Religion in Government

But that doesn't matter. In Canada a majority of younger people agree with giving equal rights. In a couple of decades that will be a majority of all of us.I don't know what the US numbers are but they too will change. The rights will come as surely as the blacks moved from the back of the bus. This will be in spite of the "love" of your church just as it was 50 years ago. The Islamic fundamentalist nations will suffer in ignorance. The US has a choice left. We will see which way it goes.This election is only one point in time. It is not the end. I believe that enough Americans are proud, decent and smart people to allow you to catch up to more progressive countries.

I will financially and politically support any Republican that opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and the Constitutional Amendment. I will work equally hard to make sure they do NOT get elected if they are so foolish as to support either.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

custard responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

To the point of being exclusively sexually aroused solely by men and to become physically ill at the thought of having sex with a woman?

---

​

Do such people exist? People actually throw up at the mere thought of having sex with a woman? Really?

---

Yes.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I doubt it. It's pretty much a non-issue for everybody except religious right political operatives trying to stir up activity in a target constituency.But even among the really religious conservatives it's just not that important. With two wars on, astronomic gas prices, and economic turmoil, who cares if two guys want to make a lifelong committment to play grab-ass with each other?It's a non-issue for everyone but the AFA, pretty much. Well, at one time no people who were black were democrats or republicans, because they couldn't vote at all. That didn't stop good folks from doing the right thing. You don't have to be gay to be for gay marriage. What, did you think we were all homosexual around here or something?

custard responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

She noticed that the reason so many psychiatrists claimed that gay people were psychologically damaged was because the only gay people they ever saw were those that were admitted for therapy.

---

​

It's late, and I'm confused, but how the hell is this germane to what we are discussing? I never claimed homosexuality was a psychological problem.

---

Your source, despite it's half-hearted attempts to claim otherwise, treated it as a psychological problem: Children who are not as "gender conforming" (and such a bizarre notion that is) get taunted and teased and then eroticize that torture, thus becoming gay. In other words, people are inherently straight but get turned gay by society's reactions to their behaviour. It never considered the possibility that it runs the other way: People aren't gay because they're gender-non-conforming. Perhaps they are gender-non-conforming because they're gay.So many people understood your source's comments to be an indication of "psychological damage," and thus amenable to treatment and "cure," that he had to write a follow-up saying that he didn't mean that.

quote:

---

And yes, I agree we are not arguing pathology.

---

When gay people are considered those who have eroticized childhood torture, you are. Ross MW, Rogers LJ, McCulloch H.
Stigma, sex and society: a new look at gender differentiation and sexual variation.
J Homosex. 1978 Summer;3(4):315-30.
PMID: 670684 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE][italics added]Bailey JM, Pillard RC.
A genetic study of male sexual orientation.
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1991 Dec;48(12):1089-96.
PMID: 1845227 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE][italics added]But the most damning, plain-spoken reason against it is that gay people do not think they are in any way the other sex. That is, boys who don't like sports don't consider themselves to be anything but boys. Girls who play with trucks still consider themselves girls. It is only when people say, "But playing sports is a boy thing and if you don't like playing sports, you must not be a boy," that things go screwy: The social structure of what "gender roles" are. It's a "boy thing" not because it really is but simply because society says it is.And even more directly: Why would someone who wants a woman go after someone who thought she was a man? Gay people are people who are doomed to be forever disappointed since the objects of their attraction don't consider themselves appropriate targets? "You're a man who wants a man but I'm not really a man"? It sounds like your author has confused homosexuality with transsexuality.I am not saying that environmental factors have no effect upon behaviour. I'm saying that the environmental factors influence how we express the desires that we have, not that it creates the desire in the first place. Why on earth would somebody engage in sexual activity he doesn't really like? Especially when it results in ostracism?

quote:

---

In any case, I would still appreciate some data or sources that discuss sexual orientation being influenced/determined by biological factors other than genetics. It sounds interesting.

---

How many times do I have to say, "We don't know, yet," before it sticks?We have no real evidence that sexual orientation is generated by environment. Studies of sexual orientation among siblings (who thus share the same environment) don't show any environmental aspects: Bogaert AF.
Number of older brothers and sexual orientation: new tests and the attraction/behavior distinction in two national probability samples.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Mar;84(3):644-52.
PMID: 12635923 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Whitam FL, Diamond M, Martin J.
Homosexual orientation in twins: a report on 61 pairs and three triplet sets.
Arch Sex Behav. 1993 Jun;22(3):187-206.
PMID: 8494487 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Buhrich N, Bailey JM, Martin NG.
Sexual orientation, sexual identity, and sex-dimorphic behaviors in male twins.
Behav Genet. 1991 Jan;21(1):75-96.
PMID: 2018464 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]That leaves biology. The genetic factors are sketchy at best, but that doesn't mean biology is out of the running.As I said elsewhere, we don't have to know what something is in order to know what it is not.But here are some evidences showing actual biological differences between people who identify as gay and those who identify as straight. McFadden D, Pasanen EG.
Comparison of the auditory systems of heterosexuals and homosexuals: click-evoked otoacoustic emissions.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Mar 3;95(5):2709-13.
PMID: 9482952 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Lippa RA.
Are 2D:4D finger-length ratios related to sexual orientation? Yes for men, no for women.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Jul;85(1):179-88.
PMID: 12872893 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]The most interesting thing about the last one is that while gay men tend to have finger ratios more consistent with women, they also seem to be hypermasculinzed: Manning JT, Robinson SJ.
2nd to 4th digit ratio and a universal mean for prenatal testosterone in homosexual men.
Med Hypotheses. 2003 Aug;61(2):303-6. Review.
PMID: 12888323 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Rahman Q, Wilson GD.
Sexual orientation and the 2nd to 4th finger length ratio: evidence for organising effects of sex hormones or developmental instability?
Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2003 Apr;28(3):288-303.
PMID: 12573297 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Instead, I said that you directly stated that you would vote for a law prohibiting equal access to the legal contract of marriage despite the fact that the Constitution expressly requires equal access.

---

​

I tihnk the real problem here is not rights for gays but peoples definition of marriage.

---

Are you about to confuse the legal contract of marriage with the religious sacrament of marriage?

quote:

---

If I think that the word marriage does not cover man with man, then it could never be a right to do what is impossible. The word same-sex marrige is just not a word to me.

---

Yes, you are.Could you find for me anywhere in the legal definition of marriage where we can find a purpose to insisting that it necessarily has to be between one man and one woman?That is, could you name a right or responsibility of marriage that necessarily requires one of the participants to be male and the other be female? When you are granted rights to make decisions for your spouse in the hospital, does it matter if you are a male or a female spouse? When you apply for joint ownership, why does the couple have to be male/female?

quote:

---

quote:

---

You're the one that brought up taxes

---

​

No I wasn't.

---

Yes, you were. Message 122: jar then asked you to show that you were paying taxes to support it (Message 123): You then started saying that you were paying for it out of your pocket (Message 124): You were the one that brought up taxes, riVeRraT.

quote:

---

I was also pointing out that if I pay taxes supporting gay marriage, then I am supporting gay sex, which could possible be against God's will.

---

But married heterosexual people engage in sex that is against god's will, too. You have read Leviticus, haven't you? Why aren't you trying to deny marriage to straight people?

quote:

---

I understand abour giving to Ceaser. But if I have an opportunity to make it so this conflict of interest could not happen, then I am going to stick up for my rights and belief's.

---

So you believe we should be living in a theocracy, to hell with the First Amendment?You believe that we should not have equal treatment under the law, the hell with the Fourteenth Amendment?The simple fact of the matter is that we live in a society that demands equal treatment under the law. Marriage is a legal contract. Ergo, all citizens must have equal access to that contract. There is no need for additional legislation to state it explicitly, the Constitution already says it. Why do you need to see "And marriage is allowable between people of the same sex" in order for you to understand that the Constitution provides for that? The Constitution doesn't explicitly say that marriage is allowable between people of different races, and yet we all understand that the Fourteenth Amendment means that you cannot deny marriage on the basis of race due to the equal protection clause.Are you seriously saying that "all citizens are to be treated equally under the law" is insufficient? We need to explicitly list the ways in which they are to be treated equally?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yes. The same ones where the straight ones mate for life.

---

​

All of them? How do they have babies?

---

Some of them rear the offspring of others. There's a wonderful book detailing the sexual habits of non-human animals: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Over 400 species documented.That said, what does having babies have to do with mating for life?

quote:

---

quote:

---

If it truly didn't matter, why did you ask? What would you have said if I answered no, there are no species where same-sex couples remain that way for life?

---

​

Because I find it interesting.

---

You didn't answer the question.What would you have said if I answered no, there are no species where same-sex couples remain that way for life?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because nobody becomes a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, etc. without being expressly taught how to be one.

---

​

Same thing could be true of gays.

---

No, it couldn't. Nobody in this society ever grows up being taught how to be gay. Instead, they are all taught how to be straight. And yet, despite the constant press from all sides, we still have gay people.

quote:

---

It takes 2 to be gay.

---

No, it doesn't. A person can be attracted to someone without ever having that attraction returned. Have you never heard of unrequited love?It takes two to engage in same-sex sex.

quote:

---

quote:

---

How despite numerous attempts to change gay people into straight people, there has never been a successful conversion in any long-term sense. The sexual desire for those of the same sex always remai

---

​

There is probably a lot more to that.

---

Indeed. Those who go through "reparative therapy" usually end up worse than they were going in. They think they have been "cured" but they inevitably end up slipping which throws them into a deep depression.

quote:

---

I also wonder how many of those people are born again.

---

Most of them. "Reparative therapy" is usually done at the hands of fundamentalists who require a religious conversion in order for the "cure" to work.But it doesn't.

quote:

---

quote:

---

When was the last time a legal case got appealed to god? Have you ever found someone saying that they were going to appeal a SCOTUS decision to god? And have anybody within any body of legislature actually take them seriously?
Our freedoms are determined by the government. The government derives its powers from the people.

​

God simply doesn't enter into it.

---

​

You are completely wrong about that.

---

You mean cases have been appealed to god?Where can I find them in FindLaw?

quote:

---

But you just did completely take away all of God's power in a single sentence.

---

I didn't take it away. The Declaration of Independence did. The Constitution did. The founders of this country did."Governments are instituted among men.""We the People."Where do you find god?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Where?

​

Where have I ever said I'm an atheist?

​

I want a direct quotation. You show me the precise post and the exact words where I ever hinted that I was an atheist.

---

​

I knew I should have saved that quote. I tried searching, but couldn't find it. Someone else was talking about athiet's, and you included yourself in the group. It was from that point that I knew you were an athiest.

---

(*chuckle*)You haven't been capable of reading for context before, why should we believe you now?Is it possible that I was merely using a rhetorical device? Casting myself in the role of an atheist in order to prove a point? No, of course not. You would have understood that.So come out with it. What did I say? Try to reconstruct the thread and I'll even help you try to find it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Perhaps you just had a bad cook.

​

And perhaps you just need a good gay lover.

---

​

Then we are all gay right?

---

You're the one saying that it's a choice. If all a person needs is a good gay lover in order to become gay, then yes, we're all potentially gay.So who floats your boat? Someone like Tom Selleck? Matthew Broderick? Carl Hardwick? Jeff Stryker? What kind of man could make you gay?

quote:

---

quote:

---

You're the one saying that gay people are really horrendously deluded straight people who have fallen into a trap where they repeatedly engage in sex that they find repulsive.

---

​

I never said any of that.

---

Yes, you did. Message 117: Italics added.Care to rethink your statement?

quote:

---

quote:

---

So enlighten me.

​

Just how many times would you have to fellate me before the both of us would begin to like it?

---

​

Just once. If I was gay.

---

But what if you weren't? If a straight person can be coaxed into liking having sex with a person of the same sex such that he engages in it willingly, deliberately, and enthusiastically and greatly desires to do it again in the future, how many times would he have to do it before that happens?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because I, as an adult who has mastered post-operative logic, am capable of understanding that I wouldn't want such discrimination to happen to me, therefore I should ensure that it doesn't happen to others.

---

​

Then why do we discriminate against thieves?

---

We don't.Again, I understand that I wouldn't want that to happen to me (being stolen from), therefore I should ensure that it doesn't happen to others (those who do steal are to be penalized for their behaviour).You seem to be confused over activities that cause harm (stealing) and those that don't (consensual sex).

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, it is not. It's a sign of submission.

---

​

Oh, now we speak dog?

---

Yep. It's called "observing their behaviour." You watch what dogs do and observe their reactions. The wagging tail, rolling over, licking face, etc. are all submission behaviours. Dogs, like the wolves they evolved from, are pack animals with an alpha leader. The other members of the pack show submission to the alpha.Your dog considers you alpha.I'm not saying your dog is incapable of love. Your dog does, indeed, have emotions. But your dog is submissive to you and because of the inherent power imbalance, there can be no claim to any coherent definition of "consent."

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Now you tell me: Where do I find any personal information about you that would allow me to determine who you are and where you live? You haven't even filled out a physical location!

---

​

This is coming from someone who won't tell us anything about himself except his name and location.

---

Incorrect.Did you bother to look at my profile? All you need to do is click on that little "Profile" button at the bottom of this post.Notice I give my email address.I leave it to you to figure out how to locate me given my email address. It shouldn't take you more than 10 seconds, assuming your internet connection isn't dog-slow.

quote:

---

When I first registered with the forum, I was careful about putting down that other information, as I do not know you guys. Either way if a lawsuit was to devolope the administrators would then have to reveal that information. So my point has been proven.

---

But the thing is, you are the one claming harassment, not me. Since you are the one who has completely hidden yourself, how are you harmed in any way?And in the end, how is discussion on a BBS "harassment"? Am I calling you at home? Leaving notes on your door? Following you? Making comments to your employer or your family?Nope. I'm making comments in a completely voluntary forum. You don't want to hear them? Then stop coming around.You do not have a right not to have your feelings hurt.

quote:

---

The admins know who I am.

---

And if the admins were harassing you, you might have a cause of action.Since I am not one of the admins, how can I possibly harm you?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Strange how the people who actually follow those religions don't seem to share your view. Since they are the final arbiters of who their gods are, I think we would have to defer to them when they claim that they do not worship the same god you do.

---

​

Prove me wrong.

---

I just did. The people who follow those religions are the ultimate authority on the god they follow.They explicitly state that they do not follow your god.Ergo, there is no one god who is all.You seem to have your directions of causation backwards.That is, there may be only one god. But those who worship may not worship that god. They have a different definition of what "god" is and what they worship is not the god that actually exists.That's the point of the last statement of my standard response to Pascal's Wager: You didn't think the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you? The definition of god used by Christians contains characteristics that are mutually exclusive with the definition of god used by many other religions.You may worship "2" and I may worship "3," but neither of them are "1," which is the real god.

quote:

---

Everything was created for God's glory. Who am I to say how many God's there are.

---

As a theist with some sort of experience to tell you about the nature of god, you are the perfect person to say.

quote:

---

quote:

---

How is this not telling me what god wants me to do? Surely god is the one who decides who gets into heaven, yes?

---

​

Yes you are right, I was wrong. I shouldn't have said that.

---

Apology accepted. Try not to let it happen again.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are you seriously saying that gay people are equivalent to drug dealers?

---

​

No but you just suggested it.

---

Incorrect. You are the one that brought it up. Here is what I said (Message 168): And your response (Message 178): Now tell me: Where did I even hint that gay people were anything like drug dealers? You were the one that brought it up. You're the one saying that not ostracizing gay people is akin to letting drug dealers set up shop on the corner.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If it were a choice, why is it nobody manages to make the switch?

---

​

There are, I told you I know of one.

---

And I told you to ask if the feelings are gone. Is this person you know still feeling attraction for members of the same sex that need to be sublimated? If so, then no switch has been made. [quote]

quote:

---

Strange...I've had no fewer than five straight people try to molest me. Not a single gay person has ever bothered.[/qutoe]

​

This could be because there aren't as many gays as straights, and the odds are against it ever happening at all. Percentage wise it could be the same.

---

Not without extremely bizarre distributions or amazingly unlikely draws.Suppose the distribution of gays to straights was 1 to 5, like a six-sided die. There is only one way to roll boxcars and that's a 1 in 36 chance. To then roll a die five times and never come up with a six has only a 40% chance. Therefore, to have the two of our experiences coincide, we've got a 3% chance and a 40$ chance which makes our likelihood just barely over 1%.But it's quite unlikely for there to be that many gay people in the world (one in six), so the real odds are much less than that. For you to have been the victim of molestation (and being hit on is not molestation) twice and only twice and for both of them to have been gay is an amazing feat.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Question: How did you know they were gay? Just because a person is the same sex as you does not mean he is gay. Pedophilia is about attraction to the child. The reason why male pedophiles go after little boys (aside from easier access...we think nothing of letting our boys go off alone with adult males but would never dream of letting our girls go off alone with adult males) is precisely because little boys are androgynous and don't look that much like males. They have no body hair. Their voices haven't cracked. Their sexual organs are not developed. They do not register as "male."

---

​

Wow dude, thats nuts.

---

That's why you're not a psychologist.Do some research and come back to us.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But since gay people do not affect you or your children, why are you so obsessed?

---

​

You can't prove that one

---

Yes, I can.Just take a look at the sexual orientations of child molesters. You'll find that the number who are gay significantly trail the considered population of gay people.You are much safer leaving your child alone in the presence of someone who is gay than someone who is straight.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So unrepentant gay people, sinners in your mind, all go to heaven? Being gay and engaging in sex enthusiastically and repeatedly is no impediment to getting to heaven? There are no divine consequences for engaging in same-sex sex to the exclusion of all other sexual activity?

​

Are you really saying that?

---

​

Not for me to judge.

---

That wasn't what you said before. Are you changing your mind?If it isn't for you to judge, why are you so obsessed with interfering with their lives?

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are not the one to decide who is and who is not a sinner. That is left to the sole discretion of god. God does not need nor care about your opinion of the actions of others.

---

​

We are told by God what a sin is.

---

But nowhere are we told by god that being gay is a sin. Oh, there are plenty of passages in the Bible about temple prostitution, but I don't know any temple prostitutes, gay or straight.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But eating pork is.

​

Should we legislate against the eating of pork? How do the Jews manage to do it? Despite living in a society that is constantly offering pork products, they manage to keep kosher.

​

If Jews can live in a pork-eating world without problems, why are you having such a problem living in a world with such a small number of gay people having the same rights as you?

---

​

I agree with this, but it is not my reasoning for being against it.

---

It most certainly is! You're claiming that it's a sin, therefore you're against it.Well, eating pork is a sin, and yet we don't try to stifle the pork industry nor is your support of the pork industry through government subsidies an indication that you support the sin of eating pork.How is that any different from your objection to equal treatment under the law for gay people? You have repeatedly stated over and over that you are worried that by paying taxes to the government which then turns around and provides to gay people the exact same social supports that are provided to straight people, it somehow means that you, personally, are in agreement with homosexuality.You don't seem to have this dilemma when it comes to the sins of eating pork, wearing clothes of more than one fiber, eating shellfish, having sex with a woman during her period, divorce, non-circumcision, or any of the other sins that are clearly and explicitly laid out in the Bible but aren't dissuaded by the law.So if god can forgive you for your tribute to Caesar when Caesar doesn't find fault with divorce, why are you worried that god won't forgive you for your tribute to Caesar when Caesar doesn't find fault with homosexuality?

quote:

---

Pork and being gay are 2 different things.

---

Yes, but the Bible calls eating pork an abomination and makes you unclean.Even if we assume that Leviticus is talking about homosexuality, it treats them both identically.If you can live in a society where people habitually sin before god by engaging in the abomination of eating pork, what's your beef with gay people?

quote:

---

quote:

---

To call it sin is to claim that god will punish. But you are not in any position to say what god will or will not do.

---

​

To call it a sin, is not claiming that God will punish.

---

God doesn't punish sinners?Then what is the point behind declaring things sins? If god is capricious and arbitrary such that engaging in a certain behaviour has absolutely no effect on whether or not god will punish you for it, what on earth is "sin"?

quote:

---

So Jesus to go and point out to the rest of the world his ways.

---

But Jesus told you not to do it by interfering with the government. Do not make a spectacle of your religion among men like the Pharisees do for you only do it to win the glory of men.Instead, you do it by living your life as god wants you to and thus becoming an example by reaping the rewards that god will send you.You don't show the glory of god by telling people. You do it by showing them. Telling somebody that he'll get the blessings of god is worthless. They need to see it actually happen. And they'll see it happening through you if you simply live life as god intended.

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

---

Why does your translation use the word "homosexual"? The word did not exist at the time and even the concept was completely foreign to those who wrote the original text.Your translation seems to be having difficulty with the Greek words "malakos" and "arsenkoitai." That last one is particularly difficult because it is a word that Paul made up and it appears in only two places, neither of which provide much help for what it actually means."Homosexual," however, is quite out because the concept of homosexuality as we understand it simply did not exist in Paul's day.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Gay people are not idolators.

---

​

You are when you go against God's will.

---

Incorrect.An idolator is someone who prays to a false god.Engaging in sex with someone of the same sex is not praying to a false god.That said, nowhere in the Bible do we find that people of the same sex who have a loving, sexual relationship with each other go against god's will.In fact, the Bible's greatest love story is the one between David and Johnathan. How could a loving, gay relationship be against god's will when the greatest king, the one blessed by god, found his greatest love in another man?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

custard,I hate having to do other people's homework.You asked an undergraduate about this? Why would that bring up the work of Hooker? Her work is specifically about the psychological normalcy of gay men compared to straight men. I had to take Psych in college, too, but we never covered the intricacies of human sexual response.Your list of top 100 mentioned psychologists doesn't impress me, either. Again, Hooker is working in a specific field and most likely wouldn't show up in a general psychologist list. Despite the fact that my biology textbook covers evolution extensively, it never mentions Futuyama.I had assumed we understood we were talking about the field of human sexuality, specifically the study of sexual orientation. One cannot really be educated in that field without knowing a few things...like the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973 and that Dr. Evelyn Hooker was the first major researcher to consider and publish the claim that gay people are not more likely to be mentally ill than the straight population.Here's an article discussing the history of the deletion (you'll have to register for access): The 1973 deletion of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder: 30 years onIt is inherently amazing to come across someone who is trying to discuss the history of the psychological investigation of the origin of homosexuality and not know the name of Dr. Hooker.

quote:

---

But we were never discussing homosexuality as normal or pathological behavior. Ever. Our discussion pertains to why or why not individuals prefer same gender sex partners.

---

Which is inherently a question of whether or not homosexuality is normal or pathological behaviour.Especially when one claims that homosexuality is the result of eroticization of traumatic events.

quote:

---

Please show me where Hooker's experiment demonstrating homosexuality is not pathology addresses this topic?

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?You come here quoting someone who says that homosexuality arises due to the eroticization of trauma and it never occurs to you that such trauma might have other effects?Wouldn't one of the most obvious methods of rebuttal be to look at gay men and see if they have any other mental scars that had arisen as a result of that trauma experienced as a child?And if we don't find any, what does that say about the hypothesis that the etiology of homosexuality is the erotization of trauma? Do you think that this trauma is so localized and specific that its only manifestation is homosexuality?

Edited to add link to history of APA removal of homosexuality from DSM

This message has been edited by Rrhain, 06-19-2004 08:52 PM

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Actually, IIRC, Dr. Hooker was a Psychologist.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar,Yes...my mistake. I've edited the piece because of that mistake.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

You were there, so you know.Listen, you spend alot of time repeating yourself. I have pretty much summed up how I feel. I have listened to your side, (whatever that side is) and was very open minded about the whole thing.If we continue down this path as a nation, whats going to be next. Why couldn't I marry 2 girls, and have it be ok in the governments eyes? All we got to do is change a few words around, and argue the case, like the way you do, then some judges who go along with it, will let it happen.And you know what, religion does have a place in government. Not any specific religion, but the princicpals that are common to all religions. These are great guidlines to live by. It is our history, what we learn from for thousands of years. You cannot dismiss it from our way of thinking, just because some people feel as though there is no God. we can use these guidlines to help us decide how to be free. Without them we could then do what ever we want. Why not make murder legal, and stealing, and all other things. With your way of thinking it could be applied to all of these things. And no I not comparing it to being gay.Also your point of animals being gay for life is not useful to us either. If we are to compare ourselves to the animal kingdom so that we should act like they do, and call it natural. Then we should be allowed to do all the other things that animals do, like rape, steal, and kill.When a heterosexual is born, not knowing if he/she can make babies, and then later finds out he/she can't, this is not an example to compare being gay too. Gay is a choice, I proved that, no wait you proved that with your own words. Being heterosexual, and not being able to have a baby is not a choice. Two different things.I have grown tired of this argument with you, as you have contradicted yourself way too many times, made yourself into your own god, and said just about what ever you wanted to say to make a point, even if it turned you into a hypocrite.Calling someone a sinner is not judging them. Even in the bible people were kick out of church if they lived too much in sin. They weren't judged either. If you poop your pants, then you have poop in your pants. Don't turn black into white with your words.1 Corithians 5
6Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast--as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.
9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."[2]I am done with this one guys, I won't even entertain the thought of reading rhains replys for this thread anymore. It is wasting my precious time.Rhain, Jesus Loves you, and so do I. I thank you for your time, because even though we disagree, I have learned some stuff through discussion. Thats what this forum is for.
As far as any gay people reading this forum, I am truly sorry if you think I hate you, because I don't even though rhain would have you believe that, by the words he has put in my mouth.
Your all invited to my house for a beer.Peace.
Happy fathers day.

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

"Homosexual," however, is quite out because the concept of homosexuality as we understand it simply did not exist in Paul's day.

---

​

You were there, so you know.

---

No, I have studied the book and the langauge.

quote:

---

If we continue down this path as a nation, whats going to be next.

---

(*sigh*)Not the slippery slope argument.Please explain how same-sex marriage leads to polygamy, incest, child molestation, bestiality, or desire to marry a small household appliance any more than mixed-sex marriage does.

quote:

---

And you know what, religion does have a place in government. Not any specific religion, but the princicpals that are common to all religions.

---

But that's just it. There aren't any. There are no principles that are common to all religions. That's one of the pieces of brilliance behind the separation of church and state: It recognizes that there is no way to get all religions together. So best to simply avoid it altogether. With no way to ever achieve perfect compromise and given a methodology that doesn't require choosing one over the other, why try to find a way to inject religion into government? It will only cause trouble and isn't even necessary.

quote:

---

Why not make murder legal, and stealing, and all other things. With your way of thinking it could be applied to all of these things. And no I not comparing it to being gay.

---

If your argument is that the logic that concludes treating gay people equally under the law can be used to justify murder and stealing, then you absolutely ARE comparing them to being gay.What would be the point of bringing them up if there was not some sort of connection between the two?But I've answered your question: Homosexuality harms nobody. Murder and stealing do.Ergo, murder and stealing are illegal.

quote:

---

Also your point of animals being gay for life is not useful to us either. If we are to compare ourselves to the animal kingdom so that we should act like they do, and call it natural.

---

Typical creationist tactic: Declare that X never happens and then, when shown that it does, claim that it isn't an example of Y, which wasn't what was claimed in the first place, and hope to high heaven that nobody notices.You don't get to have it both ways. If we look to nature for definitions of what is natural and we find it there, you cannot then deny it on the basis that humans are "above nature."Like it or not, humans are animals. They certainly aren't funugs, bacteria, or plants. You're absolutely right that we shouldn't expect humans to behave like any other animal, but then again, we don't expect dogs to behave like cats. Birds, fish, reptiles, lizards, insects, arachnids, they're all animals and yet none of them behave the same way.Every mammalian species has been observed to have homosexual members.Why is it so certain that humans would be the sole exception?Besides, you are only arguing against yourself. You're claiming that humans are different...we have "culture." Well, if your claim is that "culture" creates homosexuals, how on earth does it arise in animals who presumably don't have nearly that sophisticated a thing?If humans choose to be gay, does that mean animals don't? And if animals don't choose to be gay, why are humans any different?

quote:

---

Calling someone a sinner is not judging them.

---

Yes, it is. You are in no position to judge if they have sinned. Your sole responsibility is to yourself.

quote:

---

If you poop your pants, then you have poop in your pants.

---

So a baby is sinning when it soils its diaper?See, that's the part you are missing. It is not the simple description of a physical act. It's the claim that it "goes against god."Well, you're not god, so how the hell do you know if what they're doing goes against god?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I once heard someone said that the definition of evil is the lack of empathy.With that said, let me make this clear to you. There are people that absolutely cannot imagine themselves having sex with girls, and I am one of them *ahem...I'm-a-male...cough cough*.

---

The Laminator

​