# General homophobic interest

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Flash, Feb 5, 2000.

1. ### FlashRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
771
Please note this is not intended to offend anyone in anyway it is just put out as general interest for anyone who wants to read it

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crazy Asinine Christians
(Printed in the Towanda Daily Review on May 3, 1999. )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor:
Jill Darling's headline article, "From Gay to Straight" (April 27, Review), and in the same paper her column, "Lured Toward Lesbianism", make me wonder about the mission of the Towanda Daily Review to become a serious newspaper. As expected, her columns reflect her own opinions and as such require no balance or factual material. However, a headline report should present all sides of an issue and allow readers to come to their own conclusions rather than to those of a biased reporter.

Yet, this newspaper's editors allowed her to present material based on nothing more than homophobic biases about the conversion of homosexuals to heterosexuality -- despite the fact of the assertions of the American Psychiatric Association; Dr. Bryant Welch, Executive Director for Professsional Practice of the American Psychological Association; and the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association that homosexuality is not a disorder, that there is no scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of so-called gay to straight 'reparative therapy', and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so.

Jerry Armelli, the subject of Darling's "report", claims to have been converted from homosexuality to heterosexuality through prayer, religion, and Jesus. He then founded Prodigal Ministries to share his profound insights with others "afflicted" with Biblically incorrect sexual preferences – the "confused" as they are called.

Likewise, I would like to help the confused. As an ordained minister, I founded Crazy Asinine Christians Anonymous, or CACA, to help not all Christians but only the Crazy Asinine ones. To be clear, most Christians don't fall in the Crazy Asinine category, but for those that do, CACA is for you.

How do you know if you're a Crazy Asinine Christian? Answer these simple questions. (1) With total disregard for a vast body of scientific evidence, do you still discount evolution? (2) With total disregard for common sense, do you believe that all the species of the world really fit in that ark? (3) With total disregard for all that is holy, do you think that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson make sense? (4) Do you believe that the male should be the absolute dictator of the family unit? (5) Do you believe that homosexuality is a disease that needs to be cured, even if the homosexual is a well adjusted content individual?

If you answered "yes" to all of the above questions, then CACA is for you. You can be cured and returned to the world of normal Christianity with reparative therapy. Prior to treatment at CACA, 68% of respondents reported being almost entirely crazy and asinine, with the balance a mix of mostly asinine and somewhat crazy, to mostly crazy and slightly asinine. After treatment, only 67% saw themselves as still entirely crazy and asinine. One-hundred percent of the 1% who were cured believed that the treatment was completely successful. When it comes to reparative therapy, it's all CACA.

John L. Ferri
jlferri@epix.net

to hide all adverts.
3. ### LoriRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,065
Flash,

LOL! Girl, you are truly one mixed up bag of caca yourself. And I mean that in the nicest way possible.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You just refuse to get it don't you? Why don't you try? Why? You are soooooooooo wrong, I just don't know what else to say to you. Homosexuality is not some damn disease that needs to be cured (though I think that Jerry Falwell may be), it's a choice that one makes that happens to make NO SENSE logically whatsoever. Don't tell me that we're going to have to go through all of this again??????? (We've been debating the whole homosexuality topic all week via e-mail, and of COURSE have gotten no-where.)

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

to hide all adverts.
5. ### FlashRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
771

to hide all adverts.
7. ### LoriRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,065
Smegma-breath. LOL! (wub u)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

8. ### FlashRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
771
hahaha oh well ...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

better watch the name calling or I'll pick you up by your butt and spit in your ass!!!!!!! LOL

9. ### LoriRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,065
LMAO! Oh no, don't do that!!!!

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

10. ### FlashRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
771
LMAO..... I thought you'd see it my way

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[This message has been edited by Flash (edited February 05, 2000).]

11. ### truestoryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,122
Last week, I listened to a report on a survey (sorry, I didn't catch the name of it) which revealed the following results:

A recent study of 800 priest and clergy who took the vow of celibacy responded to an anonymous survey regarding sexuality.

When asked, "What is your natural state of sexuality?" nearly 15% responded homosexual, nearly 3% responded bisexual and the rest responded heterosexual.

When asked, "Have you ever engaged in sexual activity (with another individual)?" only 20% of all respondents said yes. It was reported that this affirmative response was "fairly evenly distributed" across the lines of the three classifications of sexuality.

If this report is true, then that would mean that only approximately 29 of the approximate 144 who responded that they were either homosexual or bisexual ever actively participated in a homosexual or bisexual act.

If sexuality is always an active "choice," and if the respondents were being truthful, what then accounts for the reported sexuality of the approximate 115 remaining celibate homosexuals and bisexuals who participated in the study?

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited February 05, 2000).]

12. ### LoriRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,065
What accounts for it? They're lying, that's what accounts for it. Also, there are no women in the priest hood are there? Convenience counts for something here. The reason that I know this is because of an article and news story that was published last week. I'll try to find a link to the story...Report: Priests Dying of AIDS

The Rev. Dennis Rausch celebrates Mass
AP/Rich Sugg [32K]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — Roman Catholic priests in the United States are dying from AIDS-related illnesses at a rate four times higher than the general population and the cause is often concealed on their death certificates, The Kansas City Star reported Sunday.

In the first of a three-part series, the newspaper said death certificates and interviews with experts indicated several hundred priests have died of AIDS-related illnesses since the mid-1980s and hundreds more are living with HIV, the virus that causes the disease.

I think this speaks to a failure on the part of the church,'' said Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of the Archdiocese of Detroit. Gay priests and heterosexual priests didn't know how to handle their sexuality, their sexual drive. And so they would handle it in ways that were not healthy.''

The Star received 801 responses to questionnaires that were sent last fall to 3,000 of the 46,000 priests in the United States. The margin of error of the survey was 3.5 percentage points.

Six of 10 priests responding said they knew of at least one priest who had died of an AIDS-related illness, and one-third knew a priest living with AIDS. Three-fourths said the church needed to provide more education to seminarians on sexual issues.

How to be celibate and to be gay at the same time, and how to be celibate and heterosexual at the same time, that's what we were never really taught how to do. And that was a major failing,'' Gumbleton said.

Asked about their sexual orientation, 75 percent said they were heterosexual, 15 percent said they were homosexual, and 5 percent said they were bisexual.

The Rev. John Keenan, who runs Trinity House, an outpatient clinic in Chicago for priests, said he believes most priests with AIDS contracted the disease through same-sex relations. He said he treated one priest who had infected eight other priests.

The Star said precise numbers of priests who have died of AIDS or become infected with HIV is unknown, partly because many suffer in solitude. When priests tell their superiors, the cases generally are handled quietly.

The newspaper cited the case of Bishop Emerson Moore, who left the Archdiocese of New York in 1995 and went to Minnesota, where he died in a hospice of an AIDS-related illness. His death certificate attributed the death to unknown natural causes'' and listed his occupation as laborer'' in the manufacturing industry.

After an AIDS activist filed a complaint, officials changed the cause of death to HIV-related illness,'' the Star said, but the occupation was not corrected.

The newspaper said the death rate among priests from AIDS appears to be at least four times that of the rate for the general U.S. population.

Some priests and behavioral experts believe the church has scared priests into silence by treating homosexual acts as an abomination and the breaking of celibacy vows as shameful, the Star said.

Catholic cardinals in the United States and high-ranking church officials in the Vatican declined requests to discuss the newspaper's findings, The Star reported. The Vatican referred questions to local bishops.

Bishop Raymond Boland of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph said the AIDS deaths show that priests are human.

Much as we would regret it, it shows that human nature is human nature,'' he said. And all of us are heirs to all of the misfortunes that can be foisted upon the human race.''

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

13. ### truestoryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,122
Lori,

Thanks. It seems as though the report you posted might include part of the results of the survey which I referenced. I had also heard the report about the incidence of AIDS among Catholic priests being four times higher than that of the general population.

However, the incidents of AIDS is actually spreading much more rapidly in the heterosexual community than the gay community at large.

At any rate, this still does not account for the fact that people can naturally "be" homosexual or bisexual without making an active "choice" to participate in such sexual activity. (Unless you have determined that they are ALL lying?)

14. ### BorisSenior MemberRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,052
Lori,

Perhaps the status of homosexuality would be easier for you to digest if you consider an analogy -- handedness. It is true that a majority of us (something like 80%) are right-handed, and a minority are left-handed. Now, would you think that handedness is a "choice"? If it were, then I'd expect the population to split around 50-50 lines, since there is no inherent advantage to right-hand dominance vs. left-hand dominance. So it doesn't seem to be a choice, but a natural tendency. In fact, left-handers have significantly different brain layouts -- which confirms that handedness is not a choice.

Similarly, sexuality in most cases is not a choice. You can't decide whom you consider attractive, neutral, or repulsive. These judgements come to you "naturally", they are not a choice. Attractiveness is not a perfect analogy to sexuality, however, since it can be significantly influenced by childhood environment. But you can think of sexuality as handedness. The majority of us are "right-sexed", with a minority being "left-sexed". There is no such thing as "wrong-sexed", just as there is no such thing as "wrong-handed".

Homosexuality is not a disease; nor is it a psychological condition. It is a natural variation (perhaps genetic, perhaps developmental, perhaps both) -- just as is handedness, or color of skin, or straightness of hair, or body build. In fact, there has been (admittedly, still pretty tentative) evidence that homosexuals indeed have systematically different brains from heterosexuals. There has also been some (still controversial) evidence that sexuality may be genetic.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Messages:
651
16. ### SearcherRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
651
Boris,

I'm not sure how one passes down a trait such as homosexuality, but it's an interesting theory.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com

17. ### truestoryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,122
Searcher,

Yeah, that was an interesting site but still, non-conclusive. Also, it did not take into consideration homophobic females... what do you think is up with that, anyway?

By the way... I did see your response about the impending new arrival... My prayers and best wishes are with you and your family.

Keep us posted!

Our new addition is scheduled to arrive in April.

18. ### BorisSenior MemberRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,052
Searcher,

You have a point there buddy! Obviously, homosexuality is not an evolutionarily beneficial trait; it is certainly very rarely heritable.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Which might be one reason why it is only exhibited in a minority of humans. It could be a (relatively frequent and minor) genetic mutation that has about 20% chance of occurring in gametes. Or, it could be a recessive trait, so that it would need presence in both parents in order to produce a homosexual child. It could be a combination of these two. But then again, it might not even be genetic (as I said, there's still a controversy, with some studies showing genetic correlations, and other studies showing no correlations.)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 05, 2000).]

19. ### FlashRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
771
Hey Searcher,
That is very interesting...LOL Thanks for sharing that with us... could very well be that they are in denial, huh??

[This message has been edited by Flash (edited February 06, 2000).]

Messages:
771
21. ### LoriRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,065
Oh come ON! You guys are full o' crapola. And I mean that in the nicest way possible.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ALL of us are on that "hormonal spectrum" somewhere. But I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of us are either born with a vagina or a penis. Right? It's pretty bleepin' obvious. Now what to do with it is the question. Well hello? Can we just simply use a little logic and solid biological principles here or what? I'll answer my own question ok?

If you're a man, you can CHOOSE to stick your shlong into a woman's vagina, a man's asshole, or a hole in the wall, or a sheep, or someone's ear if I'm not mistaken, or you can put it in your own hand. Now, let me ask you...which makes more logical sense based upon what we know about ourselves as human beings????????????

If you're a woman, you can CHOOSE to accept a man's shlong into your vagina, OR you can use a wide variety of SUBSTITUTES for said shlong, for example another woman's finger, some battery operated hunk of plastic, a coke bottle, a banana, I think you get the point. Now again, based upon what we know about human biology, what the bleep choice makes most logical sense?????????????

I'm sorry, but as far as pure physical enjoyment goes, I'm a firm believer that it feels just as good if a man's rubbing on you as it does if a woman's rubbing on you. It makes no f'ing difference. There are men who are good at it and lots of men who don't know what the bleep they're doing, and of course couldn't care less as long as they get off. There are women who are good at it, and then there are women who lay there like they're dead just waiting for it to be over. So what? That doesn't have a damn thing to do with the price of tea in China.

But then not too long after that, we went out to a dance club, as we often did, and he asked me to slow dance, and while we were dancing, he told me that he wanted to have a romantic relationship with me. He said that he was attracted to me like he hadn't ever been to a girl before. He said that he never ever thought that he would ever feel the way he did, but that he did feel that way, and finally got up enough nerve to tell me. He wanted me sexually, and not just that, but emotionally as well. That was over 10 years ago. And I chickened out. I didn't want to deal with the responsibility and I wimped. I wish to this day that I hadn't done that.

You know, gay people are the first ones to always jump up and point the finger at straight people for being closed minded, particularly Christians. I think it's the other way around. Let me show you. I am a straight person and a Christian. Have I ever fantisized about being with a woman? Of course I have, that's normal. If I were ever to act out upon that fantasy, do I think that it would be a physically and emotionally enjoyable experience? Sure, why wouldn't it be????? The fact is that there are a WIDE VARIETY of things that turn me on. That's NORMAL. Some things I've seen, namely in porno movies and the like, have turned me on and sickened and repulsed me at the same time. I'D LOVE FOR SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN THAT ONE FOR ME. Just because something feels good, doens't automatically make it ok. That belief is found in Satan's bible if I'm not mistaken. Use your heads that God gave you for crying out loud. I can say that I find the male body to be beautiful, and I can say that I find the female body to be beautiful. Gay people don't EVER say that. They tend to act irrationally, as if the opposite sex is just INTOLERABLE for some reason, and is NOT beautiful, or worthy, or like they have COOTIES or something, and it's illogical, it's irrational, it's not normal, and it's CLOSE-MINDED. So there.

When I view our spiritual laws, I view it as only consisting of ONE set of laws that are universal and ideal. ONE pure truth that is universal and ideal. I'm sorry, but that ONLY makes sense. We don't all operate under little individually vacuum packed gravitational fields do we?????? We are talking about an ideal intent for which we were given our sex organs. AND LET ME POINT OUT THAT IF HOMOSEXUALITY WERE THAT IDEAL, THE HUMAN RACE WOULD CEASE TO EXIST.

The INTENT of our sexuality is procreation. The spiritual laws regarding our sexuality are all centered around the natural consequence of said intent, children. The physical and emotional pleasure is merely an aspect of it, a by-product, a benefit, and quite a wonderful one at that don't you agree?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's not the other way around ok? And that's exactly the way that this society views it anymore, and that view is a perverted one. We, in our selfish, Godless state, want to keep and capitalize and even obsess on the benefit, and throw away, kill, or somehow avoid the original intent. I dare someone to argue that one with me. Bring it on!

Well, I have to go watch James Kennedy now. He's my favorite preacher. Praise Jesus. And thank you God for the sex organs you gave us. I wish that we would just learn how to stop using them to glorify our pitiful selves, and learn to use them to glorify you, oh Lord, my Saviour, I love you!

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

22. ### SearcherRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
651
Lori,

You're so full of it!! What world are you living in? I have a number of gay friends, and I find that they are as captivated by physical beauty as any of the rest of us - and in some ways, even more so! As a matter of fact, I remember not too long ago when I was eating lunch with a couple of male friends, one gay and one straight, and they were discussing beautiful women. The gay friend thought Calista Flockhart was just perfect, while the straight friend thought she was way too thin. That's just one example, but I've witnessed this sort of conversation many times. My own brother is openly gay, and I can't count the number of times I've heard him say something like, "Oh, I think she's just absolutely gorgeous!"

I've also heard that Melissa Etheridge and her lesbian friends were once sitting around discussing Brad Pitt, saying that he was gorgeous enough to make a woman change her mind!! (Oh yeah, baby!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

Yeah, it's no surprise to me that the world you live in is black and white. Who says that homosexuality is the ideal? It's just one of the many variations that make this world such an interesting place in which to live. But then I guess your intolerant views kind of fall into the same category - what would life be like without a little friction here and there, eh?

I recall reading somewhere that the human species is the only one in which the female is capable of achieving orgasm. Obviously, this is not necessary for procreation. To the best of my knowledge, we are also the only ones capable of preventing pregnancy at will. Could it be that sex is intended as a gift, and procreation a choice?

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com

23. ### LoriRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,065
Searcher,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well, I have a number of gay friends, and as they may say that someone of the opposite sex is "just fabulous honey", when it comes down to, well if they're so fabulous, then why wouldn't you want to have a sexual relationship with them, all of a sudden, they're not that fabulous. Why? Also, in a more general sense, I think that physical beauty is highly subjective, and highly over-rated from any sexual perspective.

Yea Searcher, that's my point. Brad Pitt and many other men ARE gorgeous enough, or faithful enough, or nice enough, or sensative enough, or admirable enough, or trustworthy enough, or well enough endowed, or giving enough, or romantic enough....need I go on? So my question then to Melissa Ethridge is, so why not? What's the big bleepin' deal? What's the problem? And the answer is that there is no problem except for one that was created in her mind. There are many reasons, many, many reasons that a woman may find many men that do not fall into the above category. I myself have yet to experience a relationship with such a man as that. BUT that doesn't mean that one shouldn't or doesn't exist, and damnit, I'm gonna find his ass if it kills me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes Searcher, in my intolerant views (which I scoff at the mention of) I think that we all DO fall into the same category. Sinners. Don't you dare go assuming that I think that 99.9% of the STRAIGHT sex that goes on in this world doesn't fall pretty short of the mark either. It's really all about intentions isn't it? I'm saying that those same pure intentions towards someone can be there no matter what gender they are, so why pretend that they can't?

I know, aren't we lucky?!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thanks, God! Yes, we prevent pregnancy at will. This is the internalization of God's will unto our own and a product of rejecting the entire notion of God and His relation to us. It is a product of not understanding the story of the Tower of Babel in the Bible. Ask yourself what are the root causes in this society that perpetuate our desire to avoid pregancy? I think that if you give it enough though, surely you will come up with several of the deadliest sins. Go figure.

Sex a gift, and procreation a choice? No, that arguement goes against everything logical that I am aware of or have experienced very intimately in my own life. Sorry. Open thoust eyeballs.

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.