daresay, much of that is due to social stigma and the like. But I may be mistaking his meaning of "social problems"?

Now...I shall go smoke me a cigarette and be back after. I am making a conscious decision of high risk activity. (Just joking off you there, roflcopter. Seemed appropriate, given your name.)

 

[SughaNSpice]

Is it loving to lie and twist scientific data to fit an agenda? ... If science has to be "loving" it has to be truthful.... Are we being loving without truth?

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Well the past few pages of this thread have been largely about how scientific data is being twisted and led about to demonize gays. Paul Cameron's famous lie that gays have a life expectancy of 42 years for example. So you tell me – is it loving to twist data and lie about gays?[/FONT]

 

[Ben-AG]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]posting false information (knowingly or otherwise) and attacking a minority group is “loving”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I hope you never decide you love me[/FONT]

lol...but I do love YOU

 

[Ben-AG]

Well, you bring a good point up. I am having a hard time finding data for mental issues outside of NARTH sites...

And as for social issues, I daresay, much of that is due to social stigma and the like. But I may be mistaking his meaning of "social problems"?

Now...I shall go smoke me a cigarette and be back after. I am making a conscious decision of high risk activity. (Just joking off you there, roflcopter. Seemed appropriate, given your name.)

roflcopter, here are a couple of sites who shine some light on mental health problems and homosexuality specifically on young males.

The social construction of male homosexuality, related suicide problems and research proposals for the Twenty First Century
- Studies from the University of Calgary
- Presents a lot of percentages regarding suicide and homosexuality and even presents arguments proposed by critics and attempts to refute them

NIMH · Issues to Consider in Intervention Research with Persons at High Risk for Suicidality
-"Homosexuality has also been shown to be correlated with suicide attempts
among youth"

I'm sure there are more sites, but I do not have all the resources to access them.

 

[Shane Roach]

I agree with you, for the most part, and thank you for the welcome. Even if I think homosexuality is unhealthy, which I do, and believe in what the Bible says about homosexuality, which I do, I do not believe that forcing people to abide by the standards I live by is going to solve anything. Using alcohol as an example, although I admit this is totally different monster in itself, prohibition made criminals out of people and thus ostracized them, entrenching them deeper into the problem.

I will never advocate alcoholism but I would never want to take that freedom of choice away from them because I cannot connect with them if I am seen as an enemy. Same thing goes for gay marriage.

I hope this clarifies things about my standpoint. Homosexuals are not different from fornicators, adulterers, thieves, or any other sinner. Thus, I love them....because everybody is a sinner and God in his immense love and Grace has provided us redemption.

I've seen the damage social agendas have done to our families, and have lived through it myself, so I am not for gay marriage because it appears to be another damaging social agenda being pushed on us without merit.

It's not about religion, but then too it is, if one believes that God has revealed Himself through the world around us as the Bible claims.

Not that I am trying to run you down for not having the same view. I am just expressing mine.

 

[Shane Roach]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Yeah I read. Still looking for an actual copy of this in the school stacks. From everything I have read your claim isn't supported. Its not saying gays are more promiscuous and it is not saying that they have a detrimental “lifestyle” [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I am sure you didn't actually read this table.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]There is no way to claim to be able to make generalizations from it. Take a look at the percentage of gay respondents to heterosexual respondents. Gays accounted for 0.01% of responses. That isn't representative of anything. No statistician would accept anything like that level of response.[/FONT]

The name of the study is "Sexual Diversity in Urban Norwegians". It's pubished in The Journal of Sex Research. Is this a bad Journal? Where are you getting the idea that it is bad science? If you have a certain sample size, then that's what you have.

If you are going to compare the habits of straights to gays and bis, you're simply going to have to live with the fact that the sample size of gays and bis is going to be smaller. That's not bad statistics, that's reality.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

roflcopter, here are a couple of sites who shine some light on mental health problems and homosexuality specifically on young males.

The social construction of male homosexuality, related suicide problems and research proposals for the Twenty First Century
- Studies from the University of Calgary
- Presents a lot of percentages regarding suicide and homosexuality and even presents arguments proposed by critics and attempts to refute them

NIMH · Issues to Consider in Intervention Research with Persons at High Risk for Suicidality
-"Homosexuality has also been shown to be correlated with suicide attempts
among youth"

I'm sure there are more sites, but I do not have all the resources to access them.

Hey! Thanks, I knew they were out there. And in fact, I think I have read both of those at some point. Just couldn't re-find them.

That shows a correlation for suicide. I would love to see a more recent sample (not that it matters much).

The only thing this leaves open is to the cause of such rates. Whether it is an in-lying part of the psyche of same-sex attracted people, or if it is brought on by secondary causation outside of the attraction (regardless of if the causation is in response to the attraction as viewed by others).

 

[Spherical Time]

The name of the study is "Sexual Diversity in Urban Norwegians". It's pubished in The Journal of Sex Research. Is this a bad Journal? Where are you getting the idea that it is bad science? If you have a certain sample size, then that's what you have.

If you are going to compare the habits of straights to gays and bis, you're simply going to have to live with the fact that the sample size of gays and bis is going to be smaller. That's not bad statistics, that's reality.

Smaller does not mean "nearly nonexistent."

If the presumed number of gay people is a very low 1%, and the percentage of respondents was .01%, then it is not a representative sample. That is bad statistics.

Possibly there was a selection bias of some kind, and the few gays that they managed to find and interview were not representative of the gay subpopulation as a whole.

 

[Shane Roach]

Smaller does not mean "nearly nonexistent."

If the presumed number of gay people is a very low 1%, and the percentage of respondents was .01%, then it is not a representative sample. That is bad statistics.

Possibly there was a selection bias of some kind, and the few gays that they managed to find and interview were not representative of the gay subpopulation as a whole.

Well, that's the hazard of just reading comments. The total of gays was 1.6%

33/(1779+143+33)=33/1955=.016879...=1.7%.

Look at the info I posted, not at what someone else wrote about the info I posted without bothering to include it in their response.

Now admittedly, I do not think screen shots survive the quote mechanism... But still.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Smaller does not mean "nearly nonexistent."

If the presumed number of gay people is a very low 1%, and the percentage of respondents was .01%, then it is not a representative sample. That is bad statistics.

Possibly there was a selection bias of some kind, and the few gays that they managed to find and interview were not representative of the gay subpopulation as a whole.

This is a problem for any sampling done.

But, is 1/100 of the total population (of a group) bad statistics? Also, the number of "out and proud, open" gays is not that high, much lower even than the 1% mark, in most places, which would possibly make the statistics that much more skewed than average sampling permits.