Homosexuals and Bisexuals

Shane Roach said:

Since you have not read the study, you do not realize that the stats you are quoting are for 6 months, whereas the ones being discussed and that I cut straight from the study are lifetime stats. My screen shot is directly from the study. If you look up "mode" average you will discover that what the article states is merely a rewording of what the meaning is for mode.

Here is the screen shot again for convenience.



I'll go look at the original article just to be sure he did not misrepresent this stat as for 6 months, but whether he did nor not, the stat is awfully high whether for 6 months or a lifetime.

I do not think it was misquoted as this stat would basically be nonsensical for 6 months.

I've seen a separate study that explains that it is a relatively small percentage of gays that make up the very promiscuous group, and there may well be a difference between the gay community in Scandanavia, for example, vs. the US. I have not yet been able to look that the study closely that you provided about Scanadanavia, but the others look pretty weak, and this one you were just flat wrong, no doubt cutting and pasting from some web site you have not bothered to cite. I'm not a real stickler about that though, unlike some people I have seen around here who try to pretend we are all in college getting grades for our forum posts.

Back, yes. Here is the quote: "The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners."

Homosexual & Healthy?

It's talking about lifetime partners. That and the stat about the percentage of lifetime partners are both gleaned from the same paragraph, which I have provided and they cited by page number from the original text.

Click to expand...

It took a significant amount of time to obtain a new copy of the study. My old copy has gone missing (just a lesson to people to organize and update files and papers regularly). The section you claim to be part of the study doesn’t exist. Given the history of the site Dailey published his essay on I would not be surprised to find they created a mock up to cover some of Dailey’s more obvious misrepresentations.

Even pretending that Dailey did present facts accurately (and that requires a lot of pretending) it does not show that gays are more promiscuous than heterosexuals because of the lack of comparison to heterosexuals

It is entirely possible that the heterosexual statistics on promiscuity of this age group in this geographic location are equally high. For all we know, an equevalant 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.

Philothei said:

Mistakes :

Greeks were not "known" homosexuals that is a missconception of westen scholars trying to paint a pic of Greeks as such. Never were more than any other ancient society. Their laws testify to such behaviours as "unwanted" as also pedaresty is missunderstood. The modern scholarship has "twisted" many truths of those ancient peoples among them the Greeks. The greek vases where such "evidence" of homosexuality is supposetely found are 3 in a ratio of 1,000 now you tell me that homosexuality was ramprant???

Click to expand...

I never claimed the Greeks were “rampant” homosexuals. I do not and cannot believe that there were more Greek homosexuals then there were Persian or Egyptian or Celtic homosexuals.

It is very true that Greeks were opposed to child sexual abuse. The references made about romantic and possibly sexual relationships between youth and men in Greece are misrepresented in that the “youths” in question were not children but legal adults

Second point your transliteration of the arsenokoitai is off the mark.... You are wrong about the Greek here. You do not translate the word but misstranlate it. Distorting words to prove your point is not ideal

Click to expand...

The point being made is that translating the word αρσενοκοιται to mean homosexual is unfounded and unsupportable

Anyone can "push the text" to say what one wants it to say. Do you have information from a reputable greek scholar that can defend your point? That will be the appropriate venue for your point.
Have a good day.

Click to expand...

Do you have references from a reputable Greek scholar that I am “wrong about the Greek here” or that I have mistranslated the word?

andross77 said:

You do realize, do you not, that the men that wrote the Bible were carried along by the Holy Spirit and wrote exactly what God wanted them to with none of their own thoughts or any human commentary? (2 Peter 1:20-21)

Click to expand...

I say this as a concession, not as a command. 1 Cor 7:6

What I speak, I speak not according to the Lord, but as it were, foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.2 Cor 11:17

BigBadWlf said:

It took a significant amount of time to obtain a new copy of the study. My old copy has gone missing (just a lesson to people to organize and update files and papers regularly). The section you claim to be part of the study doesn’t exist. Given the history of the site Dailey published his essay on I would not be surprised to find they created a mock up to cover some of Dailey’s more obvious misrepresentations.

Even pretending that Dailey did present facts accurately (and that requires a lot of pretending) it does not show that gays are more promiscuous than heterosexuals because of the lack of comparison to heterosexuals

It is entirely possible that the heterosexual statistics on promiscuity of this age group in this geographic location are equally high. For all we know, an equevalant 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.

Click to expand...

I downloaded this study from the University of Texas, sir, not any website. You are simply wrong. Period. There is no other discussion to be had on this subject. I cut this directly from the study itself, cited from the journal itself. I am not at liberty to post the entire journal entry due to copyright issues, but anyone, anyone at all, can get a copy of this from a reasonably well equipped library.

rosenherman said:

So you say.

Click to expand...

So please provide actual evidence that individuals have changed from homosexual (Kinsey scale 6) to heterosexual (Kinsey scale 0)

BigBadWlf said:

So please provide actual evidence that individuals have changed from homosexual (Kinsey scale 6) to heterosexual (Kinsey scale 0)

Click to expand...

Please provide evidence that the Kinsey scale is an accurate metric.

Please provide evidence that any behavior can be defined in terms of changeable or unchangeable.

Please provide evidence for anything at all you claim is true. I have provided a direct citation from a journal, page number included, which you claim is not in the journal.

It is in the journal on the page cited.

What could anyone ever due to provide you any proof of anything if you are willing to deny even when confronted with the absolute truth verified and in print, available for anyone to look at who wishes to go look at it?

LightHorseman said:

That isn't what 2 Peter 1:20-21 says.

If the Bible were exactly dicatated by God, as you suggest, then whats with all the errors, contradictions and vagueries?

Not to mention the various printing nd translation errors

Click to expand...

An excellent point. If the Bible said exactly what God wanted there would be no variation in the literally hundreds of editions and there would be no differences in translation

Philothei said:

Okay I can see how human element could have falsify some instances that does not though is the standard. Esp. in the translation from Aramaic to Greek to English (esp. my personal exp. since I am a native Greek speaker) I have seen the mistranslation hapennig and in this topic i.e. the arsenokoite example is very vivid. Scholars trying desperately to "translate" the words to "manipulate the text" to mean something that we want it to say.

Click to expand...

Like when trying to claim that arsenokoites means homosexual

Philothei said:

who? the Intersex Society? Hmm i would be more interested of the Scientific research and reputable scientists had to say esp. on a university level had to say, prior to the agenda ridden(both by the conservative and liberal sides) times....And how the pathology of the Homosexual "personality" is "normal" or malajusted.

Such as Dr. Goldberg states:






And also I am glad he speaks "unbiased" and free from any agenda of the religious establishment :


Understanding How We Think about HomosexualityI am also glad to know that his scientific experience agrees with the Biblical view of God's creation of male and female...

Click to expand...

Its interesting that you state that you want agenda free discussion but then lace your post with your own agenda and then post a link to one of the most biased sites on the web which is hosting an essay from NARTH, one of only 12 recognized anti-gay hate groups in the county.

The etymology of the word arsenokoites is a good deal simpler21. Paul uses the Greek word arsenokoite which he gets from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX). It is made from two words arsen (male) and koite (bed). Compare this with the Levitical prohibitions in the LXX.
meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gyniakos (Lev 18:22)
hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos (Lev 20:13)


Common pro-gay theological arguments

Philothei said:

yeah from a slanted source that pushes an agenda. Sorry i wil not waste my time reading this material if you do not mind. I presented you with material from a source that is not "biased" form either side.

Click to expand...

You presented material from a recognized hate group

Like you admited that that is true science. Your point that chromosomes do not matter is not valid either or there should be scientific proof to claim that and there is none. You are claiming also "biases" from the ancient times toward homosexuals... I wonder how you come to that conclusion since pre-biblical times obviously did not have any influence on what was "morally ok" or not.. Also you never dealed with the points that Dr. Goldberg made about the Homosexual thesis.... I wonder why? How come pschycologists like himself do not find homosexual personality "normal"? And according to the ones who endorse such notion that homosexuals are indeed no less normal than others how come there is more deperssion? I know talking from both ends of one's mouth is difficult sometimes

Click to expand...

Goldberg isn’t a psychologist, he is a sociologist

Shane Roach said:

Please provide evidence that the Kinsey scale is an accurate metric.

Please provide evidence that any behavior can be defined in terms of changeable or unchangeable.

Please provide evidence for anything at all you claim is true. I have provided a direct citation from a journal, page number included, which you claim is not in the journal.

It is in the journal on the page cited.

What could anyone ever due to provide you any proof of anything if you are willing to deny even when confronted with the absolute truth verified and in print, available for anyone to look at who wishes to go look at it?

Click to expand...

So you can’t provide evidence that that individuals have changed from homosexual (Kinsey scale 6) to heterosexual (Kinsey scale 0)

rosenherman said:

To quote my mother "To each his own, said the farmer, as he kissed the cow."

Click to expand...

I hope you're not calling my wife a cow...

Then you shouldn't have gotten married. Marriage signifies you are bound to this woman and will keep only to her. If you want to carry out [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]tish behavior the marriage should be dissolved.

Click to expand...

Why, if we both decide to play with other people with mutual consent and trust?

Because the more people you have sex with the greater chance you will catch some disease; which are too numerous for me to list right here. Those diseases can cause sterility, and insanity among others; not the least of which is aids.

Click to expand...

That's what protection and/or prudence are for.

Shane Roach said:

The etymology of the word arsenokoites is a good deal simpler21. Paul uses the Greek word arsenokoite which he gets from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX). It is made from two words arsen (male) and koite (bed). Compare this with the Levitical prohibitions in the LXX.
meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gyniakos (Lev 18:22)
hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos (Lev 20:13)


Common pro-gay theological arguments

Click to expand...

The claim is a joke among linguists and etylogists. Some claim that Paul coined this word by combining two words from the Septuagint because his audience would have no reference or understanding of homosexuality. The ancient Greeks clearly understood the concept and didn’t have to make up words to discuss it.

Some try to continue to justify the translation as justification for their own personal prejudice by trying to claim (without support) that Paul was playing a mix and match word game by using words from the Septuagint

The real trouble occurs when one looks at the what actually appears in the Septuagint.the phrase in the Septuagint "kai meta arsenos ou koimêthêsê koitên gynaikos bdelygma gar estin"
Broken down:
The greek "Kai" is "and", and "meta" is roughly "with".
"arsenos" means "male" (as opposed to "man" ["andros"]). An interesting choice of wording to say the least In Hebrew "human"/"teracotta"(colour) is "adama". And man is "ish"/"esh"; "ishah" is "woman". But the word translated as "man" in 18:22 is actually "zakar", which is a very different word entirely. "zakar" elsewhere is only used to refer to men who are somehow sanctified.
"koimethese" roughly means "the same as".
"koite" specifically means "marriage bed".
"gunaikos" means "woman" [as in "gynacology"], but can idiomatically refer to "wife", as in "my woman".
"to'evah" ("To'ebah") is the word normally translated as abomination. But "to'ebah" doesn't mean sin, and is nowhere as strong as "abomination"; "zimah" means sin, and would have been used if a word that strong was meant. Here the septuagint simple says "bdelygma", which only means "ritually impure".

It should be noted that the phrase "...man... as with a woman" usual in most English translation does not accurately represent the Greek because it does no justice to the contrastive pairs involved. In Greek, these are: arsEn (male) vs. thElus (female) and anEr (man/husband) vs. gunE (woman/wife).

So the literal translation of the septuagint is: "and with a male the same as a wife's marriage bed, it is ritually impure"

The Septuagint seems to be condemning adultery not homosexuality and then only when that takes place in the bed of his wife (wives) And the condemnation isn’t that strong, such an act just makes the man loose his sanctification and as such must go through a ritual cleansing.

If the Paul had wanted to say "one shall not lie with a man/male as with a woman/female" he could have written either "meta arsenos ou koimEthEsE hOs meta thElus" or "meta andros ou koimEthEsE hOs meta gunaikos".

Similarly, the Hebrew text could read "We-et-zakar lo' tishkav mishkevey nekeva" or "We-et-ish lo' tishkav mishkevey 'ishshah".
Neither the Greek nor the Hebrew text adopts these forms and in the end say something completely differnent

This is saying nothing about homosexuality or even male to male sex. rather it is condemning adultery, specifically adultery where one of the participants is a sanctified man and then only during the time he is sanctified. Notice there is no prohibition of the sanctified man having intercourse with his wife or wives or even his concubines, rather it is about bringing another woman into the marriage bed during the time he is sanctified, a woman his is not and cannot be married to. And even then that condemnation is limited to changing his status to one of ritual impurity, not sin or even the lesser no-no abomination.

Shane Roach said:

While I would not instantly disagree with someone who said part of the point of marriage is to "settle people down" in the sense of getting youngsters to settle in and start a family, no one has been arguing this point. Not sure why you quote me and then argue a point I am not making.

Click to expand...

I was simply mentioning one socially-relevant reason conservatives give for supporting the institution of marriage in general: family stability, particularly where children are concerned. If you choose not to frame it in this manner, that's all fine and good... but then one has to wonder why we're bothering with people like you in the first place: if you frame marriage as something other than a social institution that has tangible effects that may be discussed, then your opinion becomes simply a matter of spiritual preference... and thus, you are not a part of the discussion.

You were saying the only reasons gays have gay pride parades where they behave, as a point of "pride", the way heterosexuals only tend to behave when they are drunk and pretending to celebrate the beginning of lent, is because they are not allowed to be married. I'm thinking if gays wanted to act just exactly like heterosexuals tend to do, they would have been doing it for a long, long time.

Click to expand...

Except that gay men and women have been not only denied marriage rights, but all sorts of other social and legal legitimacies as well as life itself. Those who are persecuted against tend to celebrate their survival the loudest, and good for them!

BigBadWlf said:

The claim is a joke among linguists and etylogists. Some claim that Paul coined this word by combining two words from the Septuagint because his audience would have no reference or understanding of homosexuality. The ancient Greeks clearly understood the concept and didn’t have to make up words to discuss it.

Some try to continue to justify the translation as justification for their own personal prejudice by trying to claim (without support) that Paul was playing a mix and match word game by using words from the Septuagint

The real trouble occurs when one looks at the what actually appears in the Septuagint.the phrase in the Septuagint "kai meta arsenos ou koimêthêsê koitên gynaikos bdelygma gar estin"
Broken down:
The greek "Kai" is "and", and "meta" is roughly "with".
"arsenos" means "male" (as opposed to "man" ["andros"]). An interesting choice of wording to say the least In Hebrew "human"/"teracotta"(colour) is "adama". And man is "ish"/"esh"; "ishah" is "woman". But the word translated as "man" in 18:22 is actually "zakar", which is a very different word entirely. "zakar" elsewhere is only used to refer to men who are somehow sanctified.
"koimethese" roughly means "the same as".
"koite" specifically means "marriage bed".
"gunaikos" means "woman" [as in "gynacology"], but can idiomatically refer to "wife", as in "my woman".
"to'evah" ("To'ebah") is the word normally translated as abomination. But "to'ebah" doesn't mean sin, and is nowhere as strong as "abomination"; "zimah" means sin, and would have been used if a word that strong was meant. Here the septuagint simple says "bdelygma", which only means "ritually impure".

It should be noted that the phrase "...man... as with a woman" usual in most English translation does not accurately represent the Greek because it does no justice to the contrastive pairs involved. In Greek, these are: arsEn (male) vs. thElus (female) and anEr (man/husband) vs. gunE (woman/wife).

So the literal translation of the septuagint is: "and with a male the same as a wife's marriage bed, it is ritually impure"

The Septuagint seems to be condemning adultery not homosexuality and then only when that takes place in the bed of his wife (wives) And the condemnation isn’t that strong, such an act just makes the man loose his sanctification and as such must go through a ritual cleansing.

If the Paul had wanted to say "one shall not lie with a man/male as with a woman/female" he could have written either "meta arsenos ou koimEthEsE hOs meta thElus" or "meta andros ou koimEthEsE hOs meta gunaikos".

Similarly, the Hebrew text could read "We-et-zakar lo' tishkav mishkevey nekeva" or "We-et-ish lo' tishkav mishkevey 'ishshah".
Neither the Greek nor the Hebrew text adopts these forms and in the end say something completely differnent

This is saying nothing about homosexuality or even male to male sex. rather it is condemning adultery, specifically adultery where one of the participants is a sanctified man and then only during the time he is sanctified. Notice there is no prohibition of the sanctified man having intercourse with his wife or wives or even his concubines, rather it is about bringing another woman into the marriage bed during the time he is sanctified, a woman his is not and cannot be married to. And even then that condemnation is limited to changing his status to one of ritual impurity, not sin or even the lesser no-no abomination.

Click to expand...

That, or he just quoted practically verbatim from the Greek Septuigint.

I see no evidence that your claims concerning the Hebrew are even close. Ritually impure actions, inasmuch as that distinction exists at all, would be punished by washing and being unclean until the evening. The penalty here is death.

Again, you have already demonstrated a willingness to deny the truth of something even when confronted with it undeniably in print. Why should anyone trust what you say here? For thousands of years everyone understood this perfectly well, and now all of a sudden there is confusion?

I doubt it.

Philothei said:

Understanding How We Think about HomosexualityI am also glad to know that his scientific experience agrees with the Biblical view of God's creation of male and female...

Click to expand...

Complete garbage. The onus is on the claimant who wishes to prove some sort of abnormality exists in homosexuality that requires action... all he is able to produce is an admittedly subjective set of criteria based upon nothing but prejudice... which he frames as immutable traditions in need of enforcement. This:

"There are other distortions of the facts that are less benign. Normalizing homosexuality is one of them. Science has to be consistent in its understanding of what is abnormal; it's all got to hang together logically. To call homosexuality normal, and other sexual deviations like coprophilia or necrophilia abnormal, is logically inconsistent."

Has about as much reasonable authority as the Inquisition's witch trials.

And one man, a psychologist no less, is the absolute authority for your claims? The American Psychiatric Association does not advertise his views as the norm, and it seems the likeminded "homosexuality as disease" minority is now a lunatic fringe group doomed to obscurity (if the Commissar doesn't get to them first, that is). Irrelevant though, as your conjecture that he is right because his views agree with the Bible is completely unscientific. Moreso because you are injecting morality into the scientific aspect, this is a blatant disregard for the foundation of any true scientific endeavor.

Click to expand...

You are wrong read my post again... First the man is talking out of scientific evidence irrelevant to any agenda as he makes and PROVES it right from the beginning...The fact that the minority is thus wrong is also thrown off the window as the majority in the US are Christians... thus we should enforce our beliefs to everone one else? of course no you are free to practice and believe whatever... Just because they are a minority that does not prove they are wrong either... point made.
I never claimed to agree with him
BECAUSE he is on the right with the Bible ...excatcly the opposite I stated that it is "good" that the Bible would agree with him. The reason I presented it (read my post again ) is that he is "free" from any given obstacle being conservative mind set or liberal... as per his statement and his explanation of both biases. If this view happens to agree with my view and agrees with my religious background....that proves that HE is biased??? the man does not belong to my denomination or church (?) I have not the slightest idea what faith he is either and it is truly irrelevant to the point I am making. Nice try though to evade the issue and turn it into a red herring...

If you cannot seperate "morality" from the heartless mother that is "science", then you really can't make an argument for either. Defending everything ensures you safeguard nothing at all, and this is exactly why the Creation demographic of fundamentalism is repeatedly turned away from institutions that actually work (unless you think intersex people don't exist still). Furthermore, if a homosexual (like the Theban Sacred Band) is able to fight, then denying them access to a secular marriage is ridiculous. Who knows, maybe they might just help me in my destruction of this outlandish Victorian resurgance.

Click to expand...

I did seperate it proof is the article from that very knowledgable (unbiased) scientist. Trying to call what I posted under another title will not work either REad my post again. Thank you. AS per the rest of your post ... I am totally lost here. When did we moved into the "marriage" issue? I do not remember doing that.

Well then aren't you biased for simply making a claim that it's bad *now*? Do you even know the legend of Zeus and Ganymede? Alexander the Great and his lovers? They put the stuff on pottery for Pete's sake! And now homosexuals are bad? They can fight, they can work, and they can pay taxes; but it's just too icky.

Click to expand...

Legends are just legends and so was Alexander the Great. Do not expect people to believe that they hold "historical truths" about people's sexuality... We have a hard time to determine people's sexual behaviour in our times i.e. Clinton's sexual life for example....We are supposed to believe a legend such as mythology and so called "scientific proof" from the times of Alexander the Great? That is truly impossible and anyone who comes up with "evidence" I doubt serious scholarship would ever pay a penny for it!!!

Since when was the Bible that absolute source of morality for non-Christians? And since when were Christians able to agree on what morality is (let alone the color of the sky)? Wasn't there this whole thing about Protestants and Catholics trying to kill eachother in the seventeenth century? To put some context here, do remember that the Catholic Church tried to ban the celebration Christmas at times. Isn't that a bit odd?

Click to expand...

This reference is totally irrelevant to our topic also but since you brought it up who says that "normalcy" is ONLY a Christian value? Ancient people's had an aversion for anything that was not normal by society standards and also to what was cosidered "patholigical" behaviour or health issue.... Many people realized that mental illness could not be cured others did try to cure it same as any disease. I would hardly call homosexuality a "moral" problem rather a psychosomatic problem since it does involve a complex personality disorder that involves physiology as well as environment. Like Dr. Goldberg mentions in his article homosexuality has higher levels of pathology that by itself should signal that it is a disorder. Rather than claiming that it is society's fault and cry foul I think the issue is related to the origin of homosexuality rahter than societie's inability to accept this disorder as normal or then all those people who are chronically depressed should not be treated but rather "accept" their pathology and allow them to their "right to depression" even suicide.

BigBadWlf said:

"to'evah" ("To'ebah") is the word normally translated as abomination. But "to'ebah" doesn't mean sin, and is nowhere as strong as "abomination"; "zimah" means sin, and would have been used if a word that strong was meant. Here the septuagint simple says "bdelygma", which only means "ritually impure".

Click to expand...

demonstrably untrue

"Scripture itself disproves that the word toevah only applies to ceremonial or ritual impurity. The nations that the Hebrews were about to inhabit, were judged and driven out of the due to the abominations (toevah) they had committed, Lev 18:24-30, Deu 18:9, 20:18, 2 King 16:3, 21:2. They did not have the ceremonial or ritual law that the Hebrews had. Also stealing, murder, adultery, swearing falsely, idolatry and hypocrisy are also described as toevah (Jer 7:9-10). This is discussed in The Same Sex Controversy61. "

- http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/gaymariage.htm#zimah

Strange that linguists find this origin of arsenokoites so humorous given the utter untruth of the argument against it.

I recommend this web site to anyone who often deals with this subject. Every single argument ever concerning homosexuality and the Bible seems to be included, all of them very easily debunked. I knew I had seen the same arguments over and over, but I had not realized anyone had cataloged them all online so conveniently.

Shane Roach said:

For thousands of years everyone understood this perfectly well, and now all of a sudden there is confusion?

I doubt it.

Click to expand...

If it was so perfectly understood why was the word translated to condemn masturbation for most of Christian history?