Do Homosexuals Need to be Healed of their Homosexuality?
(as answered by a gay Christian biologist)
by Joseph Adam Pearson, Ph.D.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have written this for those whose guilt has been etched deeply by the official positions of various Christian denominations as well as for those whose pain has been exacerbated by the unkindnesses shown to them through the actions and reactions of church-goers. It is my hope and prayer that the seeming dilemma between homosexuality and Christianity be resolved and a higher spiritual understanding of sexuality be settled within their minds once and for all, both now and throughout the rest of their earthly days.

The overwhelming majority of people believe that homosexuality is immoral. I do not. I believe that homosexuality is amoral and that homosexuals individually are either moral or immoral.

Within the Bible, we are informed that "God is no respecter of persons."[2] I believe that. And, I believe it applies not only to earthly appearance but also to physical expression, personality, and sexual orientation. I believe that the Creator cares not one jot, iota, or yod about any aspect of our being human except that we try to reflect Him and His loving ways in all that we do. Spiritually speaking, love is the only real thing that can be multiplied and bear fruit.[3] I do not believe that any sexuality (heterosexuality or homosexuality) is an expression of God. Rather, I believe that sexuality is, at worst, a parody of --- or, at best, a parable of --- the creative powers of the Lord God Almighty and the communion His saints have with one another in their at-one-ment with Him.

Some time back, while pondering the idea that I had a spiritual message to convey, this malingering thought would press to the forefront of my consciousness: "Who will believe what you have to say? You are a homosexual." I was troubled, because, although I felt comfortable with my sexuality, I felt most others would be uncomfortable with it (to put it mildly). I felt sure that any good that I might try to do would be prefaced by: "Dr. Pearson, an acknowledged homosexual . . . " I knew people would erroneously use what I was to try to define who I was, and am.

I remember mentally working out arguments to justify and vindicate my homosexuality should I ever come to public or private trial concerning it until --- one day after earnestly praying to the Lord for an answer to give my then-imagined, but perhaps now-real, detractors --- I inwardly heard (writing while hearing) these words from the Holy Spirit:

"If I am cursed, then I am joined to my Master, who was cursed of all men. In this, then, do I rejoice that I am cursed of men, for in that curse I receive the blessing of God wherewith I am received into the body of Christ: rejected by man but accepted by God, and delivered by Him from the hand of my own iniquity and sin."
Yes, it's true, the Lord God Almighty answered my prayer! Not only that, but the answer swept over and settled in my soul. I understood. I heard. It spoke to me as no biological, psychological or sociological argument could. Later, in Bible study, I came to better understand the scriptural foundations for the answer I received:

In his letter to the Corinthians in Galatia, St. Paul wrote: "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, 'Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree.'"[4] Paul was referring to the Old Testament passage that states: "He that is hanged is cursed of God."[5] While we all know that Jesus was not hanged in the now-common sense of the word --- and certainly was not lifted up to the limb of a sycamore tree --- he was hanged in the sense that the ancients understood the word, that is, "hanged up" for all to see. You see, hanging was viewed primarily as a warning to potential wrongdoers. In many cases, bodies were hung up after execution rather than for execution. Both the Apostles Paul and Peter independently affirm their acceptance of that usage through their allusions to the hanging of Christ.[6] In other words, Jesus also --- which is to say, like homosexuals --- had been cursed by the letter of Mosaic law.

Thus, as I now understand it, what the Lord's Holy Spirit said to me was this:

In that Christ Jesus, God's Chosen, was made a mock for us that we might be reconciled to the Creator, and that His crucifixion won us pardon (if we so believe), so then does God's mercy extend to all souls in dust who feel the scorn of the lion (that is, the Devil) through the unkindnesses of humankind. The Creator will not turn His love away from any who suffer --- even if they suffer only a fraction of the passion of His firstborn --- for they remind Him of His Son. In other words, in the Creator's sight all reviled are joined to the one who suffered the ultimate rejection.
On a number of occassions, I have heard the following statement uttered by so-called Christian fundamentalists to combat the possible social acceptance of homosexuality: "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." The ignorance of that statement astounds me both as a Christian and as a biologist. Because it is simplistic and reductionist, the statement fails to take into consideration the multivariate nature of this world. It fails to take into consideration that there might be a third kind or gender, not neuter but "gay."

Many unusual phenomena related to sexual identity occur within the natural world. For example: 1) Certain avians and fish undergo spontaneous sex reversals and are even capable of reproduction in their newfound gender. 2) Various unfertilized insect eggs develop into males. 3) The females of specific flying insects possess "XY" sex chromosomes and the males possess "XX," and even some human anamolies exist in which anatomic females have "XY" chromosomes and anatomic males have "XX" chromosomes. 4) An all-female species of fish has been discovered, the Amazon molly, whose eggs develop through parthenogenesis (stimulation of ova without the customary fusion of male and female cells). And, most importantly, 5) a whole range of human intersex states exist that fit on a continuum between normal male and female anatomical sex (normal used here in the sense of "population-normed," or "that which occurs most frequently").

The issue of human sex identity is a complex one. There are many legitimate questions regarding the genetic (or, chromosomal) status, phenotypic (or, anatomical) status, psychological (or, gender identification) status, and sociological (or, society-assigned) status of sex identity. In humans, sex identity may be determined by chromosome composition (46,XX for female and 46,XY for male). However, genetic testing is not always the best indicator of sex. Why? There are a fair number of individuals who fall into intersex categories. For instance: 1) those with abnormal chromosome composition (including 47,XXY; 45,X; and, 45,X/46,XY mosaics); 2) genetic males who differentiate into anatomical females due to androgen inaction or insensitivity; and, 3) genetic females who differentiate into anatomical males from exposure to abnormally high amounts of androgens either in utero from their mothers' hyperactive adrenal glands or post partum from their own hyperactive adrenal glands.

Since as many as 0.1% of the population fall into intersex status categories,[7] there may be more than 6,000,000 people on earth whose sexual identities are in question using one basis for classification or another. Since these people are not "real" Adams or "real" Eves (the definition of real here left in question), are we to assume that intersex individuals were not created by God? No. We should never use the presence, absence, or size of external genitalia; numbers and kinds of chromosomes; sex hormone blood levels; or muscle dimensions to classify "real" men and "real" women.

Though sex identity is not equivocal with sexual orientation (however, from a statistical standpoint, the two are positively correlated), the point I am trying to make is that not all things are as black and white as some Christian fundamentalists would like them to be. Today, within the biological community there is legitimate debate about the biological basis of homosexuality in the light of recent scientific work that links brain morphology and sexual preference as well as research on identitical and fraternal twins that demonstrates statistical significance in favor of a genetic contribution to sexual orientation. Thus, it is more than likely that some seemingly unnatural and sinful behavior ("unnatural" and "sinful" from the standpoint of Christian Fundamentalism) is part of nature. Then, are we to assume that God makes only some people and not others? Or, are we to assume that some Christians are ignorant of truth? To be sure, it is somewhat queer to me that so many have abandoned the foundational Christian principle of love in order to judge and condemn others about whom they know so little. The only way that Christian Fundamentalism proves that some people are not really of God is through the hatred it has engendered.

Yes, there was a time when no blemished thing could come before the Lord, as indicated by the following passage from the Bible: "He that is wounded in the stones [testicles] or has his private member [penis] cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."[8]

However, during Old Covenant times, the Lord God Almighty was trying to establish within the hearts and minds of some very primitive people that He is sovereign and that He is worthy of perfect sacrifice (of which Christ Jesus was to become, and remain, the only embodiment), much the same as He established His tabernacle and its appointments as a figure of things in heaven.[9] Remember, according to the Old Testament, the people of that day were "sticknecked" and "rebellious," ungrateful for the things that the Lord was doing for them, and gross with regard to spiritual understanding. Concerning them, even Moses had this to say: "'Ye have been rebellious against the Lord from the [first] day that I knew you.'"[10] Thus, in order to help them subdue an unyielding spirit, they were subjected to various rules, regulations, and ordinances by the Lord.

In the Book of Acts, it is recorded that St. Philip was directed by an Angel of the Lord, as well as by God's Holy Spirit, to minister the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch so that he could accept Jesus as the Messiah.[11] If during the early days of the New Testament, a eunuch (who would have been prohibited by the letter of Mosaic law from approaching the Lord) could receive salvation, then surely during these latter days homosexuals (also cut off from the congregation of the Lord by the letter of Mosaic law) can be saved --- that is, received by Christ into His Kingdom. To be sure, homosexuals do not need to be saved from their homosexuality, unless of course they are indulging in a hedonistic and sinful lifestyle, just as any heterosexual in bondage to lust of the flesh needs to be saved from that appetite. It is spiritually and emotionally unhealthy for anyone to view others as objects for self- gratification.

St. Luke wrote, "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone presses into it."[12] St. John wrote, "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."[13] And, St. Paul wrote: 1) "You are not under the law, but under grace;" 2) "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteems one thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean;" 3) "The letter [of the law] kills, but the spirit [of love] gives life;" and, 4) "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.'"[14] Keep in mind that it was those who were legalistically-minded (that is, strict adherents to the letter of Mosaic law) that were offended by Jesus' deeds and eventually saw to it that he was condemned to death. Also, those who call themselves Christian should remember that at one time even the Gentiles were not part of God's chosen.[15]

Why can't more believers in Christ be like St. Peter, who said, "God has showed me that I should not call any man 'common' or 'unclean.'"[16] No one is permitted by the Lord God to judge or condemn another: "You are not pardoned, O man, whoever you are that judges: for wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself."[17]

I am saddened that, for many Christians, the issue of AIDS has been turned into an issue of homosexuality. Why am I saddened? I think homosexuality is one area in which the organized Christian Church has given sanction to anti-Christian attitudes of condemnation and judgment as well as behaviors that are offensive to Christ, all of which turn many away from where they might be looking during their final days. The spirit of condemnation now operates through many who profess that Jesus is their Savior. It runs rampant through their hearts and minds and souls. For some strange reason, it "sets right" with many Christians --- at least many that I have heard and seen--- to take such a stand.

Once, when visiting a self-identified "spirit-filled" church, I heard the pastor make a joke about homosexuals during his sermon. It received a good laugh from the audience; however, it made me feel badly for those homosexuals who may have been in the congregation and who had already suffered rejection by many and were seeking the Lord, only to be rejected (that is, made fun of) by one of His "servants." Brothers and sisters, believe me, whenever cruelty raises its ugly head, you can be sure that whoever raises it is not testifying of Jesus' love and power to save.

Like King David --- who chose to have retribution meted out by pestilence rather than by the hand of man[18] --- I think that the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) should be feared less than men. Viruses come nowhere near the power of evil that can be generated through human beings who have given themselves over to malice, malevolence, and condemnation. Certainly, humans are responsible for more damage and suffering than any infectious agent.

Yes, there are those Christians who would agree that homosexuals may be "saved" but only on the condition that they repent and change their ways (that is, not act on their sexual orientation). From my vantage point, it is plain that such as these believe corporeal flesh to be the true reflection and likeness of God as well as believe that the carnal nature, which animates that flesh, to be His Nature, --- ideas that I see as entirely incongruous and erroneous. Really, there is little I can say to clarify my views on homosexuality for them, because, for as long as they hold to such thinking, their understanding of sexuality (among other things) will remain earthbound: they will not be able to grasp God's indifference to sexual orientation. (Do not misinterpret here that I am saying the Lord is indifferent to human behavior.)

For those who are genuinely struggling to reconcile what they feel inside is true concerning homosexuality with the views of the Christianity they love so much (such views seemingly at variance with those feelings), I need to add this:

When I pretended that I was a heterosexual so others might accept me, I was in effect rejecting God because I was living a lie. It was not until I became honest with myself and others that I was able to come to the real truth, which is to say, to the reality of Christ. That is not to say that I believe homosexuals have a licence to licentiousness. Quite to the contrary, no. Unless one has been called to celibacy, I believe in the unadulterated sharing of the life and love of the Lord within the sanctity of a monogamous relationship. I believe that one of the highest relationships that can be achieved among souls within this earthly flesh is the one attained between two faithful helpmates who put God first and each other second. My mate and I have been with each other for 21 years (as of 1998) and neither one of us has been unfaithful to the other. This is one of the "secrets" to the longevity of our relationship.

What determines whether an individual is homosexual or heterosexual, I do not know. As a biologist, I believe that the cause may be different for different individuals. Perhaps there are some cases that are environmentally-caused, some emotionally-caused, others genetically- and/or hormonally-caused, and still others caused by a combination of any or all of those factors. However, with some psychotherapeutic exceptions, I don't think the cause should really matter. What I do think should matter is that no one become enslaved to sexuality or to fears concerning it. I even think that the so-called "curse" of homosexuality can be turned into a blessing for those homosexuals who do not become involved in a frenetic escape from it in sexual addiction or in unhealthy repression of their own homosexual feelings. How? Through the challenge it presents. To perceive that one does not fit into an accepted mold or pattern can help lead one to the conclusion that people who are spiritually-minded are really strangers, foreigners, and pilgrims in this world. Such recogntion is necessary, I think, before we can be fully returned to a heavenly home, where God expresses Himself through us without measure. With adversity, rejection, and suffering often comes enlightenment; however, generally speaking, the gifts of adversity, rejection, and suffering are not often gratefully received by souls in dust nor viewed as spiritual gifts. (I am not saying here that we should abrogate our responsibility to be active politically, demonstrate publicly, and stand up for our rights in outrageous ways.)

To those Christians who grieve because of how they perceive their own homosexuality or the homosexuality of someone they truly love, I would like to call their attention to something else St. Paul wrote: "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, has God chosen, yes, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in His Presence.[19]

I challenge them to evaluate that word of wisdom in the context of homosexuality and today's world. Also, to evaluate the relationship of this world to the sphere in which God operates and His true Shekinah-glory is manifested. The Lord God Almighty does not care that narrow-minded heterosexuals playing religion might be offended if He accepts homosexuals into His Kingdom. In fact, God often chooses to confound people who think they have all of the answers. "No flesh should glory" also means that neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals should think that one sexual orientation is better than the other: Though it is perfectly alright to celebrate our sexuality, no human being should revel in animal instincts.

Now, some of the things that the Apostle Paul has written must be understood in terms of their historical and cultural contexts. For example, that which concerns a woman's long hair being "a glory to her," or that which commands women to "keep silence in the churches."[20] Such is not the case in his absolutism about God choosing to exalt things that are despised by men. It reminds me of God saying to Moses: "I WILL BE GRACIOUS TO WHOM I WILL BE GRACIOUS, AND WILL BESTOW MERCY UPON WHOM I WILL BESTOW MERCY."[21] It reminds me of this praise that Nebuchadnezzar offered God: "And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and He does according to His Will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and no one can stay His hand, or say unto Him, 'What doest Thou?'"[22] It reminds me of Christ Jesus' saying to Peter concerning that Apostle's speculation about what would happen to "John the beloved" (the man that Jesus loved): "'If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to you?'"[23] It reminds me of the heavenly voice which spoke to Peter and said, "'What God has cleansed, call not unclean.'"[24] Finally, it reminds me of the Lord's response to Paul when besought by that man to remove a thorn from his flesh: "'My grace is sufficient for you: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.'"[25]

If the Lord God Almighty has chosen to extend His dispensation to homosexuals (and I believe He has), then who are mere mortals to tell Him that He cannot or that He should not? The Lord chooses to whom He is merciful (thank goodness mankind does not choose, for no one would have ever become a Christian). Who are any of us to question the authority or the sovereignty of the Lord God Almighty. What audacity! How full of self-pride and willfulness that is!

To my friends who happen to be homosexual, I write this: Because the world is afraid of us (it always fears what it does not understand), it has tried to suppress the natural development of our affections and emotions. And, since it has tried to repress the healthy expression of our sexual orientation as well as suppress knowledge of our existence, many of us --- without positive role models of any kind --- were consigned by society to lead lives in sordid, backroom-type, sinful activities. Because our personalities were fragmented, we were eaten up from the inside out by unhealthy sexual desires. However, it is time for us to break from the bondage of such a mental, emotional, and spiritual miasma. We need to resist the unhealthiness and sinfulness engendered by prevailing attitudes and actions propelled by Satan's spirit of condemnation. We need to take charge of our lives. We need to understand that our Creator loves us and that He couldn't care less about our sexual orientation (unless we have not come to terms with it).

What are the responsibilities of homosexuals? They are the same as heterosexuals. In Romans we read, "I beseech you, therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."[26] Thus, we should accept our rejection by mankind as well as our acceptance by God, taking time to be holy all the while. (Again, this is not to say that we should be passive in our struggle for justice and equality.)

When they feel especially sad and lonely, shouldn't homosexuals be able to turn to the one who knew the ultimate rejection, Christ, that their burdens might be shared? Can not Christians who happen to be homosexual have the same hope as Christians who happen to be heterosexual? Are homosexuals covered by God's grace? Yes, yes, and yes. Believe me, daily I prove God's saving grace and I witness of it to you.

If you happen to be heterosexual, perhaps none of what I have written here makes sense to you. That's all right. Just remember to keep your judgments to yourself, to refain from unkindness to me and others like me, and to try and not be too surprised when you meet many of us in heaven. And, if the idea of "faggots"[27]burning brightly for God is repugnant to you, then perhaps you are not yet fit for the Kingdom of God. For this reason, I pray that you permit God to change you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES

[1] c 1994 by Joseph Adam Pearson (TXU 643-369 United States Copyright Office). From an earlier, unpublished version c 1992 by Joseph Adam Pearson, Ph.D. (TXU 528 551). Back To Article
(2) Acts 10:34. See also: 2 Samuel 14:14, 2 Chronicles 19:7, Romans 2:11, Ephesians 6:9, and 1 Peter 1:17.
(3) Read Genesis 1:28 and Mark 12:28-31.
(4) Galatians 3:13.
(5) Deuteronomy 21:23.
(6) With regard to Paul, see Acts 13:39; and, concerning Peter, see Acts 5:30, Acts 10:39, and 1 Peter 2:24.
(7) Jean D. Wilson, M.D., 1992, "Sex Testing in International Athletics," Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 267, No. 6, page 853.
(8) Deuteronomy 23:1. See also Leviticus 21:16-20.
(9) Refer to Hebrews, especially Chapters 9 and 10.
(10) Deuteronomy 9:24. Back To Article
(11) Acts 8:26-39.
(12) Luke 16:16.
(13) John 1:17.
(14) Romans 6:14 & 14:14; 2 Corinthians 3:6; and, Galatians 5:14.
(15) Refer to Romans, Chapter 9.
(16) Acts 10:28.
(17) Romans 2:1.
(18) 2 Samuel 24:13-15.
(19) 1 Corinthians 1:27-29.
(20) 1 Corinthians 11:15 & 14:35.Back To Article
(21) Exodus 33:19.
(22) Daniel 4:35.
(23) John 21:22.
(24) Acts 10:15.
(25) 2 Corinthians 12:9.
(26) Romans 12:1. Further pertinent verses are found in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and 6:18-20.
(27) Spiritually speaking, faggots are "embers."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do homosexuals need to be healed of their homosexuality?

Do left-handed people need to be healed of their left-handedness?

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

Right on, Oxygen!! Good question..good point.

Short answer, No.

More complex answer: Work out more important problems in society, such as why people turn to drugs, why people turn to crime, why a whining electorate won't put an end to the silliness it bemoans ... put some money and effort into edcuation, don't make it subject to monetary returns. Now, when we work out important problems, we can then start wondering whether or not we need to subject yet another segment of our free society to forced moral propriety.

Moral abstraction:

* I hate you.
- Why?
* Because you're wrong.
- How do you know?
* Because I know.
- I think you're wrong that I'm wrong.
* That would be valid, but I have to consider the bias of the source. So, you're still wrong.
- How can I make you stop hating me?
* Stop being yourself.

When homosexuality was a psych disorder, people thought the should "cure" homosexuality.

When homosexuality was thought to be biological, people hoped they could genetically "cure" homosexuality.

When homosexuality was recognized simply as behavior, people decided that Liberty was too much, and demanded that in Liberty's name, other people give up Liberty.

It takes two to tango. It takes two to fight. It takes two for one to let the other pummel him upside the head. The Moralists of our culutre need to pull their heads out of their asses so they can at least see who they're swinging at.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Well Tiassa, if homosexuality is a behavior, then why can't it be changed? Seems the homosexuals are saying it's something that can't change.

So what is it?

Pashley--

All of those limited expressions of homosexuality are the result of political fights we wouldn't have gone through were it not for the failure of religiously-empowered persons to recognize that their empowerment by God might possibly be as falsely founded as the sexuality they so abhor.

By the way, put a ball bearing down on a slope. Describe its behavior. Now, can that behavior be changed without changing the fundamental conditions the ball bearing is subject to (angle of surface in relation to gravity, mass, &c.) Bottom-line: behavior as a word only applies to will when we are speaking directly of will. Human behavior can be of will, as you have described it in your musings about why people other than yourself can't fundamentally change themselves to be more like you. Human behavior can also be observed without such petty considerations. Learn to do this, and you'll see that nitpicking behavior between contexts is, in this case, an exercise best left for the desperate.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:


------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Oh please, so you are saying that just because someone is predisposed to a behavior, they have no power to change it. Typical feel-good liberal "i'm ok-you're ok" junk.

And i will thank you to leave the snide remarks about me out of your posts. I don't expect everyone to be like me, but do i expect everyone to not build an identity around a genital like SOME people do...

Pash--

Strike you a deal. If you stop being utterly, groundlessly dismissive, then I won't have to keep my sense of humor so close about me. I mean, really ... to reduce this to feel-good liberal "i'm ok, you're ok" junk really puts you in a bad position.

I mean, what you're asserting is that the propriety of human conduct is subject to modern political labels. Four and a half billion years of planet and life, and the best you can come up with is human conduct as a political position.

but do i expect everyone to not build an identity around a genital like SOME people do...

Some people ... like yourself? I mean, those other people who build an identity around a genital ... well, unlike you, they're often capable of building around their own. You, however, are fixated with other people's genitals.

Oh ... I'm sorry, was that snide? Actually, I don't think so. It's all in comparative context. For instance, I can read how that paragraph is snide. On the other hand, when compared to the snide reality you've asked me to comment on, it seems perfectly appropriate.

So, if I'm reading your last couple of posts correctly .... Well, if I'm reading your last snippet correctly, you're still missing the point.

Okay--the word "behavior" has a definition that is independent of two factors you fail to consider: 1--That behavior can be defined in a manner independent of personal will, and 2--Behavior can be defined under the weight of a perspective that--goshy gee!--isn't your own.

Observe any group of people in an area. One of my favorites is when you compare the actions of the people in Atlanta when the Olympic bomb went off and when you watch a group of deer at the moment of a gunshot. The reactions are identical--freeze, look, scatter. Do you see? You're watching human activity the same way you watch monkeys or big cats or flocks of birds. The behavior you observe then will be independent of your own prejudices. You can define it by your own prejudices, but that doesn't mean that what you see is what's really going on.

The only reason "behavior", in any definition, "needs" to be changed is when someone perceives it in discord with an assumed (assumed = false) propriety.

But I can't afford the time to keep taking you by the hand and walking you around the little cracks in the sidewalk. You can't possibly be so out of "logic" that you're reduced to this brand of pointless delay effort.

winks,
Tiassa ;)

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited May 31, 2000).]

Tiassa- It takes two to tango. It takes two to fight. It takes two for one to let the other pummel him upside the head.

Wonderfully illustrated. It should be stated, though, that it takes two to shake hands, two to discuss, and two to reach an agreement.

Behavior is one of two types. Controllable and uncontrollable. A child of sufficient age and knowledge to determine right from wrong is perfectly capable of controlling his or her behavior. He or she can choose not to act up in the museum. That same child, cannot control the behavior that, say, reacts favorably to a Monet painting. Which of these two behavior types does homosexuality fall into in your defintion of 'behavior'? I don't believe it's controllable. It's part of that person's genetic make-up, as is the preference for one kind of food over another. You can't help it if you like your steak rare. You can order it well-done, but that won't change the fact that you like it rare.

If homosexuality was 'curable', would we, as a society, have the right to 'cure' someone who didn't want to be 'cured'? Being gay isn't life threatening, nor is it contagious. You don't 'get gay' by hanging around homosexuals (I'm praying to the god of atheism that everybody knows that :D). What threat is it to heterosexuals?

AIDS, ah, now there's a different story, but anybody can get it if they're not careful.

I guess I should end this with "Cure AIDS, not gays."

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

Oxygen--

it takes two to shake hands, two to discuss, and two to reach an agreement.

Every once in a while, I need that perspective.

For later purposes, here exists a fundamental perspective difference that drives me bonkers; as you have pointed out, by proxy or intent, so long as we continue to view ourselves in terms of fighting factions, so it shall be.

I sit here strangely humbled by my own fundamental oversight. I have no idea why it is so affecting, except that it is a wonderful point hitherto overlooked.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Hm, just realized I haven't posted on this thread yet. Not like there is a question as to where I stand though, is there?

Do homosexuals need to be cured: Of course not. It's a pity this question ever needed to be asked.

Gee, that was way too easy!!

Homosexuality or any sexuality for that matter is not inherent for crying out loud!!! And it's not a dag-gone disease that needs to be cured either. I mean how convenient would that be? Any type of "sexuality" is a socially contrived label that is based upon many different biological and/or environmental factors. THERE IS NO HOMO GENE OK????? And until someone shows me one, let's can the whole "I'm magically homosexual" or "I'm magically straight" BS shall we?

Homosexuality is nothing more than gender discrimination. Period. And anything is possible with God, ESPECIALLY BUSTING YOUR PARADIGMS ALL TO HELL AND BACK. Discrimination based soley upon one's genitals doesn't seem to me like it would be too very difficult to "cure". It's like....hello, it just doesn't make any damn sense!!!!! Does any form of discrimination make sense? How about discrimination against homosexuals Flash? Do you appreciate the discrimination that you are subject to? No, I didn't think so.

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

I do like the idea that God could or would be accepting of any person that puts their faith in God for their salvation. Though I don't agree with the idea that homosexuality is natural, both in humans or animals. Ask yourself what purpose it serves in nature? And why such a small percentage? I think that God accepts us as we are, knows our weaknesses, failures, and joys. But I'm sure that we are not supposed to stay in whatever state God finds us, otherwise criminals and liars could remain as they are. If God works in your life, there has to be change. Can homosexuals change? I don't know, I guess it depends on whether its nature or nurture that makes people that way.
No matter what side you fall on, you and I have to rationalize our lives to ourselves and others. That our beliefs, customs, traditions, our way of thinking is correct or valid. The nature of our thought processes, experiences, beliefs, environment; the things that make us unique, probably gives us our worldview. The type of things or beliefs that we think are true, how we color our world depends on the 'rose-colored glasses we put on'.
As a Christian for the past 15 out of my 45 years, I have come to the conclusion that there really is a God, that we as persons are imperfect, that we can rationalize anything, that we are and can be bright, beautiful and full of wonder!
To get back to the biological side, in nature, are there stress factors involved? I seem to remember that most of the cases cited are when there is an inbalance in nature. Too many males or females. For all you scientists and others interested, watch the future implecations of the unintended experiment that China is conducting. For the last several decades China has had a one child policy for couples. Since Chinese traditions value males more than females, through abortion and abandonment more males have been born there. I'm thinking that as more and more young Chinese males get to adulthood, something has to happen. Either we'll see an increase of homosexuality, life-long bachleorhood or an exodus of immigrants to lands that have an abundance of females (Australia and the U.S. come to mind). Just a thought on the possible consequences of social policy.
On the personal revelation question, I don't think that being 'illuminated' or 'enlightened' have any bearing or weight in any religious discussion. First because we don't know whether its from God, if the message is for us only, if its are hopes and wishes, or whether its false teaching. I'm sure that Joseph Smith and Mohammad thought their messages were from God. But I beg to differ.
I've had a varied education; art, science, history, & etc. as a life-long learner and college graduate. Having said that, I don't think a college degree confers any authority or value on anything that a person says or does. Our ideas have to (or should) be judged by people on their merits, by logic or whatever we use as a measuring stick. I don't think self-published books or theses can be used as authoritative works. But there was a lot to think about.
Anyway, Christ did say to love one another, unfortunately we use swords(real and figurative) more often! I do hope to be surprised by all the people who go to Heaven!!! If any of my ideas or anyone elses, don't hold water, well either plug the leak or shoot it full of more holes. Anyway, thats what I think!

[This message has been edited by Randolfo (edited June 24, 2000).]

Randolfo,
So because you do not see what purpose homosexuality serves from a nature standpoint... this makes it wrong? Hmmmm.. I suppose you could look at it that way..which causes me look at some of the heterosexual couples who are unable to produce children..I guess that too would be wrong...what purpose would it serve? ;)

So because the percentage of homosexuals are low in comparison to heterosexuals...it also shows it is wrong? This really has me puzzled. I have spoke with other christians that have stated that very same thing. I just do not see the logic of deeming something wrong all because the majority of the people do not act or think that way. To me what this says is because someone is different we should not accept them. Kinda harsh..isn't it? You know it was the majority who once thought the world was flat..it was the majority who once thought blacks should not be freed...who once thought women did not have the right to vote..and it was the majority who persecuted Jesus and put him on the cross...did that make it right?

Flash: Whether I accept anyones' ideas, culture, or lifestyle does not have anything to do with whether I accept them as a person. I've known, worked with, worked for, had clients, have friends and family that ranged from every spectrum of the rainbow. And I don't think its being very big of me to do that, its just a part of life to learn to get along with others. And I hope you don't need others to validate your existance or life choices?
From the title of this topic I gather that its an open religious question, and from the contents of the first post I gather that the author feels compelled to state that God accepts gay christians and therefore all christians should accept gays.
From a christian perspective, I don't feel that that is true. Read Acts and the Apostles' letters to the early Church and see if they didn't expect God's power to change your life. They didn't expect Christians to conform to society, but to struggle with it and live under the rules of God's kingdom. And you will also notice that even then the early Church had to struggle with members that wanted to do things their way. What is right? we have to choose for ourselves. Hopefully our choices will conform with God's.
I have yet to be convinced that homosexuality is not an environmental or lifestyle choice. The biggest proponents and opponents have so much at stake on this very question, that its hard for them to see it in an objective light. To me its a cultural choice that people either make or fall into, like joining a frat, a gang or being preppies. What goes inside peoples' minds as they make choices depends on the social, emotional and psychological skills and experiences they have had.
Having lived and worked in East Los Angeles, I've known and seen people make choices that led them to join gangs, they saw no other choice. Its a culture that accepts its members with open arms, and has aspects of it that satisfy most human needs. They belong to them because its their family, their neighborhood, their life. (An aside, Chicano gangs have called their lifestyle 'La Vida Loca' for more than 30 years. So everytime I hear that song, I can see gangsters singing it. What a hoot!!). Try convincing them that its better to go straight and even if they know you're right, they can not see any way to leave it. Because its all around them, its in their head, their friends and homies. To them they have no choice! They're gangsters! End of story.
If its a part of nature, thats another question. Because then we need to know why it happens? is it a mutation? are there advantages to it? is it part of natural selection? or are they being selected out? Anyway, we may debate this for years until there is a definite answer. So for now, see ya!!

Read Acts and the Apostles' letters to the early Church and see if they didn't expect God's power to change your life. They didn't expect Christians to conform to society, but to struggle with it and live under the rules of God's kingdom. And you will also notice that even then the early Church had to struggle with members that wanted to do things their way. What is right?

Randolfo,

Yeah, and if you'll read some of Paul's letters to the early Church, you'll see that he also expected women to live very much under the thumbs of the men, presumably in an effort to conform to the rules of society existing at that time (or so I'm told by those who supposedly "know"). Is that right? I'm sorry if this seems like I'm getting off the subject, but I feel it's relevant. I have a difficult time putting the apostles in charge of determining what's right and what's wrong, when I feel they got this one so wrong. Do you see my point?

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

If I may, I think that you are both missing the point in different ways. It's not about the act, it's about the intent behind the act. It's about sin and it's affect on people. Seriously, if you're trying to decide on right vs wrong, in any kind of relationship, you've got to look at intentions. So barring malintent, then what's wrong with homosexuality? Barring malintent, what's wrong with heterosexuality? Trick questions, cause such a thing doesn't even really exist. I think that "sexuality" is bogus. I honestly think that given all of the diversity within the human race, and specifically within the feminine vs masculine spectrum, and the fact that sex is supposed to be based upon mutual respect and love and trust, and who a person is on the inside anyway, it's safe to conclude that the ONLY real reason that a person would label themselves either homosexual or heterosexual is based ultimately on gender discrimination. And I'm sorry, but I think that there's something awry with that. Shit, I know it. It all goes back to those damned "natural tendencies". It's lust! Hello, am I the only one out here who has the balls to admit it? ;) I mean, I can't not fess up here, cause I live this shit ok? It's reality. Ok, so ideally, is it a good idea to base a sexual relationship on a physical trait of any kind? So is it ok to base a sexual relationship ultimately on which particular sex organ a person has? Well, it's not if it has to do with physical attraction, or what turns you on, or whatever. I, myself, go beyond the black and white in the Bible. You can't just say, "Well, those are the laws, whether you understand them or not, or you're inclined to, just do as you're told". That's not ok. There are a lot of really, really valid and truthful reasons why men and women should be together, and have sex, in committed, loving relationships. Can you think of some reasons? I can.

And Searcher!!! The Bible does NOT say that!!! Stop that crapola right now, you don't understand what you're talking about. And dag it, I've tried to explain it to you. You just won't let it go? That is NOT what the Bible says, and that is NOT what Jesus says or is about. Not at all.

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited June 25, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited June 25, 2000).]

And Searcher!!! The Bible does NOT say that!!! Stop that crapola right now, you don't understand what you're talking about. And dag it, I've tried to explain it to you. You just won't let it go? That is NOT what the Bible says, and that is NOT what Jesus says or is about. Not at all.

Lori,

I don't understand what I'm talking about? I suspect that I've read a lot more of the Bible than you have - remember that I attended seminary for a year just to study the New Testament? I know how much you hate it when I quote the Bible, so do you really want me to do that again? It may not contain the same vernacular that I used, but it does say that women should be submissive to their husbands, and that women should not be in a position to teach men, and women should keep quiet in church, and keep their heads covered in church...

Jesus may not have said those things himself, but at least one of his apostles did. Let's see now, whose message and teachings were they supposed to be spreading? I keep forgetting...

Need I quote chapter and verse to you - AGAIN?

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Randolfo,

Flash: Whether I accept anyones' ideas, culture, or lifestyle does not have anything to do with whether I accept them as a person. I've known, worked with, worked for, had clients, have friends and family that ranged from every spectrum of the rainbow. And I don't think its being very big of me to do that, its just a part of life to learn to get along with others. And I hope you don't need others to validate your existance or life choices?

I couldn't agree with you more, Randolfo.
Let me try to clear something up...I do not need others to validate anything that I do. This post was put up during the time when the open discussion about homosexuality was going on. My only desire is that those who openly discriminate- to the point of telling others how "wrong" they are for loving one of the same sex..and how they are going to hell because of it- could open their hearts to what Jesus says. I have had friends who have been attacked by some christians with such attitudes. It was harsh, judgemental, and not loving in anyway at all. My problem is with the spreading of hate and the lies that homosexuals cannot be christians and how God does not approve or accept them because of it.

Below is an awesome site that I have discovered just today. It is a bit long, but very informative.
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Stonewall/8944/dave.htm

Sincerely,
Flash

Hello all ~
A twist on the original question. In place of "homosexuals", let us substitute "the religious"
"Do the religious need to be healed of their faith"? :p

A twist on the original question- 'Do the heathen need to be healed of their heath?' No seriously, what type of occupation is 'non-believer', Heathen? Are you like a lobbyist? Do you get paid? Or is that your passionate pastime? Just wondering?

Randolfo,

I would imagine the "non-believer" job pays about as much as the "bible thumper" job. :)

Sorry, Rando, but seriously, I'm just not sure where you're coming from on that one. Are you punning on his name? I don't get it. Enlighten me?

Greetings all ~
Thanks MoonCat. Randolfo, no I am not a lobbyist. :D LMAO :D
It has been my experience over the years that the devout are so consumed by their faith that they become blinded to everyday life.
You talk to the faithful and everything is because of god. Sky is blue, god's will, not light refraction. 2+2=4, again god's will, not math. Etc...
I know these examples are extreme, but it just seems to me that christianity, and it's followers, can sin, blasphemy and it's okay, because god forgives me and my ass is going right into heaven. "CAN I HAVE AN AMEN, BROTHER!!" :D
It's just to convieient. I have a hard time accepting people that cannot stand up for their own actions. :rolleyes:
H

Daggit, Searcher! And I say that with a smile of course. :D It also says in the Bible that MEN ARE SUPPOSED TO LOVE THEIR WIVES AS CHRIST LOVES THE CHURCH. You are looking at the role of women in the Bible, but you are not looking at the role of men in the Bible, or the implied responsibility of men given the role of women even! I mean, men have this awesome responsibility to be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING EVEN CLOSE TO WHAT THEY ACTUALLY ARE. This is NOT a perfect world ok???? Listen, the minute I meet a man that has THOSE intentions, I will be on my knees in a MINUTE! AND PROUD OF IT TOO! Do you see my point at all? IT'S NEVER GONNA HAPPEN. This is NOT a perfect world. Have you ever, ever, ever, heard of a society in which men respected and cared for women as they should? Have you ever known of a woman who has really been treated with the respect that they deserve from a man? Do you know of a man that really has the righteousness and strength to do right by a woman like the Bible says? EVER? Listen, take a look around in the world. Go out to a singles bar sometime, and watch the men. Examine their intent for a minute, and JUST TRY NOT TO THROW UP ALL OVER THE BAR OK? Stop trying to make this arguement so cut and dry. It's not.

And I also don't think that you're giving the role of women a fair shake either. Take my word for it, you have some kind of paradigm that equates submissiveness with powerlessness. Bust it, baby. It's not true. Women are very powerful. The women of the Bible are very powerful. Women have changed the course of history over and over, one at a time, every single day, every minute, and while all the while being suppressed, and unappreciated, and taken advantage of by men. Women are given the awesome responsibility of giving birth, and RAISING THE MEN THAT ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN. And excuse me, but have you noticed how weird men are? They need us. They really, really do. Most of them just don't know what it is that they need us for.

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited June 28, 2000).]

Originally posted by Searcher:
Need I quote chapter and verse to you - AGAIN?
[/B]

Quote it so I could see, because I dont remember that part.

Quote it so I could see, because I dont remember that part.

Okay, Infinity - just for you I am copying part of a discussion where I paraphrased a few verses in which Paul voiced some unflattering opinions about women, which you can find at the page below:

http://www.exosci.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000304-2.html


<font color ="red">Paul was pretty insufferable on the subject of women in general. More specifically, he said that women should keep their heads covered when prophesying or praying (1 Cor. 11:5,6), the woman was created for the man (1 Cor. 11:9), if women will learn anything they should ask their husbands (to whom they are commanded to be obedient) at home, for it is a shame for women to speak in church (1 Cor. 14:34,35), and he more specifically addressed the issue of wives being obedient to their husbands, as well as being discreet, chaste, and keepers at home, in Titus 2:5.</font>

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

Hmmm...seems I am forever posting messages that seem irrelevant to the topic at hand. This is a story about discrimination - although not quite what you were posting, Flash. Still, I liked this one and wanted to share it with all of you:

<font color ="red">"Go British Airways"

The following story shows us the side of diversity that we are all working for. It is a pleasant twist to see that there are companies and individuals who face discrimination head on, if only one small step at a time - but still enforce the right for every human being regardless of race,
colour, creed or religion to have equality in life.

Enjoy reading the positive side of diversity ... I applaud British Airways for their action in this situation on a British Airways flight from Johannesburg.

A middle-aged, well-off white South African lady has found herself sitting next to a black man.

She called the cabin crew attendant over to complain about this arrangement:

"What seems to be the problem Madam?" asked the attendant.

"Can't you see?" she said "You've sat me next to a kaffir. I can't possibly sit next to this disgusting human. Find me another seat!"

"Please calm down Madam." the stewardess replied. "The flight is very full today, but I'll tell you what I'll do-I'll go and check
to see if we have any seats available in club or first class."

The woman cocks a snooty look at the outraged black man beside her (not to mention many of the surrounding passengers).

A few minutes later the stewardess returns with the good news, which she delivers to the lady, who cannot help but look at the
people around her with a smug and self satisfied grin: "Madam, unfortunately, as I suspected, economy is full. I've spoken to the cabin services director, and club is also full. However, we do have one very nice seat in first class."

The stewardess continues ...

"It is most extraordinary to make this kind of upgrade, however, and I have had to get special permission from the captain. But,
given the circumstances, the Captain felt that it was outrageous that someone be forced to sit next to such an obnoxious and
uneducated person and therefore he has given his full approval for such a seat change to occur."

With that, the stewardess turned to the black man sitting next to the woman, and said: "So if you'd like to get your things, sir, I have your new seat ready for you..."

At this point, apparently the surrounding passengers stood and gave a standing ovation while the black guy walks proudly up to
the front of the plane.</font>

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

Searcher,

I do believe you've made my day with this one! Very heartwarming, indeed. :)

Hello everyone ~
Searcher, Good Post. Talk about instant Karma. I'll have a smile on my mug all day now from that story. Thanks again!

Searcher,

What is so wrong with what Paul has to say about women? What in the hell is wrong with a woman who respects, admires, supports, and learns a thing or two from a man? I personally am a very independent, self-sufficient woman, who has never, ever even considered trusting a man with anything important to me, and it just recently has occurred to me that it really sucks. I mean, there's a damn good reason or two that I'm that way...you know, cause most men are assholes who take advantage of women, and do not take the responsibility that God gave them seriously, or don't even know they have any responsibility. I myself, am exhausted from trying to deal with these men, and trying to protect myself emotionally and physically. I'm going to find a man with a heart of gold, and a woman's best interest in mind, and I'm going to submit to him like nothing you've ever seen. I'll roll over and show him my belly just like a dog would, and I'll most gladly wave that white flag forever. What is so wrong with roles? What is so wrong with men and women being different? Just because a woman is supposed to submit to a man in a relationship doesn't mean that they are powerless or stupid or do not deserve respect. You're thinking about this all wrong. Hey, submitting to a man requires a lot more strength than I've ever been able to muster, but I'm working on it, and praying, and I've got faith.

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Lori,

Sorry, but I'm still with Searcher on this one.

If you want to "roll over like a dog" for your man, you go right ahead, I surely won't stop you. But the day I do is the day I'm not me anymore, I've become someone wholly different.

I will not "submit", but I will be equal. I don't expect my man to submit to me, so why should he expect me to submit to him?

Lori, do you think men are superior to women? I just don't understand it at all.

I don't think EITHER partner in a relationship should have to submit to the other. I think a healthy relationship is a partnership of equals. At least that's what my relationship is like, and we're on 7 happy years and counting. We don't fight, we don't disrespect eachother, and we don't submit to eachother either. We each know our own strengths and weaknesses and bolster eachother's skills, abilities and personalities. He & I have done quite well in disregarding stupid gender-roles in our relationship, I think. Okay, he does tend to be the one to mow the lawn, but that's because he likes his shiny new mower so much. LOL.

WHY would you want to submit to a man, Lori? I understand your desire to find that guy with the heart of gold, I've found mine and I wish everyone could be so lucky. But why specifically do you desire to flop onto your back like that? (Other than in the bedroom, of course, LOL) I guess I just don't get it. (shrug)

Lori ~
There is nothing wrong with respecting, supporting, etc. a man. That's great, every man looks for that in a woman but doesn't always get that.
As for men being assholes, there are a large amount of men out there that are. But there is also women out there that are evil bitches.
I don't know if I would say that I have a heart of gold, but I am responsible and I will say that I absolutely love and adore my girlfriend. She is my best friend. I try like hell to always do the right thing, what's right to me, but sometimes fall short because she had different expectations. At times it hurts like hell or makes me furious to know I tried my best but "ended up failing". But that's just the way it goes. And when I am mad, or hurt, that doesn't mean that I love her any less. Together we get through it and go on. She drives me crazy at times, but also gives me strength and happiness the like I've not known before.
Now the real problem I had with your post. Unless I misunderstand what you meant, I don't believe that anyone should have to "submit" to another (maybe a little submissive in the sack :D). Maybe make some changes, minor changes, but not submit. That person should accept you as you are, as an equal. You shouldn't have to sacrifice your identity for the sake of a relationship!
I know you say that it takes strength and all, and I'm probably way off beam in your true meaning, but I just don't/can't agree with what you said.
Anyway, I am rambling on now and don't know why! ;)
would you believe me if I said "Once a Heathen..."

MoonCat, Bravo! Knowing the both of you I couldn't agree more. Except for the part about the lawnmower. It's shiny because it hasn't been used!! LMAO :p
Once a Heathen...

Heathen, you big fibber! He mows the lawn all the time. 'Course, it's dead now that I don't let him water it all the time... Damn utility bills.

ROFL, I sure can't picture your lady being submissive, not by a long shot. In fact, if anyone in that relationship is the boss....well, I won't say it. ;)

MoonCat, this is Heathen you're talking to. You can lie to your hubby and you can lie to your mom, you can't lie to me! Bad kitty! :D :p
ME MAN *THUMP* (beating chest) ME 'M BOSS!! yeah, right. Although if you talk to K, she'll say I'm not whipped.
We're partners, equals. What's mine is hers and what's hers is hers. See how easy it is? ;)
Don't listen to any of this Lori!
Once a Heathen...

[This message has been edited by Heathen (edited July 06, 2000).]

Ok, to me submission means total and complete trust. That's it. I in no way shape or form believe that a woman is less than, or less powerful than, or less important than a man. But to say that we are equal and meaning that we are the same is dead wrong. We are not the same. To me, being submissive, which means trusting, is much much much harder to do than not trusting, so therefore, it takes more strength for me. I have a lot of controlling tendencies with men, and I don't like that, and neither do they. It came from being with men who had bad intentions, or being practically bombarded with them, and having to protect myself emotionally and physically from their malintent. I don't like that about them, and I don't like what that did to me at all. Because now if I'm lucky enough to actually find a good guy, I have no idea how to be with him. Old habits die hard. Do you understand what I mean?

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited July 06, 2000).]

MoonCat & Heathen,

I'm glad you enjoyed the post. It was a day-brightener for me too! :)


Lori,

What was wrong with what Paul said about women? Uh, let's see - just about everything! Why should a woman cover her head in church? Why should she keep quiet in church, waiting until she gets home to ask her husband for an explanation for whatever it was she needed clarified? Why should a woman have to be obedient to her husband as if she was a little child? Why should a woman be limited to being a housewife? I hadn't mentioned it in the above post, but Paul had also said that he would not suffer a woman to teach men - why not?

You said that to you, submissiveness means total trust - I don't see that at all, and it certainly doesn't match the dictionary definition. Why can't you see anything wrong with what Paul said? To me, it seems like he thinks women are like feeble-minded children who need a man to tell them what to do. So why did God bother giving women brains at all? And why do women buy into this mentality? I just don't get it!

Flash - sorry to hijack your topic - again! :)

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

Originally posted by Heathen:
I know these examples are extreme, but it just seems to me that christianity, and it's followers, can sin, blasphemy and it's okay, because god forgives me and my ass is going right into heaven. "CAN I HAVE AN AMEN, BROTHER!!" :D
It's just to convieient. I have a hard time accepting people that cannot stand up for their own actions. :rolleyes:
H

Heathen,

That gives me an idea for a Pagan bumper sticker: "Pagans aren't perfect, but at least we're paying our own way!"

Whaddaya think? :)



------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

How about, Pagans aren't perfect, but when was that the point?

--Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

I've been married to my hubby for going on 12 years, and we are equal partners. Submit means to give over, surrender your will and your desires for someone elses. I can only think of a time or two when I 'submitted' to my old man. Each occasion was when I was hostile, and ready to fight. I gave over to my husband, and let him handle it.(probably a good idea) Find a man with a heart of gold, and you will never have to roll over like a dog. My husband laughed so hard!! The day I act that way, is the day he will believe me to be possessed. :D Like my old man says; I don't want a woman who submits to me, I want someone to be my partner in life. With their own dreams, life and little quirks. :)

------------------
I am where there is need, I am not where no need exists, I am a staff to lean on, a lamp to light the way, I am shelter from the storm and yet I am the storm that rages around you.
susan mcmanaway

Lori,

I understand you a little better now, but I think your definition of submit is much different than mine. I'm not even sure that's what the bible means by submit, but I'm definitely no bible scholar so I'll leave that alone. ;)

To be sure I'm clear here - to you "submit" means more like "make yourself vulnerable", am I right?

This I can agree with, that makes a lot more sense to me. But I also think it goes both ways - the man sould also make himself vulnerable to his wife, don't you think?

I think everything in a relationship needs to be mutual. Mutual love, mutual trust, mutual goals in life... Otherwise the relationship isn't balanced and won't last, at least not happily. One partner cannot be completely open and vulnerable and trusting while the other one hides their feelings and doesn't open up, don't you think?

I think that's part of our "Asshole male" problem in this country - men are taught not to feel things, that they must provide for their families or be failures, real men don't cry, yadda yadda yadda, and how can anyone be a whole, normal, loving person under those kinds of pressures?? So they get bitter and start to treat women (and everyone else, but women in particular) like trash. That's my opinion anyway.

Sure, men and women are different, no doubt about it. And thank the gods for that, huh? I sure would miss men if they all disapeared or turned into women!! What a mess that would be! But anyway, yah, we're different, but we're also very similar. I think we are more alike than dissimilar, all things considered. And that's all a generalization, on an individual basis we are ALL just as different from eachother regardless of our genetalia. "Unique, just like everyone else." LOL.

I think that there are a couple of points that should be addressed regarding this thread. First, it has been shown that homosexual behavior occurs in nature. Sorry I don't remember where, but I say a report on an experiment with rats that showed that when too many rats were cooped up in a given area, a number of very human behaviors started to appear. Behaviors like homosexuality random assaults, murder. I also have dim memories of mention that certain other animal species also exibit homosexual tendancies. This tells me that homosexuality is natural.

If one claims that "God" created us in his own image, then that image must include homosexuals. Everything that I have seen indicates that homosexuals are born that way. Given the persecution that homosexuals face even in this country, supposedly the land of the free, I can't believe that anyone would accually choose such a life style

Either way, there is nothing to cure. Its like asking if blonds need to be cured.

Hmm, do I believe homosexuals need to be healed of their homosexuality? No, there really isn't a need for homosexuality to be cured, since only a very small portion of society is homosexual. But could it be cured anyway? That I'm not sure of. The data I have seen doesn't conclusively indicate a genetic cause. Some of the evidence I have read, such as the study done by neuroanatomist Simon LeVay, seemed to be reaching. It reports that a localized cluster (a "nucleus") of cells in the brains of homosexual men was twice as large by volume on autopsy as in heterosexual men. This study was severely flawed for two reasons. First, there is no conclusive definition of homosexuality and heterosexuality, and the subjects were dead, thus there is no way to prove they were homosexual. A study done a year before that was published in Brain Research said the same thing, yet made no definite claims. More recently, yet another difference in another part of the brain was reported, also in a prestigious publication, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America. This study claimed that a difference between male homosexuals and heterosexuals was found in the anterior commissure, a structure that divides the left and right halves of the brain. The authors found that the anterior commissure was larger in women and homosexual men than in heterosexual men. This was a group statistical difference, however: the size of the anterior commissure in 27 of the 30 homosexual men actually fell within the range of sizes found among the 30 heterosexual men. As did LeVay, these authors used brain samples obtained preponderantly from men who died of AIDS, introducing another uncontrolled variable into their work.

Of course, the studies never can conclude if the subjects always had enlarged parts of their brain, or if they grew like because of their lifestyle. In the 1992 February issue of Newsweek, a study shown that in individuals who became blind as adults and then learned Braille, the part of the brain governing the right index finger became progressively enlarged. It's reasonable to assume homosexual behavior could have the same effect on the brain as learning Braille, of course, only further study will prove or disprove this hypothesis.

As I see it, the most likely cause of, or the main factor involved it due to the environment in which the homosexual grew up. Many studies have documented how often homosexual men experience sexual abuse while growing up, the same is true for pedophiles.

Not saying conclusively that homosexuality is a result of environment, but data of this nature can't be ignored, and neither could better evidence towards a genetic origin. Until much better evidence comes to light on the origins of homosexuality, I will assume environment is the major factor behind homosexuality.

Someone7,
Until much better evidence comes to light on the origins of homosexuality, I will assume environment is the major factor behind homosexuality.

Well, you know the saying when one "assumes" *S*

Honestly, I did not suffer from abuse...nor have any of my lesbian or homosexual friends. No, we cannot speak for the entire gay and lesbian population...but, you would think that somewhere in the cluster of friends I have ...if environment was so strong...one of them would have been abused.

Quite honestly, if a person is at peace with their sexual preference...what's the big deal?

As a side note...there are heterosexuals who have been sexually abused by one of the opposite sex and are still heterosexual... I'm not really sure where you are going with this?

"Someone7,
Well, you know the saying when one "assumes" *S*"

Well, I went into detail about why I assume it mainly has to do with environmental factors, and I didn't say I was 100% for sure, just that in light of the evidence, there isn't a reason to think genetics play a major role. I'm thinking critical, not wishfully.

"Honestly, I did not suffer from abuse...nor have any of my lesbian or homosexual friends. No, we cannot speak for the entire gay and lesbian population...but, you would think that somewhere in the cluster of friends I have ...if environment was so strong...one of them would have been abused."

Environmental factors doesn't equal sexual abuse, or necessarily any abuse at all. It means the person's life experiences have caused them to become homosexual, whether or not any abuse took place in their life. Just because your or none of your friends say they have been abused, doesn't mean they haven't. Some people are embarrassed to admit it, others just block out the experience. Not saying they did, but it's not an impossibility.

"Quite honestly, if a person is at peace with their sexual preference...what's the big deal?"

Nothing really, but when it's claim it has a genetic origin, their must be sufficient evidence to validate this claim.

"As a side note...there are heterosexuals who have been sexually abused by one of the opposite sex and are still heterosexual... I'm not really sure where you are going with this?"

In the studies I mentioned (L. S. Doll et al., "Self-Reported Childhood and Adolescent Sexual Abuse Among Adult Homosexual Bisexual Men," Child Abuse and Neglect 16, no. 6 (1992), pp. 855-64. & D. M. Greenberg, J. M. Bradford, and S. Curry, "A Comparison of Sexual Victimization in the Childhoods of Pedophiles and Hebephiles," Journal of Forensic Science (United States) 38, no. 2 (March 1993), pp. 432-36.) most of the homosexual men who reported abuse reported that an older, stronger male partner was responsible for it 94% of the time. The average age of men who reported abuse was 10, the average difference of age between the victim and the abuser was 11 years. Where I'm going by mentioning these studies, is that a significant number of male homosexuals experience same-sex sexual abuse as children (about 37% in this study). They interviewed 1,000 homosexual men, and around 370 reported abuse. Granted, a larger study would be needed to conclusively say whether or not same-sex sexual abuse happened to a third of homosexual men, but if this study is correct, then you can't ignore this evidence. Doing so would be illogical.

I'm adding this because I think you misunderstand the purpose of citing these studies. I'm not saying same-sex sexual abuse turns people into homosexuals. What I am implying is that same-sex sexual abuse is an environmental factor that most likely played a key role in the develop of homosexuality in a third of male homosexuals, which indicates environmental factors do indeed play a key role in the development of homosexuality. I hope this clarifies what I am getting at.

[This message has been edited by Someone7 (edited September 04, 2000).]

Lori,

Thank you for being honest. Yes, we men are often right, and so are women. You shined some light on the idea that a relationship shouldn't be a contest of dominance.
<hr>

Do Homosexuals Need to be Healed of their Homosexuality? *A must read*

It depends. Are you willing to accept the idea that there is something wrong with homosexuality?


------------------
It's all very large.

I just thought it worth mentioning that this Sunday (9/10) the one and only God Hates Fags will be in town. Freddie Phelps & His Baptist Bunch are descending upon a local (Seattle) church to protest a gay Episcopal preacher. (Since he's already badgering other sects of faith, why doesn't he protest Jewish synagogues or Muslim mosques because they're not Christian?) Anyway, cause number two is apparently to openly celebrate the death of two people in a recent plane crash who happened to be gay.

Anyway, since Freddie is coming to town to tell us that God made a plane crash just so he could purge two fags from the planet ... is this really happening?

I mean, look at this! Now I'm going out into the streets to openly defend a Christian church! Me! Are there any apocalyptics in the forum? It might be time to start counting the days.

I just can't believe it's coming to this. Of course, afterward, if I ever bear children, I can regale their children with the truth of a God--any God, really--because I will remember the day the Devil came to my home town.

Maybe I'll dig up an earthbound star, dress in black and green, wear black lipstick and carry my sacred antler (yes, I have a sacred antler from--well, after, actually--my Satanist days) and thank Brother Freddie for so faithfully doing the work of my former Dark Lords. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he pulled his skin off to show me the Devil's flesh beneath.

At least the sh*t won't hit the fan; it'll be sitting on the streetcorner holding a picket-sign from Westboro.

on the prowl ...,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rang among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Someone7,

Ok, I realize what environmental factors mean...it's just that in your prior post it appeared that was what your beef was.
True, people can hide things about what have happened to them...however, the friends that I speak of I know VERY well...and know that I know more than likely are not hiding anything like that from me. We are allll very close.

Look, environmental factors play a lot in MANY things regarding us ALL...be it homo or heterosexual. The bottom line is....IF this is what a person is most comfortable with and and peace with...then it doesn't matter what the cause is. Further, I do not care that it is "abnormal".... As long as there is no harm intended...then it shouldn't matter to you or anyone else. How would you feel, being a heterosexual, if society ruled heterosexuality as the abnormal...and thus, tried to preach to everyone just how wrong it is...and ohhhhhh not everyone is doing it so it must be wrong. :rolleyes: We are SIMPLY talking about sexual perference here...not murder...not anything violent whatsoever. We are speaking of two CONSENTING adults. PERIOD. If it makes you feel uncomfortable...well, then join the rest of the "real world". Not everything that everyone does makes one comfortable. But, being a lesbian, cannot live my life for my parents, relatives, friends, or foes...but, for me. You have this right...should the rest of the "gay/lesbian" population?

********************************************

Bowser,

It depends. Are you willing to accept the idea that there is something wrong with homosexuality

Well, Bowser, did you read the MEAT of that question??????? hmmmmmmmmmmmm :rolleyes:

No, I do not accept the "idea" that there is something wrong with homosexuality..and further, you cannot state it as fact. END OF STORY.

I guess it is my only beef, some of the posts in this thread imply that homosexuality is “behavior”, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. I was just attempting to clarify that indeed, it’s wrong to say either environment factors or genetics (or “behavior”) is the sole cause of homosexuality conclusively, because we don’t know for sure at the moment. The best answer is a combination of genetics and environment. As I see it, if genetics play a role at all (which they probably do), the role is minor, and only makes the person more likely to become homosexual because of environmental influences. But, it’s just a hypothesis, I can’t say conclusively that this is so, just in light of the data I have seen, this is my best guess.

In a lot of cases also, people are more open with strangers about things like that than they are friends and relatives. This closeness with your friends could be exactly why they haven’t mentioned it, it’s a possibility, but an improbable one, just as is blocking the experience out.

“Look, environmental factors play a lot in MANY things regarding us ALL...be it homo or heterosexual. The bottom line is....IF this is what a person is most comfortable with and and peace with...then it doesn't matter what the cause is. Further, I do not care that it is "abnormal".... As long as there is no harm intended...then it shouldn't matter to you or anyone else. How would you feel, being a heterosexual, if society ruled heterosexuality as the abnormal...and thus, tried to preach to everyone just how wrong it is...and ohhhhhh not everyone is doing it so it must be wrong. We are SIMPLY talking about sexual perference here...not murder...not anything violent whatsoever. We are speaking of two CONSENTING adults. PERIOD. If it makes you feel uncomfortable...well, then join the rest of the "real world". Not everything that everyone does makes one comfortable. But, being a lesbian, cannot live my life for my parents, relatives, friends, or foes...but, for me. You have this right...should the rest of the "gay/lesbian" population?”

It’s not something I really care about. I don’t believe in heaven or hell, or Yahweh and Jesus, or any other deities, and I don’t plan to waste my short time on Earth caring about what people are doing that I will never meet. Indeed, I think I have to judge that you are trying to convince yourself that homosexuality is normal, since you act as if I said it was a bad thing that should be stopped at all costs. In fact, I can’t even understand what you mean with some of your statements. “You have this right...should the rest of the "gay/lesbian" population?”” what does that mean?

Someone7,

In a lot of cases also, people are more open with strangers about things like that than they are friends and relatives. This closeness with your friends could be exactly why they haven’t mentioned it, it’s a possibility, but an improbable one, just as is blocking the experience out.

Look, I understand what you are saying in the above...I really do. However, the friends that I am speaking of tell things that would knock your socks off... You must understand...I do KNOW these friends of mine...very well.

It’s not something I really care about. I don’t believe in heaven or hell, or Yahweh and Jesus, or any other deities, and I don’t plan to waste my short time on Earth caring about what people are doing that I will never meet. Indeed, I think I have to judge that you are trying to convince yourself that homosexuality is normal, since you act as if I said it was a bad thing that should be stopped at all costs. In fact, I can’t even understand what you mean with some of your statements. “You have this right...should the rest of the "gay/lesbian" population?”” what does that mean?

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were tring to get across. I apologize. It's just that I have met sooo many people, here and otherwise, that seem to think that just because being gay/lesbian deviates from the norm...automatically makes it a bad thing. For example, read Bowser's posts...he believes homosexuality is wrong because it deviates from the "norm". My beef has to do with misunderstanding/ignorance on this subject. For Christ's sakes...there once was a person on this board who tried to equate homosexuality with pedophilia!!! I believe that as long as something causes no harm...and as long as two consenting adults are involved...(and both parties are at peace with themselves) then what the heck does it matter?????? I may not like what you do with every detail of your life...and you mine...but, as long as I am not harming anyone ...big bloody deal. I believe that society as a whole places so much judgement on other lives that it is unreal. If the "majority" isn't doing it ...thus, it automatically is deemed wrong. That is my beef. That is nothing but being close-minded and ignorance.

Again, I apologize...obviously I misread what you meant... My last prior statement simply meant this: Well, first, like I have stated before, many believe that being a homosexual ='s wrong BECAUSE it deviates from the "norm". That type of reasoning, to me, does not make sense whatsoever. I was taking a wild guess that you were trying to
state that because homosexuality is "abnormal" we, homosexuals, do not have a right to be who we are...however, heterosexuals do. Again, I am sorry as I obivously misunderstood what you meant.

To me ..causes &/or effects do not matter...what matters is that one feels at peace with what/who they are...period.

Take care...

Flash

"To me ..causes &/or effects do not matter...what matters is that one feels at peace with what/who they are...period."

So, if the rest of us desire to keep it out of public view, you don't have a problem with that? In Portland, we have a problem with homosexual men making public restrooms and public parks a place for expressing who they are. Should I be at peace with this? Or should I view them as pond scum?

------------------
It's all very large.

Bowser--

When I lived in Salem, Oregon, we had the same problem with heterosexual prostitution.

Is this somehow a separate issue?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

No. You are absolutely right. They are very similar. They both lack something, don't they. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited September 12, 2000).]

As a general idea .... Given that there's a lot of argument over "natural", what exactly is that? Let's try some examples, since our rhetorical summaries are as subjective as "up" when there's no gravity.

For instance ... (and I've scanned through the thread, but I'm not sure I'm not covering stale ground):

* What is natural?

To examine the bulk of threads at Exosci dedicated to homosexuality, its supporters, its detractors, and the fictitious equation that sleeping with another human being is tantamount to raping your children on video with animals .... (ad nauseam)

So, it's a matter of whether or not homosexuality is "natural", or not, for some people.

These people I would ask: "What is normal? Is it 'heterosexuality' exclusively? Missionary heterosexuality? Is fellation 'normal' or perverse? What of frigidity, or even of elective celibacy? What of self-gratification? What of those people who participate in 'extreme sports' because those sports are 'better than sex'?"

I mean, it seems to me we box ourselves in when we decry something as unnatural simply because we don't have the balls to admit that we're flat-out scared of things we don't understand. Furthermore, I often wonder if people sometimes refuse to understand something because their xenophobia is much more comfortable than stable function. Lysander Spooner noted this, in 1875, when he pointed out that parents often will keep their children functionally ignorant or in a state of unfounded fear in order to exact some behavioral result from the child.

It seems to me that if we assert that heterosexuality is "normal" or "natural", we must define why.

The coupling of a man and a woman ... is it for reproductive purposes? Recreational and pleasurable purposes?

Viagra, silicone, $40 panties ... it all goes toward the normalcy of heterosexual intercourse.

Anyway, I'm rambling, so I'll stop. That and I apparently have a last bit of work to do ... but, really ... what are the implications of declaring something to be "natural", or to declare "natural" as a superlative state instead of a natural state.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Tiassa, you have sucked me dry...of words, that is. I'll just say that homosexuality is icky; and with that, I leave the boards to more interesting topics. I might post the URL's for my pages on the topic when they become available.

Take care, Everyone--whatever your sexual orientation might be.<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited September 13, 2000).]

Ah-hah, the crux of the argument:

"homosexuality is icky"

To some, perhaps. To others, it is wonderful. To still others, it's not something to get your feathers ruffled about.

I'm mainly of the third sort, and can easily see why people are of the second sort. But the first sort...makes me think of those women that don't like sex of any kind because it's "icky". Strikes me as a bit repressed, but that's just my opinion. ;)

I could easily make that same conclusion regarding the sexual limitations of the "second sort" and the "third sort" MoonCat. All of us, from what I've read, have limits in regards to who we will sleep with (we will classify bisexuals as being the fourth sort, just so we can avoid another argument).

Now, since we both have limitations, I can also make the conclusion that you and I are very much the same...we are both sexually repressed. I'm not a hypocrite, however. I do practice what I preach.<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited September 13, 2000).]

I'm not a hypocrite, however. I do practice what I preach.

I won't suggest what you're preaching.

--Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

When you ask “what is natural” or “what is normal”, a clear definition of such words must be defined. Both these words have several definitions, which makes it harder though. Here are several definitions of normal:

Normal - Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical:
Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies: Relating to or characterized by average intelligence or development: Free from emotional disorder: The usual or expected state, form, amount, or degree: Correspondence to a norm: An average.

Homosexuality is not normal in most of these definitions of the word, simply because very few people are homosexual. However, the question of whether homosexuality is natural or not, is a tougher one. Here are some definitions of natural:

Natural - Present in or produced by nature: Of, relating to, or concerning nature: Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: Not acquired; inherent: Having a particular character by nature: Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: Expected and accepted: Faithfully representing nature or life: Established by moral certainty or conviction: Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate:

With some of these definitions, one could say homosexuality is not natural (Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: Expected and accepted: Established by moral certainty or conviction). Some could say it is natural (Present in or produced by nature (it does happen, whether or not it has a genetic origin)). A few are inconclusive because we don’t exactly know the origins of homosexuality (Not acquired; inherent: Having a particular character by nature: Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned).

As for myself, because of the subjectivity of the term natural, I abstain from answering, though I do not at this time believe homosexuality has a genetic origin (as in, I don’t believe there is a “gay gene”, I do believe people with certain genes could be more likely to become homosexual). Whether or not a genetic origin would mean it’s natural or not, is up to subjective interpretations of the definitions of these words, and I don’t really like playing word games.

Someone7,

"...though I do not at this time believe homosexuality has a genetic origin (as in, I don’t believe there is a “gay gene”, I do believe people with certain genes could be more likely to become homosexual)."

I never gave that genetic thing much notice, but you would think that Natural Selection should have weeded homosexuality out of the picture long ago if those genes had ever entered the pool. In practice, homosexuality doesn't produce any offspring. I think you have something there, S7. Maybe it is simply a choice.

------------------
It's all very large.

Bowser,

"Now, since we both have limitations, I can also make the conclusion that you and I are very much the same...we are both sexually repressed. I'm not a hypocrite, however. I do practice what I preach."

And the implication is that I am a hypocrite?? You got me a bit confused there. Are you saying that since I'm not offended by homosexuality I'm somehow a hypocrite by not being homosexual? If this is what you're saying, how do you figure I don't practice what *I* preach? If that's not what you are saying, then what are you saying??

I would say the difference is that my "repressions" are my own, and I don't try to foist them off on others. You're right, I do have limits, of course, but I try not to force others into my mold - we are all individuals, no? As long as it's between consenting adults I consider it to be really none of my business, nor anyone else's aside from those actually involved.

Overall, I'd say this country is damn repressed. I've taken the time to look at my various "hangups" and have managed to either justify them or discard them. The limits I do have are there for a reason, or several reasons. The "hangups" that were discarded were mostly products of living in a repressed family, in a repressed society, and I found them to be useless to me. I can't expect everyone to share my same limits and freedoms, but I do expect people to keep their nose out of it, and I return the favor.

"And the implication is that I am a hypocrite?? You got me a bit confused there. Are you saying that since I'm not offended by homosexuality I'm somehow a hypocrite by not being homosexual? If this is what you're saying, how do you figure I don't practice what *I* preach? If that's not what you are saying, then what are you saying??"

I would suggest that there is a reason why you are not a homosexual or bisexual. My guess is that you, too, think it's an icky practice; otherwise, you would probably be a homosexual or bisexual. I wonder, what are your true feelings regarding homosexuality? Why don't you sleep with the same gender? Could it be that you think much the same as I do...that it's icky.

Tell me, would you have the same feelings while viewing two men kissing on a park bench, the same feelings you would have if it were a man and a women kissing. Tell me that the first couple wouldn't look queer to you. Would you want to share that queer moment with your children?<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

"I would say the difference is that my "repressions" are my own, and I don't try to foist them off on others. You're right, I do have limits, of course, but I try not to force others into my mold - we are all individuals, no? As long as it's between consenting adults I consider it to be really none of my business, nor anyone else's aside from those actually involved"

Yes, I agree that we are all individuals, and we should feel free to make statements based on our true feelings. Homosexuality has become an issue for many of us--not by our design, I should add. It's my opinion that the homosexual community is trying to "foist" their lifestyles off on society. I think that they would like to "mold" our thinking. I don't care what consenting adults do in their bedroom, but if they go public saying, "It's right!," I'm going to speak my mind and say, "It's gross!" When something goes public, you are going to hear opposing voices.

Also, you are involved. Your last post is proof of that. However, I question the idea that your opinions are your own. Maybe it is just easier to be part of the crowd?

"Overall, I'd say this country is damn repressed. I've taken the time to look at my various "hangups" and have managed to either justify them or discard them. The limits I do have are there for a reason, or several reasons. The "hangups" that were discarded were mostly products of living in a repressed family, in a repressed society, and I found them to be useless to me. I can't expect everyone to share my same limits and freedoms, but I do expect people to keep their nose out of it, and I return the favor."

That is a very liberal attitude, and it's a very common attitude. It's a shame that we must live together; otherwise, that would be a practical attitude.



------------------
It's all very large.



[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited September 14, 2000).]

I would suggest that there is a reason why you are not a homosexual. My guess is that you, too, think it's icky; otherwise, you would be a homosexual or bisexual. What are your true feelings regarding homosexuality? Why don't you sleep with the same gender? Could it be that you think it's icky.

Simply because one does not derive sexual pleasure from a specific act does not mean they think it's "icky". Geez, maybe she prefers a man to a strap-on? Heated, living flesh as opposed to its nearest polymer substitute? I don't think bacon-bits are "icky", but they usually hurt my teeth; if I must have bacon on a salad, I prefer it real. But I'm not about to get offended that someone doesn't want a real, dead pig on their salad. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Bowser,

"I would suggest that there is a reason why you are not a homosexual. My guess is that you, too, think it's icky; otherwise, you would be a homosexual or bisexual. What are your true feelings regarding homosexuality? Why don't you sleep with the same gender? Could it be that you think it's icky.

Tell me, would you have the same feelings while viewing two men kissing on a park bench, the same feelings you would have if it were a man and a women kissing. Tell me that the first couple wouldn't look queer to you. Would you want to share that queer moment with your children?"

Okay, why am I not homosexual/bisexual? I have a feeling it's mainly just the way I was raised. I could be latently bisexual and it just hasn't cropped up yet, who knows? I'm young yet, and I don't rule the possibility out. But so far, men turn me on, and women don't. *shrug*

As for the men kissing in the park, ROFLMAO!!, I have witnessed many same-sex make-out sessions, and am not/was not repulsed in the least. I have many gay friends and have been to many social events (such as clubs, etc) where "straights" were in the minority. Men kissing men, women kissing women, men kissing women...no big deal to me! Expressions of affection between people who care about eachother are beautiful to me, no matter what the gender of the people participating. :)

As far as sharing that "queer moment" with my children, I would have no problems with that at all. Not anymore of a problem than I would have with them witnessing a man & woman kissing, anyway. I don't see the difference. I wouldn't want them seeing a couple getting down and dirty and groping eachother, regardless of their genders, but a simple loving kiss?? Nope, no problem there. So, I'm telling you, no, that first couple wouldn't look queer to me in the least. One of my closest friends is as gay as a guy can be, and I adore most of the boyfriends he's had over the years. I'm thrilled to see him with a kind and gentle guy, he's very affectionate and doesn't hold back in front of me, just as I don't hold back smooching on my hubby in front of him. We don't think about it, it's not a big deal to any of us.

Tiassa,

"But I'm not about to get offended that someone doesn't want a real, dead pig on their salad."

This is just a guess, but I assume that you find yourself alone when you eat...? <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon9.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa,

"Geez, maybe she prefers a man to a strap-on? Heated, living flesh as opposed to its nearest polymer substitute? "

ROFLMAO!! You're crackin' me up! Though, in a pinch... :D :D :D

MoonCat,

Interesting... Well, you know yourself better than I know you. I will take that as an honest reply. Thank you.

------------------
It's all very large.

Depends on what I'm eating.

I'm hardly that desperate or flexible, as such ... ;)

But when it comes to real food, sure ... there's all sorts of ways to look at it. For instance, I was out for Italian with some friends the other night and chose to ignore the baseball talk for a night. Eating in a quiet, psychologically-established introspection is almost the same as eating alone. Then again, sometimes a microwave and a Canadian broadcast of The Lotus Eaters is enough to warrant eating alone.

Otherwise, though, the amount of time I spend interacting with living people increasingly convinces me that utility and compassion are the only functions I have to offer other people for the time being. I actually can't stand the current version of "social" that exists around me. I'm thinking of bolting to Alaska or Minnesota or somesuch.

However, if none of the above considerations are relevant, I've no idea what you mean, or the joke sailed high and wide. Sorry 'bout that, though. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

I should mention that I have finally realized that, yes, I do have a moral objection to homosexuality:

* What, for the love of all that is tasteful, is up with that damn house music? Every time I go out on the town with gay friends, I'm inundated with 120-a-minute rhythms and electronica up the ... well, let's not get into a metaphorical debate.

I mean, why can't the gays just be "normal" and listen to socially-accepted, quality music like N'Sync or Backstreet?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

"...if I must have bacon on a salad, I prefer it real. But I'm not about to get offended that someone doesn't want a real, dead pig on their salad."

The image that it brought to my mind was humorous. I'm sorry if I opened up a can of worms for you by responding to your statement. It made me laugh.

------------------
It's all very large.

"I mean, why can't the gays just be "normal" and listen to socially-accepted, quality music like N'Sync or Backstreet?"

Must be Pop, eh. I dunno, maybe it doesn't go well with anal intercourse.<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

Backstreet boys...I thought their nickname was "backdoor boys" due to the younger gay male following they have?? LOL!

For the record though, my hubby is an "electronica" musician, and isn't gay, as far as I can tell. :) It's not to my taste really, but if/when he starts making bank from record contracts you can bet I'll help spend the dough!!

"Backstreet Boys..." Oh...those are the kids who are peddling junk food for Burger King. What's that stuff on their faces?

------------------
It's all very large.

<center><a href=http://www.ocayeson9.com/hope/>
<img src="http://www.ocayeson9.com/images/hopeforchange2.gif" width="468" height="60" border="1" alt="Click Here"></A>
</center>

------------------
It's all very large.



[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited September 16, 2000).]

You are going to be so bashed for that.

"I never gave that genetic thing much notice, but you would think that Natural Selection should have weeded homosexuality out of the picture long ago if those genes had ever entered the pool. In practice, homosexuality doesn't produce any offspring. I think you have something there, S7. Maybe it is simply a choice."

Recessive genes is the counter argument to the “weeding out” problem. Various diseases that are genetic are recessive, meaning that it produces its characteristic phenotype only when its allele is identical (i.e. the mother and father have dormant gay genes, only when two people with dormant gay genes have children will they possibly produce homosexuals). And I’m not suggesting it’s a choice, I don’t believe that at all. I believe it is just something that happens based on the environment the child was raised in.

Double post.

[This message has been edited by Someone7 (edited September 16, 2000).]

S7,

"I believe it is just something that happens based on the environment the child was raised in."

Curious... Tell me again how you have come to that conclusion. My experience is limited to only the end result. Do you think it is created by the roles exhibited in the home environment of the child? I too suspect that it is a mental state which is created by some strange interaction with the surrounding environment, such as teenage rebellion, child abuse, or a one-parent home.

"You are going to be so bashed for that."

Maybe so, but it just might help some of them. It was posted as an act of compassion.

------------------
It's all very large.



[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited September 16, 2000).]

“Curious... Tell me again how you have come to that conclusion. My experience is limited to only the end result. Do you think it is created by the roles exhibited in the home environment of the child? I too suspect that it is a mental state which is created by some strange interaction with the surrounding environment, such as teenage rebellion, child abuse, or a one-parent home.”

Do you think a person has control over what they are attracted to? Obviously not, and that is why it isn't a choice. Sure, it’s your choice on whether you act on it or not, but you’re still a homosexual if you are attracted to the same sex, and not the opposite sex, whether you act on that attraction or not. That is how I came to this conclusion.

“Maybe so, but it just might help some of them. It was posted as an act of compassion.”

Seems to me the only homosexual that comes to this forum (that I know of) would be very offended by what you posted, I highly doubt she thinks it’s curable. Besides, is lesbian sex icky? Tell the truth, would you actually be repulsed if you saw two girls making out, or would it turn you on? Icky when guys do it, but erotic when girls do it? A double standard, one that I freely admit I have.

Hehe, Christian lesbians, what a funny concept.

[This message has been edited by Someone7 (edited September 17, 2000).]

S7,

You failed to answer the question:

<hr>
"I believe it is just something that happens based on the environment the child was raised in."

Curious... Tell me again how you have come to that conclusion?
<hr>

"Seems to me the only homosexual that comes to this forum (that I know of) would be very offended by what you posted, I highly doubt she thinks it’s curable."

Really! From the statistics that I've been given, 10% of the people who view that banner are Homosexual. I would imagine that the banner is reaching more than just one individual homosexual. That just doesn't make sense.

"Besides, is lesbian sex icky? Tell the truth, would you actually be repulsed if you saw two girls making out, or would it turn you on? Icky when guys do it, but erotic when girls do