Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Ben-AG]

I doubt that. I mean, personally, I've never chosen who to find physically attractive. It's not a case of seeing a person and thinking, "right, I'm going to find that person attractive"; rather it's a case of seeing a person and thinking, "hmm, I find that person attractive." I suspect that it's pretty similar for everyone else, gay, straight or bi.

David.

Originally Posted by Ben-AG

Do not misinterpret my statement. While I, personally, believe that there are multiple reasons why an individual would have an inclination towards someone of the same sex ranging from the environment they were exposed to while they were being raised to a possible genetic predisposition. The source plays no relevance in this argument. The choice comes with how they respond to that inclination.



​

The choice plays in on how you handle those thoughts. We are all tempted to sin, your character is revealed on how well you deal with it.

 

[David Brider]

Originally Posted by Ben-AG
Do not misinterpret my statement. While I, personally, believe that there are multiple reasons why an individual would have an inclination towards someone of the same sex ranging from the environment they were exposed to while they were being raised to a possible genetic predisposition. The source plays no relevance in this argument. The choice comes with how they respond to that inclination.

Sure, but the actual attraction - i.e., being homosexual, or heterosexual, or bisexual - is not something one has a choice about.

At least, not as far as I can tell.

David.

 

[SiderealExalt]

I think the amount of presumption and ego necessary to think it's even your place to decide whether or not a gay or bisexual person should act on their attractions speaks more about the character of that individual, than any attempt to moralize to homosexuals.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Trends in Reportable Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the United States, 2007

-"Since 2005, data reported to CDC has included gender of partners for persons with syphilis and in 2007, 65 percent of all P&S syphilis cases were among MSM, based on data from 44 states and the District of Columbia. Additionally, the disparity between male and female case rates has grown consistently. The P&S syphilis rate among males is now six times the rate among females, whereas the rates were almost equivalent a decade ago , suggesting that increases in men have largely been among men who sex with men."

Oooohhhh that is impressive. Until one actually reads what the report says and how you ignored all the information about the number of infections of women:
“Chlamydia remains the most commonly reported disease in the United States. In 2007, 1,108,374 chlamydia diagnoses were reported, up from 1,030,911 in 2006.” “The reported chlamydia case rate for females in 2007 was almost three times higher than for males (543.6 vs. 190.0 per 100,000 population).”

“gonorrhea rate was 118.9 cases per 100,000 population, and rates were slightly higher among women (123.5) than among men (113.7).”

“In 2007, the syphilis rate for females increased 10 percent (from 1.0 per 100,000 population in 2006 to 1.1 in 2007). This increase has occurred largely among black females, in whom rates rose 14.3 percent (from 4.9 in 2006 to 5.6 in 2007).”




What is also interesting in this link is:
“Blacks represent only 12 percent of the total U.S. population, but made up about 70 percent of gonorrhea cases and almost half of all chlamydia and syphilis cases in 2007”
so blacks are disproportionately affected by STD’s. Does this fact make racism acceptable?
Why not?

Semantics. Refer to above references.

No it is just the facts. Non-white heterosexuals are the group most likely to be infected with HIV/AIDS
Again…does this fact justify racism?

The choice of a healthy lifestyle for one. I am inclined, as a man, to be extremely promiscuous and have sexual intercourse with as many women as would allow me to do so. While doing so may not be extremely detrimental to my health, although I am exposed to many more diseases, I choose not to. I feel as if I have already said this...

Not an answer to my question: What choice exactly do gays and lesbians have aside from the choice to be honest about who they are?

Someone else? I'm not sure what you mean. Elaborate please.

Simple enough question… are you capable of loving another person…or do you just have “inclinations”?

 

[Ben-AG]

Sure, but the actual attraction - i.e., being homosexual, or heterosexual, or bisexual - is not something one has a choice about.

At least, not as far as I can tell.

David.

I agree. I was never trying to interpret the source of their inclinations but merely how they deal with them.

 

[David Brider]

I agree. I was never trying to interpret the source of their inclinations but merely how they deal with them.

Seemed to me you were saying that homosexual people had a choice about being homosexual.

Sorry if I was wrong.

David.

 

[Andreusz]

Then doctors should help religious bigots become healthier people; those who subscribe to mysticism to justify oppression are a danger to themselves and others.

QFT.

 

[sidhe]

If someone would repost this link to the list of SPLC anti-gay hate groups so Shane will see it, this critter would be much obliged.

SPLCenter.org: Hate Groups Map

That took me all of about five seconds to find.

 

[LightHorseman]

If someone would repost this link to the list of SPLC anti-gay hate groups so Shane will see it, this critter would be much obliged.

SPLCenter.org: Hate Groups Map

That took me all of about five seconds to find.

With Sidhe's compliments

 

[sidhe]

If someone would repost this link to the list of SPLC anti-gay hate groups so Shane will see it, this critter would be much obliged.

SPLCenter.org: Hate Groups Map

That took me all of about five seconds to find.

With Sidhe's compliments

NARTH, interestingly, isn't on the list. "Interestingly," because it implies to me that Shane didn't look for them before beginning to defend them as "not a hate group." They don't qualify as such by SPLC standards.

 

[andross77]

I think the amount of presumption and ego necessary to think it's even your place to decide whether or not a gay or bisexual person should act on their attractions speaks more about the character of that individual, than any attempt to moralize to homosexuals.

no one is, or let me say, no one should be here decided whether or not a gay or bisexual person should act on their attractions.

Us Christians are trying to tell you that God in His Word says that a gay or bisexual person should not act on their attractions. Understand?

 

[Shane Roach]

It could be argued that the presumption and ego is in presenting homosexuality as a normal behavior and acting as if it is any different than many behaviors already restricted by law without any evidence, and indeed against much of the evidence I have been able to find.

What I'd rather talk about though is the evidence itself. There is little sense in trying to divine the motives of others.

Thanks for the link to the list. No, I did not know NARTH was not there before I defended it. Not sure what that is supposed to imply....?

 

[Shane Roach]

If someone would repost this link to the list of SPLC anti-gay hate groups so Shane will see it, this critter would be much obliged.

SPLCenter.org: Hate Groups Map

That took me all of about five seconds to find.

Thanks, I think...?

I still cannot find this by going back to the home page. Matter of fact, I can't use this page to find other hate groups...

 

[Shane Roach]

NARTH, interestingly, isn't on the list. "Interestingly," because it implies to me that Shane didn't look for them before beginning to defend them as "not a hate group." They don't qualify as such by SPLC standards.

This "accusation" or whatever it is supposed to be is very difficult for me to understand. I think it would be very clear I did not look them up. I did, however, post several times links to their map and quote their site as to what their policy is for calling something a "hate group". It is a pretty all inclusive set of requirements.

Why is it not just as interesting that two separate people have been claiming NARTH is on this list when it is not? What is it about me simply not being able to find this list that is so bizarre? Care to explain how you found it?

 

[LightHorseman]

no one is, or let me say, no one should be here decided whether or not a gay or bisexual person should act on their attractions.

Us Christians are trying to tell you that God in His Word says that a gay or bisexual person should not act on their attractions. Understand?

What do you mean "us Christians"?

I'm a Christian. I don't think "God's word" says anything of the sort

 

[sidhe]

This "accusation" or whatever it is supposed to be is very difficult for me to understand. I think it would be very clear I did not look them up. I did, however, post several times links to their map and quote their site as to what their policy is for calling something a "hate group". It is a pretty all inclusive set of requirements.

Why is it not just as interesting that two separate people have been claiming NARTH is on this list when it is not? What is it about me simply not being able to find this list that is so bizarre? Care to explain how you found it?

Simple:

You bring up the map. Click on a state, and bring up the list of known hate groups. Next to each group is a description of their particular category - "Neo-Nazi," "Anti-Gay," "Christian Identity," "Black Separatist". If you click the particular category, it brings up a national list of all groups in that category, as well as the specific definition used for the category. For instance, if you click on "Black Separatist", you'll find the United Nuwabian Nation of Moors in Athens, GA, as well as the Nation of Islam's national offices. Under "Anti-Gay", you'll find Westboro Baptist in Kansas, and Mass Resistance in Massachusetts, and various others.

And the whole point is that no one is doing anything resembling decent research on their claims in this thread - it would've been much easier to point out that NARTH isn't listed as a hate group by the SPLC than to point to a generalized definition of the activities of a hate group and go on the defensive. For instance - handing out pamphlets full of the poor research of Paul Cameron is dishonest, but not on the level of printing copies of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion for free distribution, nor the WBC's insistence that killing a homosexual for being homosexual isn't a crime. Thus the varying levels of activities that are required for each category. Also, it would've taken two seconds to see that while NARTH is condemned as encouraging hate groups by the SPLC, they are not considered to be on the same level as the WBC or Mass Resistance.

I'm winding up my class in Reference and Research Services, and these things are making me crazy.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

but to say that sexuality is the same as race is too bold without proof of sexual preference being linked to a genetic predisposition. Without the facts, they are just opinions.

No one has (nor do I think they will) suggest race is the same as sexuality.
Next, as has been said, there are quite a number of studies (some better presented/archived than others) that do suggest a linkage to sexual preference to inborn traits: be they due to difference in brain process/structure, hormonal environment in-utero, etc. And linkage to a genetic trait has been observed which causes a correlating increase in brith of males who turn out homosexual. [Lesbian genetic and in born correlations have not been observed as such. Majority of lesbian studies have only found a similar brain function/process between that of heterosexual men and lesbians.]

But, for the sake of argument, if a genetic predisposition was the sole reason for one's sexual preference would it make it right?

And, at the very least it would give reason to think it is a natural and expected (in capacity) diversion of the human sexual psyche.

 

[Shane Roach]

What is also interesting in this link is:
“Blacks represent only 12 percent of the total U.S. population, but made up about 70 percent of gonorrhea cases and almost half of all chlamydia and syphilis cases in 2007”
so blacks are disproportionately affected by STD’s. Does this fact make racism acceptable?
Why not?

The problem is, by your standards, suggesting that blacks have any control over their urge to have sex would be tantamount to racism. Any community push to increase awareness of STD's and how to avoid them in a black neighborhood would be racist. Any religious organization preaching against irresponsible sex and citing as a risk the danger of STD's would actually be racist because, after all, STD's affect blacks disproportionately.

All of the accusations of bigotry that spill across these boards are spurious when it deals with the gay agenda. Homosexuality is a behavior. It is referred to as such by many psychiatric papers. It is not a race or gender. No one so far has even presented a cogent argument for comparing the regulation of any behavior with laws specifically singling out people of various colors.

It's demonstrably a false comparison, and I think conclusions can be drawn from the number of times the same people make accusations that cannot be substantiated and post information about specific studies that can be verified as untrue, and who indeed will continue to support their untrue statements even when supplied with substantive evidence that they are wrong. Indeed, apparently they are even willing to imply someone is lying when they present the evidence that they are wrong.

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

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-26/#post51417594

Claims have been made about all of these that are demonstrably untrue in an attempt to discredit them before anyone even bothers to read them. Posts pile up, and by the time anyone comes along to look, they are buried under a mountain of posts that people simply accept as true.

The second link, on this thread, the idea that if you calculate the number of gays it only samples .01% spread within a page or so of my posting it, whereas if you do the relatively simply math it takes to check that accusation, it is actually 1.7% rounding off. 33/1955. If you roll the gays and bisexuals together, it comes out exceedingly close to 9%. If anything, one might think that is over-representing bisexuals, not under-representing gays.

The assertion begs the question where you would ever get any statistics on the percentage of people who are gay or bisexual if any sample is decreed flawed on its face based on prior assumptions of what the makeup of the population is.

One thing is for certain, there is no shortage of reports indicating gays are comparatively promiscuous, yet we are constantly told otherwise.

 

[Andreusz]

^ Homosexuality is not a behaviour.

 

[LightHorseman]

One thing is for certain, there is no shortage of reports indicating gays are comparatively promiscuous, yet we are constantly told otherwise.

So?