Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Polycarp1]

It's strange that you talk this way but have a Darwin sticker in your signature. If you understood the basics of Darwin you would not be saying this. I mean, if you actually understood the mechanics of things.

It may be strange to conceive, but evolutionists do not look on Darwin as someone who came back from the Galapagos Islands with two tablets that outlined the dogma of evolution. He was a scientist, drawing conclusions from observation. Those conclusions were and are subject to review, critique, and replacement by better conclusions derived from more and better observations. As has happened. Genetics, cladistics, the study if symbiosis, ecology, punctuated equilibrium: all have modified the basic Darwinian theory to arrive at better theory.

In biology the word "sex" as a verb means "reproduction between a male and a female".

That's one of several definitions. Courtship rituals, the physiological differentiation between male and female, genetics -- all play a part in the general concept of 'sex'. A "same-sex community of monastics" is saying that they are all men or all women, not that they're engaged in sexual activity -- their vows preclude that. Our moderator Bread Alone is of male sex even though he is a committed Christian too young to marry, and hence presumably celibate. In that case it's referring to his physiological equipment or to his having XY rather than XX chromosomes.

In Darwin's world there is no such thing as homosexuality. It really is a misnomer. "Homosexphilia" is a much more accurate and scientific word. Dang psychologists and their "soft science" gets it all screwed up.

First off, it's an incompetent coinage according to the rules for coining new technical terms. Second, biological observation sees homosexual behavior among many non-humsn animals.

You see, in the world of biology there are two forms of reproduction: sexual and asexual. Contrary to popular belief asexuality does not mean a lack of warm fuzzy feelings. It means reproduction by copying yourself. Bacteria reproduce asexually. Sex, meaning reproduction between a male and female, evolved to facilitate more genetic diversity than can be afforded by one individual mutating a little and then copying himself. Of course in order to have sexual reproduction you need the different sexes. Thus, male and female.

And if you care to reduce everything to reproduction, you might have a point. However, worshipping God, raising food, producing and selling merchandise and services, all have nothing to do with reproduction. Neither does comforting the afflicted, coming to the relief of the poor or injured, or virtually every virtuous traits. As a matter of fact, the martial arts discipline of karate and the occupation of cattle-tender have nothing to do with reproduction.

And there you have it: the whole reason for the existence of male and female forms of the species is to reproduce with each other. Now according to Darwinian biology some species have developed something called sexual dimorphism, which adds some bits and pieces to it, but more or less that's how it is.

And this is quite true -- but only a piece of the puzzle. Take, for example, the male role in reproduction. When he [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] his sperm into the female, he is done with reproduction per se. What makes humans what they are is that he sticks around, cares for the female -- they mate sometimes not for reproduction but for mutual pleasure -- he helps raise their offspring, he nurtures and cares for those children. And sometimes individuals or couples who cannot or prefer not to have their own biological offspring take in orphaned children and raise them, giving them the parenting they need and have not been getting from their biological parents, whether by death, abandonment, abuse, neglect, institutionalization for mental or physical defect, or whatever. Many -- in fact, the plurality -- of commited gay couples do this, as do many non-purposefully childless couples. Others choose to seek medical assistance to conceive when they are unable to without it -- fertility clinics, in vitro fertilization, host mothers, sperm donors, etc. Infertile straight couples, single people who wish to have children, gay couples, all may do this.

According to Darwin's laws there is no such "homo" variety of sexuality. There simply is or is not sexuality. Hence the Latin prefix "a" meaning "without". So we have "reproducing by copulation with a member of the opposite sex" or simply copying yourself. "Homo" sexuality is like "square" circles. It does not exist. You will never, ever, ever, ever, ever see a sperm fertilizing a sperm, or an egg fertilizing an egg. It does not happen.

Look up how aphids reproduce. Or bacteria. Or myxomycetes. Biology is significantly more complex than they taught in ninth grade science.

Finally, there is the matter of being anti-Darwin. People would probably say that you don't get more anti-evolution than Creationism, but you do. It's called "homosexuality". Homosexuality is anti-reproduction and thus anti-evolution. The day homosexuality wins the species loses. Homosexuality is to humans what a big giant meteorite was to the dinosaurs. Homosexuality is pretty much the ultimate evolutionary failure. Homosexuality is to Darwin what 666 is to Christianity. Homosexuality is The Anti-Darwin.

What you have erected here is so much a straw man that I would not be overly surprised to see that paragraph break into a spirited rendition of "If I Only Had a Brain" -- which might, now I think about it, be appropriate for it.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Wow... Are you a parent?

What part of the phrase “either of my boys” is confusing you?

Because I am, and I have rules that are to be obeyed, and if they are not, there is punishment. These rules are to insure their well being and happiness, as well as, their ability to function well in this world. My punishment, if needed, does not mean I hate them, on the contrary, I punish them out of love and with love.

I have never demanded my children lie or demanded they be something they are not.

 

[BigBadWlf]

It's strange that you talk this way but have a Darwin sticker in your signature. If you understood the basics of Darwin you would not be saying this. I mean, if you actually understood the mechanics of things.

In biology the word "sex" as a verb means "reproduction between a male and a female". In Darwin's world there is no such thing as homosexuality. It really is a misnomer. "Homosexphilia" is a much more accurate and scientific word. Dang psychologists and their "soft science" gets it all screwed up.

You see, in the world of biology there are two forms of reproduction: sexual and asexual. Contrary to popular belief asexuality does not mean a lack of warm fuzzy feelings. It means reproduction by copying yourself. Bacteria reproduce asexually. Sex, meaning reproduction between a male and female, evolved to facilitate more genetic diversity than can be afforded by one individual mutating a little and then copying himself. Of course in order to have sexual reproduction you need the different sexes. Thus, male and female.

And there you have it: the whole reason for the existence of male and female forms of the species is to reproduce with each other. Now according to Darwinian biology some species have developed something called sexual dimorphism, which adds some bits and pieces to it, but more or less that's how it is.

According to Darwin's laws there is no such "homo" variety of sexuality. There simply is or is not sexuality. Hence the Latin prefix "a" meaning "without". So we have "reproducing by copulation with a member of the opposite sex" or simply copying yourself. "Homo" sexuality is like "square" circles. It does not exist. You will never, ever, ever, ever, ever see a sperm fertilizing a sperm, or an egg fertilizing an egg. It does not happen.

Finally, there is the matter of being anti-Darwin. People would probably say that you don't get more anti-evolution than Creationism, but you do. It's called "homosexuality". Homosexuality is anti-reproduction and thus anti-evolution. The day homosexuality wins the species loses. Homosexuality is to humans what a big giant meteorite was to the dinosaurs. Homosexuality is pretty much the ultimate evolutionary failure. Homosexuality is to Darwin what 666 is to Christianity. Homosexuality is The Anti-Darwin.

You are demonstrating you don’t know anything about genetics or evolution

 

[BigBadWlf]

In other words, tell us the real world consequences of homosexuality.

Does it lead to earthquakes? Cause loss in battle? The spread of plague?

What are the bad things that are going to happen if homosexuality is treated as openly and as nonchalantly as heterosexuality is? There is an obnoxious sort of circular reasoning here:

Person 1: Homosexuality is wrong.
Person 2: Why?
Person 1: Because God says so in the Bible.
Person 2: Why does God think it is bad?
Person 1: Because it is wrong?

So let's stop that cycle and cut to the chase. Anyone feel like answering my questions?

Sadly many Christians are more than happy to (unknowingly???) present false information on this topic. Read any-of the anti-gay threads around here and you will see most of them being repeated over and over and over.

I suppose the fact that there are no real world consequences means they have to make things up

 

[Shane Roach]

So I've read through the thread.

What is the problem with homosexuality, again? Pretend for a moment that we are not Christians - gasp - and that even if God does clearly condemn homosexuality, we can't quite bring ourselves to care, or we are Christians who are unconvinced that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible.

In other words, tell us the real world consequences of homosexuality.

Does it lead to earthquakes? Cause loss in battle? The spread of plague?

What are the bad things that are going to happen if homosexuality is treated as openly and as nonchalantly as heterosexuality is? There is an obnoxious sort of circular reasoning here:

Person 1: Homosexuality is wrong.
Person 2: Why?
Person 1: Because God says so in the Bible.
Person 2: Why does God think it is bad?
Person 1: Because it is wrong?

So let's stop that cycle and cut to the chase. Anyone feel like answering my questions?

The Bible refers to it as an abomination. Of course, a lot of things are referred to as an abomination, but rarely do they also carry with them the death penalty.

The Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah illustates one reason. It had become so immoral that bands of men (probably not necessarily exclusively homosexual, but willing to engage nonetheless) who would rape innocent men (or women). This is the prison sex model of homosexuality basically, and it exists to this day.

Also, you can see in our own time the example that AIDS first spread thanks to homosexual males, who it appears have an ages long tendency to be militantly promiscuous. It is well established that the medical community warned gays of the risks of gay bath house sex and so forth, and they not only did not willingly stop participating in such behaviors, but resisted attempts to have laws passed to restrict the same at first.

Finally, we see in the nations of Europe where this has become accepted that the already deteriorated state of marriage simply bottoms out after a period of time.

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia

"(Sweden registered the lowest marriage rate in recorded history in 1997)" among other factoids.

Despite the psychiatric community declaring it perfectly healthy, gays of both genders exhibit higher rates of various detrimental health and psychological issues. The psychiatric community attempts, perhaps for the first time in history, to diagnose all of society as sick and at fault for causing homosexuals problems. I think this is clearly outside the purview of psychiatry, but it doesn't seem to matter to most gay activists and their supporters.

And finally there is exactly the issue we are dealing with now. I think given the history of homosexuality, it is clear that it is always going to be a deeply disturbing issue for most, and divisive whenever people begin to try to define away this innate discomfort over the issue. Even the greeks had endless discussions over the acceptability of various types of homosexuality, or unacceptability thereof.

There is very little positive about homosexuality when one actually begins to look at it, and I think the better question is why would anyone decide that it is important to normalize the behavior?

 

[BigBadWlf]

The Bible refers to it as an abomination. Of course, a lot of things are referred to as an abomination, but rarely do they also carry with them the death penalty.

So what is your preferred method of killing gays and lesbians?

Or don’t you follow the laws of Leviticus yourself?

The Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah illustates one reason. It had become so immoral that bands of men (probably not necessarily exclusively homosexual, but willing to engage nonetheless) who would rape innocent men (or women). This is the prison sex model of homosexuality basically, and it exists to this day.

"This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes." Ezekiel 16:48-49


I guess God didn’t know what he was talking about. Maybe he should have consulted you as to the reason he destroyed Sodom

Also, you can see in our own time the example that AIDS first spread thanks to homosexual males,

Actually it began and remains most prevalent among heterosexuals. The oldest cases are all among heterosexuals and their children. But you already knew that.

What is interesting is that the majority of individuals infected with HIV/AIDS are non-whites…(less than 2% of all HIV cases are among Caucasians www.who.int/ )
Since you are trying to use HIV/AIDS as a justification for anti-gay prejudice are you also willing to use HIV/AIDS as a justification for racism?…or would that be wrong?

who it appears have an ages long tendency to be militantly promiscuous.

Ref: http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-9/#post51364911


Of course gays and lesbians are not more promiscuous than heterosexuals. In fact research shows them to be slightly less promiscuous

Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert Michael, and Stuart Michaels, 1994. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Found no difference in the numbers of lifetime sexual partners when comparing heterosexual men to gay men.

Vierod E. A. “Prevalence and trends in homosexual behavior in Norway” Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine. 1997. Vo. 25(1):33-38. Studied large numbers of heterosexual and gay men over a period of years. It was found that Gay men averaged 1 sexual partner in a given year. Heterosexual men, on the other hand, averaged 4.6 partners per year.

Dolcini “Demographic Characterizes of Heterosexuals with Multiple Partners: The National AIDS Behavioral Surveys” Family Planning Perspectives. 1993. Vol. 25 (5): 203-214 found gay men had significantly fewer sexual partners compared to heterosexual men:
Gay men:
0 partners-10.5%,
1 partner-77.9%,
2 or more-11.2%
heterosexual men:
0 partners-17.9%,
1 partner 53.1.9%
2 or more 29.1%

Bryant and Demian “Partners National Survey of Lesbian & Gay Couples” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services (Vol. 1, #2, 1994) found that 78% of gay men were either in a mutually monogamous relationship or was celibate. They also found that 26.4% of married heterosexual men were having sexual contact with at least one other woman (a quarter of these men were having sexual intercourse with multiple women)

It is well established that the medical community warned gays of the risks of gay bath house sex and so forth, and they not only did not willingly stop participating in such behaviors, but resisted attempts to have laws passed to restrict the same at first.

Still wondering if you would be willing to use the fact that the vast majority HIV/AIDS are non-whites as a justification of racism…or would that be wrong?

Finally, we see in the nations of Europe where this has become accepted that the already deteriorated state of marriage simply bottoms out after a period of time.

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia

"(Sweden registered the lowest marriage rate in recorded history in 1997)" among other factoids.

Even if this were true…and the way this has been shredded in its own thread indicates it is not…it has nothing to do with the topic

Despite the psychiatric community declaring it perfectly healthy, gays of both genders exhibit higher rates of various detrimental health and psychological issues. The psychiatric community attempts, perhaps for the first time in history, to diagnose all of society as sick and at fault for causing homosexuals problems. I think this is clearly outside the purview of psychiatry, but it doesn't seem to matter to most gay activists and their supporters.

The APA disagrees with you. They say that it isn’t being gay but rather being subjected to hatred and bigotry on a constant basis that is the real problem
“The widespread prejudice, discrimination, and violence to which lesbians and gay men are often subjected are significant mental health concerns. Sexual prejudice, sexual orientation discrimination, and antigay violence are major sources of stress for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Although social support is crucial in coping with stress, antigay attitudes and discrimination may make it difficult for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people to find such support.” http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatisimpact

 

[Shane Roach]

In the US AIDS is much higher in occurrence to this day among homosexuals in terms of percentage.

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/HealthHosx2.htm#edn10

8. "Bisexuals Serve as 'Bridge' Infecting Women With HIV," Reuters News Service (July 30, 2000). Available at: Search Results for "mb.com".
9. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see alsoBell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
10. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.
11. "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20.


I would be interested in more on this study in Norway though.

 

[BigBadWlf]

In the US AIDS is much higher in occurrence to this day among homosexuals in terms of percentage.

And the vast majority of cases are among African American’s and Hispanics.

Non whites constitute 98% of all cases of HIV/AIDS http://www.who.int/
And heterosexual account for 92% of all known cases of HIV/AIDS http://www.who.int/

Again, since you are trying to use HIV/AIDS as a justification for anti-gay prejudice are you also willing to use HIV/AIDS as a justification for racism?…or would that be wrong?

Homosexual & Healthy?

If this was an attempt to try to pretend that gays and lesbians are somehow more promiscuous than heterosexuals then it fails. What is presented is pretty commonly known as blatant lies and misrepresentations of legitimate research presented by various Christian groups.
Its really dad you had to link to a recognized hate group.

And Timothy Daily’s essay has been debunked and shown to contain hundreds of lies and misrepresentations so many times around here….again terribly sad

9. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see alsoBell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).

It is pretty common to see the work of Bell and Weinberg being misrepresented. The Bell and Weinberg study is often misused to create the alleged promiscuity of the homosexual community. The Bell/Weinberg study was an important study, is well accepted and for what it was. However, the authors themselves disagree with the claims being made and have explicitly asked those misrepresenting their work to further their own political ends.

Bell and Weisnberg indicate that the study is absolutely not generalizeable to the population of homosexuals at large and cannot serve as a comparative to heterosexual sexual behavior

The reasons Bell & Weinberg themselves state that their study and findings are not gerneralizable:
1) The sampling of the homosexuals in the study was not random.
The samples were taken from the following places: singles bars (22%), gay baths (9%), public places (=guys hanging out in parks to find sex partners; 6%), private bars (=sex clubs; 5%), personal contacts (people that the bar people, public place people, bath house people, etc, knew personally and referred; 23%), public advertising + organizations + mailing lists (29%).

2) Lack of a control group
They included no heterosexual data. Weinberg notes in an interview with Mark Yarhouse that… “It is possible that the heterosexual statistics [on promiscuity] were equally high, and could have shown that the data does not represent promiscuity specifically among gays, but of the sexually active single person in San Francisco in the 1970's.”

While Bell and Weinberg did a survey of heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, they didn't include the heterosexual data. For example, while they claim that one homosexual respondent claims to have had sex with over 10,000 people, and a large percentage of their sample claim to have had sex with over 500 people, there is no correlative data on the heterosexual sample. For all the reader knows, the heterosexual sample may have had a greater number of sexual partners than the homosexual sample. Without this control group, we cannot generalize their sample to the population at large, because we do not know that their population represents national norms since we have no heterosexual control group.
3) used Kinsey 2-6 for their inclusion of homosexual population.
Their sample does not represent only homosexual persons, but also includes bisexual persons.

10. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.

A blatant lie on Daily’s part. Here is what Van de Ven actually wrote:
“…the older men had either 1 (28.5%)or between 2-5 (44.9%) partners and (23.9%) had had between 5 and 10 partners ever.” P. Vande Ven A Comparative DSemographic and Sexual Profile of older homosexually active Men. Journal of Sex Research 1997 Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 349-360

 

[Shane Roach]

A blatant lie on Daily’s part. Here is what Van de Ven actually wrote:
“…the older men had either 1 (28.5&#37or between 2-5 (44.9%) partners and (23.9%) had had between 5 and 10 partners ever.” P. Vande Ven A Comparative DSemographic and Sexual Profile of older homosexually active Men. Journal of Sex Research 1997 Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 349-360

You just have to be looking on the page referenced.

Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.

I suppose I will have to look up your Norwegian reference as well since you do not bother to explain it, and have a bad track record with proper citation. I remember having this same problem with many of you on a painstakingly documented post regarding the political causes of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM II.

I also remember a good number of you claiming that a man with a Phd in political science and a good working relationship with a broad number of psychiatrists had no qualifications for writing about the political aspect of the decision, which still strikes me as incomprehensible, but I guess that is your right.

 

[CraigBaugher]

You complain that Christians use repeated quotes from the bible in their defense, and that certain words are interpreted the wrong way... such as, malakos which means catamites, and arsenokoitEs which means sodomites (which is often referred to in most transalation as homosexual). So while arsenokoitEs does not mean homosexual, sodomy is clearly an activity of homosexual relationships.

But what I find most interesting is your limited defensive tactics. It appears you only have one, and you do what you hate most, and that is repeat it continuously. The problem is... it is weak, and wrong...

ok... now you can bring up prejudice, race, and tell me I'm wrong because I don't understand Greek like you do... lol... or... no... I'll stop, you need to have something respond with... lol...

 

[Shane Roach]

Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert Michael, and Stuart Michaels, 1994. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States.Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Found no difference in the numbers of lifetime sexual partners when comparing heterosexual men to gay men.

"When I found more things like this, missing data, unreported group statistics, unlabeled graphs not described in text, and some unbelievable statistics, I finally went to the questionnaire in the appendix. WOW, I could not believe my eyes. They were not guaranteeing confidentiality. In fact, they were taking personal information to positively identify not only the test taker, but the NAMES of all sexual partners, ALL. I don't know about you, but that would inhibit my responses. Privacy, confidentiality and security are easily accomplished and absolutely necessary for a survey of this kind of sensitive subject."

Amazon.com: Jack Little's review of The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexu...

 

[Shane Roach]

Vierod E. A. “Prevalence and trends in homosexual behavior in Norway” Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine. 1997. Vo. 25(1):33-38. Studied large numbers of heterosexual and gay men over a period of years. It was found that Gay men averaged 1 sexual partner in a given year. Heterosexual men, on the other hand, averaged 4.6 partners per year.

[SIZE=+1]Prevalence and trends in homosexual behaviour in Norway.[/SIZE]

"Abstract: The three main objectives of this study were to estimate the proportion of the Norwegian population with experience of homosexual behaviour, to study the degree of change in sexual practices among homosexual men during a 5-year period and to study the degree of change in sexual practices reported by HIV positive homosexual men from before to after awareness of HIV-positivity. The data comes from two questionnaire surveys (in 1987 and 1992) of sexual behaviour in the general population of Norway and a questionnaire study of sexual behaviour before and after awareness of HIV-positivity among HIV-positive homosexual men taking part in a cohort study starting in 1988 (the Oslo HIV cohort study). Estimation of the proportion of subjects with homosexual experience was made as well as a trend analysis of the number of male sexual partners per year, number of intercourses per month, condom use and anal sex. Among men aged 18 to 60 from the general population, 3.8&#37; reported homosexual practice during lifetime and 1.2% during the past 3 years. Among women, the same percentages were 3.1 and 1.0. In the surveys, the number of male partners per year decreased significantly for men with current homosexual experience from a yearly median of 1.0 in 1987 to 0.3 in 1992 (p = 0.02). Among HIV-positives, the number of male partners decreased from a yearly median of 4.3 before to 1.6 after awareness of HIV-seropositivity (p < 0.01). Among HIV-positives, a significant increase in the use of condoms, a decrease in the number of intercourses and a decrease in the frequency of anal sex was found. The results show that some changes in sexual practice may have occurred among homosexual men in general in the period from 1987 to 1992, and that more significant changes may have occurred for HIV-positive men. The present data do not support other findings of a relapse to more unsafe sex, but suggest that there is still a need to keep modifying behaviour in order to stop the spread of HIV among men who have sex with other men."

Prevalence and trends in homosexual behaviour in Norway.

I'll have to get ahold of the entire article to see what the deal is with the promiscuity statistics, but it was just reaffirming to me to see a bunch of scientists referring to homosexual behavior.

For convenience, my answer to Mumei was here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-9/#post51365458

 

[David Brider]

The Bible refers to it as an abomination.

No, the Bible - on a couple of occasions - refers to male-male sex as an abomination. Possibly all instances of male-male sex, possibly only specific instances of male-male sex. But nevertheless, it never refers to homosexuality per se as an abomination. Homosexuality is a heck of a lot more than male-male sex (not all homosexual men are sexually active, for one thing, and for another homosexual women are pretty obviously never going to have male-male sex).

Of course, a lot of things are referred to as an abomination, but rarely do they also carry with them the death penalty.

In the Bible, something doesn't even need to be referred to as an abomination to carry the death penalty. Heck, cursing your father and mother deserves being put to death.

David.

 

[KCKID]

In the Bible, something doesn't even need to be referred to as an abomination to carry the death penalty. Heck, cursing your father and mother deserves being put to death.

Also, as I'm more than happy to keep on pointing out, the huge majority of followers of God committed an offense this weekend for which stoning to death was the penalty at one time. They discarded God's Creation Sabbath for a 'holy day' that was created by man. They, in effect, profaned the sacred Sabbath-day. And, you know what? ...they don't care.

The argument revolving around 'abominations' and other strange laws and rituals of Leviticus and other books of the Bible is not only ludicrous ...it's also embarrassing.

 

[redcliffesalvo]

homosexuality can be properly considered only in the broader context of a biblical understanding of human sexuality in general. The creation account set out in the opening chapters of Genesis reveals the following truths:

a) That mankind is made in the image of God (Gen. 1 :27);
b) That God created us both male and female (Gen. 1 :27);
c) That this differentiation of the sexes is a part of the divine image in the human race (Gen.1 :27);
d) That the loneliness of Adam was remedied by God through the creation of a woman, not a second man (Gen. 2:21,22);
e) That sexual union leading to a one-flesh relationship is intended to be between male and female (Gen. 2:23,24);
f) That such union is intended to be in the setting of a permanent and publicly acknowledged relationship forming the basis of a new family unit (Gen. 2:24).
​

The Bible thus teaches that God's intention for mankind is that society should be ordered on the basis of lifelong, legally sanctioned, heterosexual unions. Such unions (marriages) lead to the formation of social units (families) which are essential to human personal development and therefore to the stability of the community.
Scripture opposes homosexual practices by direct comment (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26,27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10) and also by clearly implied disapproval (Genesis 19: 1-29; Judges 19:1-30; 2 Peter 2:1-22; Jude 3-23). The Bible treats such practices as self-evidently abnormal. They reject both the obviousimplications of human physiology and the potential for procreation. Romans 1 sees homosexual acts as a symptom of a deeper refusal to accept the organising scheme of God for the created order (Romans 1:24, 25).
Thebroader christian community recognizes that same-sex friendships can be enriching, Christ-honouring relationships, bringing joy through mutual companionship and sharing. However, same-sex relationships which are genitally expressed are unacceptable according to the teaching of scripture. Attempts to establish or promote such relationships as viable alternatives to a heterosexually-based family life do not conform to God's will for society.
For this reason, and in obedience to the example of Jesus whose compassionate love was all-embracing, Christians should seek to understand and sensitively to accept and help those of a homosexual disposition and those who express that disposition in sexual acts. We ought to be opposed to the victimisation of persons on the grounds of sexual orientation and recognize the social and emotional stress and the loneliness borne by many who are homosexual.
Personally I regard the origins of a homosexual orientation as a mystery and do not regard a homosexual disposition as blameworthy in itself or rectifiable at will. Nevertheless, whilst we are not responsible for what we are, we are accountable for what we do; and homosexual conduct, like heterosexual conduct, is controllable and may be morally evaluated therefore in the light of scriptural teaching.
For this reason such practices, if unrenounced, render a person ineligible for Salvation, in the same way that unrenounced heterosexual misconduct is a bar to salvation. The broader christian community recognizes the strength of feeling about sexual identity, and the difficulty many find in expressing this identity in keeping with scriptural standards.
However, it believes firmly in the power of God's grace to enable the maintenance of a lifestyle pleasing to him, including a lifestyle built upon celibacy and self-restraint for those who will not or cannot marry. No one who yields to the lordship of Christ and who undertakes by his grace to live in accordance with the teaching of scripture is excluded from Christian fellowship and salvation through faith in christ.

 

[KCKID]

For this reason such practices, if unrenounced, render a person ineligible for Salvation, in the same way that unrenounced heterosexual misconduct is a bar to salvation.

Could you provide the scripture/s stating that unrenounced (homosexual) practices is a bar to salvation?

 

[BigBadWlf]

You just have to be looking on the page referenced.

Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.

So a “private conversation” that completely contradicts the findings of the study sited…“private conversation” that is not and cannot be documented

So which should be taken as the real claim. The data from the actual study, one published in a legitimate peer reviewed journal or the one Dialey claims took place in an undocumented “private conversation” and published in an essay loaded with hundreds of lies and misrepresentations?

I suppose I will have to look up your Norwegian reference as well since you do not bother to explain it, and have a bad track record with proper citation. I remember having this same problem with many of you on a painstakingly documented post regarding the political causes of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM II.

As I recall you refused to cite anything regarding your claims except repeating the name of a man who was not there because he was in high school at the time (and even today isn't a psychiatrist) and you either ignored or denounced all the references from people who were actually there and involved

 

[BigBadWlf]

"When I found more things like this, missing data, unreported group statistics, unlabeled graphs not described in text, and some unbelievable statistics, I finally went to the questionnaire in the appendix. WOW, I could not believe my eyes. They were not guaranteeing confidentiality. In fact, they were taking personal information to positively identify not only the test taker, but the NAMES of all sexual partners, ALL. I don't know about you, but that would inhibit my responses. Privacy, confidentiality and security are easily accomplished and absolutely necessary for a survey of this kind of sensitive subject."

Amazon.com: Jack Little's review of The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexu...

Which is unrelated to the fact that Dailey misrepresents Dr. Laumann and his associates who found: “no difference in the numbers of lifetime sexual partners when comparing heterosexual men to gay men.”

 

[BigBadWlf]

[SIZE=+1]Prevalence and trends in homosexual behaviour in Norway.[/SIZE]

"Abstract: The three main objectives of this study were to estimate the proportion of the Norwegian population with experience of homosexual behaviour, to study the degree of change in sexual practices among homosexual men during a 5-year period and to study the degree of change in sexual practices reported by HIV positive homosexual men from before to after awareness of HIV-positivity. The data comes from two questionnaire surveys (in 1987 and 1992) of sexual behaviour in the general population of Norway and a questionnaire study of sexual behaviour before and after awareness of HIV-positivity among HIV-positive homosexual men taking part in a cohort study starting in 1988 (the Oslo HIV cohort study). Estimation of the proportion of subjects with homosexual experience was made as well as a trend analysis of the number of male sexual partners per year, number of intercourses per month, condom use and anal sex. Among men aged 18 to 60 from the general population, 3.8% reported homosexual practice during lifetime and 1.2% during the past 3 years. Among women, the same percentages were 3.1 and 1.0. In the surveys, the number of male partners per year decreased significantly for men with current homosexual experience from a yearly median of 1.0 in 1987 to 0.3 in 1992 (p = 0.02). Among HIV-positives, the number of male partners decreased from a yearly median of 4.3 before to 1.6 after awareness of HIV-seropositivity (p < 0.01). Among HIV-positives, a significant increase in the use of condoms, a decrease in the number of intercourses and a decrease in the frequency of anal sex was found. The results show that some changes in sexual practice may have occurred among homosexual men in general in the period from 1987 to 1992, and that more significant changes may have occurred for HIV-positive men. The present data do not support other findings of a relapse to more unsafe sex, but suggest that there is still a need to keep modifying behaviour in order to stop the spread of HIV among men who have sex with other men."

Prevalence and trends in homosexual behaviour in Norway.

I'll have to get ahold of the entire article to see what the deal is with the promiscuity statistics, but it was just reaffirming to me to see a bunch of scientists referring to homosexual behavior.

For convenience, my answer to Mumei was here: Homosexuals and Bisexuals - Page 9 - Christian Forums

Showing you’re and Daily’s claim that somehow gay and lesbians are more promiscuous is false and once again Daily has misrepresented the legitimate research of another.
The fact remains that. “Gay men averaged 1 sexual partner in a given year. Heterosexual men, on the other hand, averaged 4.6 partners per year.” Vierod E. A. “Prevalence and trends in homosexual behavior in Norway” Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine. 1997. Vo. 25(1):33-38.

 

[BigBadWlf]

No, the Bible - on a couple of occasions - refers to male-male sex as an abomination. Possibly all instances of male-male sex, possibly only specific instances of male-male sex.

If you look at the language involved it is specific that male on male rape is an abomination. It is really interesting that raping a female is not considered a sin…at worst it is a violation of property rights

In the Bible, something doesn't even need to be referred to as an abomination to carry the death penalty. Heck, cursing your father and mother deserves being put to death.

David.

It’s always fun to watch those trying to use Leviticuas to justify prejudice and discrimination squirm and try to claim that THIS law no longer applies…but the law right next to it…the one supposedly condemning a minority…that one still applies today.