Switching Teams

[Steezie]

so if sexual orientation cannot be altered, we should just summarily execute pedophiles, rapists, polygamists, etc is that what you are saying? None of these illegal sexual orientations can be changed so why send them to jail huh?

Those are not sexual orientations. And those thoughts are not illegal. If you admit you are attracted to pre-pubescent children, you might get watched REALLY closely but its not illegal to express such desires, as long as you dont act on them.

You also need to show how the testimonials from homosexuals carry more weight than the thousands of testimonials from Christians as to how God ahs worked in their lives. Let's see, who am I going to beleive?

Because the Christians who have "changed" so often change back. For every testimonial you can find on an ex-gay site, I can match it with annother testimonial about someone who tried to be straight but it ended in a nightmare.

 

[selfinflikted]

so if sexual orientation cannot be altered, we should just summarily execute pedophiles, rapists, polygamists, etc is that what you are saying? None of these illegal sexual orientations can be changed so why send them to jail huh?

You also need to show how the testimonials from homosexuals carry more weight than the thousands of testimonials from Christians as to how God ahs worked in their lives. Let's see, who am I going to beleive?

/sigh

None of the things you listed are sexual orientations. Obviously, you haven't done your homework.

On testimonials: I don't think personal testimonies carry any weight, regardless of who they're from (in a religious context). In order for me to believe that god has "worked in someone's life", it's going to have to be demonstrable, and repeatable. Unfortunately, they never are. Therefore I can only conclude that your god doesn't exist, and to pray to a non-existant deity to try to do some kind of "work" in one's life is completely futile. I've been there, and done that. The fact is, it just doesn't happen. When something good does happen, people like to attribute that "good" thing to god. Conversely, when something bad happens, they attribute that "bad" thing to the devil. I see it every day.

 

[NeTrips]

/sigh

None of the things you listed are sexual orientations. Obviously, you haven't done your homework.

On testimonials: I don't think personal testimonies carry any weight, regardless of who they're from (in a religious context). In order for me to believe that god has "worked in someone's life", it's going to have to be demonstrable, and repeatable. Unfortunately, they never are. Therefore I can only conclude that your god doesn't exist, and to pray to a non-existant deity to try to do some kind of "work" in one's life is completely futile. I've been there, and done that. The fact is, it just doesn't happen. When something good does happen, people like to attribute that "good" thing to god. Conversely, when something bad happens, they attribute that "bad" thing to the devil. I see it every day.

through the filters of your world view.

so now we need to redefine "sexual orientation" as well. /sigh

 

[Steezie]

through the filters of your world view.

so now we need to redefine "sexual orientation" as well. /sigh

YOU are the one re-defining sexual orientations. What you listed are NOT orientations.

 

[selfinflikted]

through the filters of your world view.

so now we need to redefine "sexual orientation" as well. /sigh

Show me one source that includes those things you mentioned in the definition of "sexual orientation."

 

[NeTrips]

YOU are the one re-defining sexual orientations. What you listed are NOT orientations.

Let's see what the experts say:

Page numbers are from " Paraphilias," Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 2000), pp. 566-582.]
Heterosexuality: the universal norm: sexual interaction with the opposite sex.
Homosexuality: sexual interaction with persons of the same sex.
Bisexuality: sexual interaction with both males and females.
Transgenderism: an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/kings, and transsexualism.
Pedophilia: "sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with Pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with Pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account." (p.571)
Transsexuality: the condition in which a person’s "gender" identity is different from his or her anatomical sex.
Transvestitism: the condition in which a person is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other sex.
Transvestic fetishism: for males, "intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing." (p. 575)
Autogynephilia: the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman. (p. 574)
Voyeurism: "obtaining sexual arousal through the act of observing unsuspecting individuals, usually strangers, who are naked, in the process of disrobing, or engaging in sexual activity." (p. 575)
Exhibitionism: "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the exposure of one’s genitals to an unsuspecting stranger." (p. 569)
Fetishism or Sexual Fetishism: "intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the use of nonliving objects (e.g. female undergarments)." (p. 570)
Zoophilia: becoming excited by and/or engaging in sexual activity with animals. (p. 576)
Sexual Sadism: "recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving acts (real, not simulated) in which the psychological or physical suffering (including humiliation) of the victim is sexually exciting to the person." (p. 574)
Sexual Masochism: "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer." (p. 573)
Necrophilia: sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse. (p. 576)
Klismaphilia: erotic pleasure derived from enemas. (p. 576)
Telephone Scatalogia: the compulsion to utter obscene topics over the phone. (p. 576)
Urophilia: sexual arousal associated with urine. (p. 576)
Coprophilia: sexual arousal associated with feces. (p. 576)
Partialism: "sexual arousal obtained through exclusive focus on part of the body."(p. 576)
Gender Identity Disorder: "a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, of the other sex," along with "persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex." (p. 576)
Frotteurism: "touching and rubbing against a nonconsenting person." (p. 570)

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

through the filters of your world view.

so now we need to redefine "sexual orientation" as well. /sigh

You're the one redefining sexual orientation.

What is it about being religious and right-wing that makes it impossible for people to understand really very simple concepts?

 

[Steezie]

Let's see what the experts say:

:banghead:

You really do not understand what you're talking about.

Those are PARAPHILLIAS, NOT orientations.

And do you think we're stupid? You added four top ones. Homosexuality was REMOVED from the DSM in 1973. Heterosexuality is not considered a paraphilla, nor is homosexuality, nor is bisexuality, nor is transvestitism. Also the APA does not use terms such as "drag queen" and drag KINGS are actually female performance artists who dress up as males as part of the performance, not necessarily women who want to be men so they dress like them.

You are deliberately fabricating evidence to support your point

 

[NeTrips]

:banghead:

You really do not understand what you're talking about.

Those are PARAPHILLIAS, NOT orientations.

And do you think we're stupid? You added four top ones. Homosexuality was REMOVED from the DSM in 1973. Heterosexuality is not considered a paraphilla, nor is homosexuality, nor is bisexuality, nor is transvestitism.

You are deliberately fabricating evidence to support your point

Steezie, please review the source and when you verify the contents as listed on the page numbers indicated i will openly welcome your public apology. And I do not think you are stupid, just not well informed. The APA includes paraphilias as sexual orientations.

Don't hurt your head.

By a vote of its House of Delegates, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of disordered conditions in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the bible of the profession. The change came about not because of new research. Scientists had made no groundbreaking discoveries. No, the change because of a political coup engineered by homosexual activists, a process documented by pro-gay writer Ronald Bayer. (Robert Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (New York: Basic Books, 1981), p. 102, cited in Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Bookhouse, 1996), pp. 31-35. )
Dr. Charles Socarides, a practicing psychiatrist who witnessed events at APA conventions, including threats of violence by homosexual activists, said, "The APA could only take the action it did by disregarding and dismissing hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports that had been done on homosexuality over the previous two decades." In 1974, the American Psychological Association followed suit under similar conditions. Meanwhile, under pressure from homosexual activists, states had already begun dropping laws against sodomy, thus paving the way for the free-wheeling, promiscuous "gay" scene that homosexual writer Randy Shilts chronicled as the prelude to the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s. (Randy Shilts, And the Band Played On: Politics, People and the AIDS Epidemic (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987). )
Shortly thereafter, the term "sexual preference" began to give way to "sexual orientation" in homosexual publications and then in the psychiatric and psychological literature. In fact, it began to turn up everywhere, from magazines to school policy proposals. A seemingly innocuous phrase to describe everybody’s sexual roadmap, "sexual orientation" is much more than that. The preceding historical overview was intended to show that the term did not appear in a vacuum but was instead a key and deliberate step in an unfolding process of securing social, political and economic support for homosexuality.

 

[Steezie]

Steezie, please review the source and when you verify the contents as listed on the page numbers indicated i will openly welcome your public apology

Homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973. The APA does not consider it a disorder of any sort and I will not appologize for catching you forging evidence.
http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

Care to link to an online DSM?

 

[NeTrips]

go to the library and have someone read it to you.

no surprise that you lack any integrity at all to admit when you are wrong.

 

[selfinflikted]

through the filters of your world view.

so now we need to redefine "sexual orientation" as well. /sigh

This does not even deserve a response. You are incorrect, on every level.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

go to the library and have someone read it to you.

no surprise that you lack any integrity at all to admit when you are wrong.

So you refuse to offer proof and are deliberately twisting things to suit your pathetic excuse for an argument, and you have to audacity to accuse others of a lack of integrity?

 

[Ryal Kane]

From what I can tell, the DSM does indeed seem to be from 2000 and (amazingly) does list hetrosexuality as a universal norm!

However, all my searches for this only came second hand through highly biased forums or websites like the "Traditional Values Coalition"

NeTrips, you clearly copied this from a website. What's the link to that site?

 

[Brimshack]

It's interesting that so many Christians make allowances for homosexual urges so long as the individual doesn't act on them. This is presumably what passes for reasonableness on the issue.

When the love of your life isn't your wife, it's reasonable to allow divorce (for most Christians).

When you want to eat a whole lot, it's reasonable to do so, notwithstanding proscriptions of gluttony.

When Jesus says wealth makes it difficult to get into heaven or that one cannot serve two masters, this is reasonably construed to mean something other than that one ought not to seek wealth as a Christian.

Everywhere Christians find reasonably ways to satisfy their lusts and their cravings in the face of scriptural admonishion to the contrary. But Homosexuals, no, they must somehow accept what good Christians consistently deny themselves, that the Bible's strictures really do stand in the way of what they want.

Opposition to homosexuality is NOT rooted in scripture. Scripture is used in service of that opposition. No more and no less.

 

[silentreader]

It's interesting that so many Christians make allowances for homosexual urges so long as the individual doesn't act on them. This is presumably what passes for reasonableness on the issue.

it is not only reasonable, it is what God commands. what is interesting about it to you?

When the love of your life isn't your wife, it's reasonable to allow divorce (for most Christians).

no divorce is only allowed when marriage infidelity occurs. no trade-ups allowed.

When you want to eat a whole lot, it's reasonable to do so, notwithstanding proscriptions of gluttony.

it is not reasonable, it is desirable (not in a good way).

When Jesus says wealth makes it difficult to get into heaven or that one cannot serve two masters, this is reasonably construed to mean something other than that one ought not to seek wealth as a Christian.

He doesn't say wealth is bad in and of itself. look at many of God's annoited (Solomon for example). He is saying that putting wealth above God is bad. He knew the human heart and knew the power of the trappings of wealth.

Everywhere Christians find reasonably ways to satisfy their lusts and their cravings in the face of scriptural admonishion to the contrary. But Homosexuals, no, they must somehow accept what good Christians consistently deny themselves, that the Bible's strictures really do stand in the way of what they want.

Opposition to homosexuality is NOT rooted in scripture. Scripture is used in service of that opposition. No more and no less.

you seem to think your definition of reasonable is somehow equated to acceptable for Christians. i do not agree. opposition to homosexuality is Scriptural and if you do a search you can find many threads discussing it. i don't think this thread should be disrailed going down that path.

 

[EbonNelumbo]

So straight people, do you think you could be turned gay?

I was engaged to a guy who eventually came out to being in love with his best-friend....whom he still lives with nearly two years later.

The idea of actually being STUCK in a heterosexual relationship sent him over, but the fact remained, besides being a flaming alcoholic, he had always been more feminine than I.

 

[ALiberalTeen]

You can't change your sexuality, but you CAN be Bi.

 

[Brimshack]

it is not only reasonable, it is what God commands. what is interesting about it to you?



no divorce is only allowed when marriage infidelity occurs. no trade-ups allowed.



it is not reasonable, it is desirable (not in a good way).



He doesn't say wealth is bad in and of itself. look at many of God's annoited (Solomon for example). He is saying that putting wealth above God is bad. He knew the human heart and knew the power of the trappings of wealth.



you seem to think your definition of reasonable is somehow equated to acceptable for Christians. i do not agree. opposition to homosexuality is Scriptural and if you do a search you can find many threads discussing it. i don't think this thread should be disrailed going down that path.

Divorce is regularly allowed in Christian circles, even those who do not allow for homosexual acts. What you think they should do has no bearing on the widespread hypocrisy inherent in the fact that they do NOT follow scripture on this mater while demanding that others do.

On Glottony, non sequitor.

On Wealth, no. Do not serve two masters does not mean put one above the other, It means do not serve two masters. You are not following the text at all; you are making it bend to your own will.

You don't have a cluse what I think about reasonable. It is very clear, however, that Christians (yourself included) do find ways around uncomfortable scriptures while demanding that others follow the text precisely.

 

[Stormy]

It's interesting that so many Christians make allowances for homosexual urges so long as the individual doesn't act on them. This is presumably what passes for reasonableness on the issue.

When the love of your life isn't your wife, it's reasonable to allow divorce (for most Christians).

When you want to eat a whole lot, it's reasonable to do so, notwithstanding proscriptions of gluttony.

When Jesus says wealth makes it difficult to get into heaven or that one cannot serve two masters, this is reasonably construed to mean something other than that one ought not to seek wealth as a Christian.

Everywhere Christians find reasonably ways to satisfy their lusts and their cravings in the face of scriptural admonishion to the contrary. But Homosexuals, no, they must somehow accept what good Christians consistently deny themselves, that the Bible's strictures really do stand in the way of what they want.

Opposition to homosexuality is NOT rooted in scripture. Scripture is used in service of that opposition. No more and no less.

Brimshack I agree