Disorder, sexual orientation, and pedophelia

[Trau]

Okay, so the other day Geraldo Rivera was on the O'Reilly Factor and he compared homosexuality and pedophelia, noting that both are inherent dispositions.

I am more and more holding onto a view that homosexuality is not a choice, but perhaps a disorder. I understand that there has never been any kind of genetic evidence of homosexuality, so I realize that is a serious fault with this belief.

But holding that homosexuality as a sexal orientation is a disorder, might we also consider pedophelia to be an orientation and a disorder as well? I could be wrong, but I believe the recidivism rate for pedophiles is higher than ninety percent. If we were to consider these people to be of a sexual orientation and disorder, couldn't we use that to show that homosexuality is unnatural?

We might even be able to eliminate this notion of "orientation" by associating it with a disorder.

You might not agree that either are not matters of choice, but what do you think of the concept?

[PrezLeefun]

Although I understand exactly where you are coming from with that theory, it is highly dangerous. The reverse can also be done. In many groups homosexuality is viewed as being perfectly natural. That theory can therefore be used to say that pedophilia is also perfectly natural. Dangerous territory my friend.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Homosexuality and pedophelia are not "orientations" or "disorders," they are sin pre-dispositions. We are all born with an inherent tendency toward certain sinful behaviors and actions. We either deal with them and overcome them, or we give in and live in them. It's that simple -- humanity, in its utter arrogance, desires to redefine and justify bad behavior because of lust, desire, and want.

[Trau]

Where have you read that each person has his or her own pre-disposition?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Where have you read that each person has his or her own pre-disposition?

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:dv3psB-hS24J:www.chathanson.com/images/the_holy_bible.gif (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.chathanson.com/images/the_holy_bible.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.chathanson.com/&h=175&w=165&sz=5&tbnid=dv3psB-hS24J:&tbnh=95&tbnw=89&hl=en&start=68&prev=/images%3Fq%3DKJV%2BHoly%2BBible%26start%3D60%26svn um%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN)

[Trau]

I know that we are all predisposed to sinning in general, but I have never known of this applying to everyone for certain sins.

[Warlady]

Homes I'm torn. I am no longer so sure of that. I am beginning to believe that sexual disorders are genetic but like any abnormality can be cured some how and that we just haven't found the cure yet because we've been looking at them as sin and not a genetic abnormality. Scientists are looking at homosexuality to see if there is a different or missing gene. I'm not sure if they are looking at pedophelia but I would sure hope so. The reason I'm torn is because of the "evil" factor. aka as Satan. I don't believe some homosexuals who say they've known they were homos since puberty are evil. Like I said, I'm torn.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Homes I'm torn. I am no longer so sure of that. I am beginning to believe that sexual disorders are genetic but like any abnormality can be cured some how and that we just haven't found the cure yet because we've been looking at them as sin and not a genetic abnormality. Scientists are looking at homosexuality to see if there is a different or missing gene. I'm not sure if they are looking at pedophelia but I would sure hope so. The reason I'm torn is because of the "evil" factor. aka as Satan. I don't believe some homosexuals who say they've known they were homos since puberty are evil. Like I said, I'm torn.

You make a very interesting point, Warlady. Hmmm, I will have to think on your words for a while. In the immediacy, though, what first came to mind was that the behavior is what can be classified as "evil" -- that sounds harsh, but truly if the Lord considers it an abomination, and He does, then the act has to be inherently evil because it stands between a person and God's Will for their life.

Perhaps there are two different "types" of dipsosition toward homosexuality -- that which comes from within (the pre-disposition to be attracted to that sinful behavior and CHOSING to behave that way), and a disposition formed by environment, mental or physical "factor" (for lack of better term). We all know, though, the root of ALL sin is in the first ACT of sin, which resulted in the fall for all (mankind).

We all fight certain sin "demons" -- I have a serious history of occultic behavior in my biological family I found out . . . makes sense that I am drawn to that type of literature, media, thoughts, etc. We all sin . . . it's what we do AFTER we sin that shows where our "Treasure" lays.

Again, you make an interesting argument. I want to think on this some more.

[Trevelyan]

Homes I'm torn. I am no longer so sure of that. I am beginning to believe that sexual disorders are genetic but like any abnormality can be cured some how and that we just haven't found the cure yet because we've been looking at them as sin and not a genetic abnormality. Scientists are looking at homosexuality to see if there is a different or missing gene. I'm not sure if they are looking at pedophelia but I would sure hope so. The reason I'm torn is because of the "evil" factor. aka as Satan. I don't believe some homosexuals who say they've known they were homos since puberty are evil. Like I said, I'm torn.

There is no doubt in my mind that it is not a choice. From speaking to some people I know, reviewing the current scientific knowledge, and just asking the question, "Why would anyone choose this?", it was not very difficult for me to make up my mind on this issue.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

Twin studies show that the rate at which both siblings are homosexual is much higher among identical twins than it is among fraternal twins. Now obviously it is not 100% genetic, because if this were the case, both siblings would be homosexual 100% of the time among the identical twins. However, these results do show a genetic component. There are two other studies I am aware of if you are interested. One of them involves the locations of not one, but three separate genes on three separate chromosomes that may possibly play a role in one's sexual orientation.<O:p</O:p

Now when it comes to the issue of homosexuality and pedophilia, I feel both are not a choice. I do not believe one chooses to be sexually attracted to a member of one's own sex, or to children. However, just because you are sexually attracted to a certain person does not mean you cannot control yourself and abstain from any type of sexual activity. Now homosexuality can involve a sexual relationship between two consenting adults. When it comes to pedophilia, there is no consent most times. This is why I have no qualms when it comes to homosexuality, as opposed to pedophilia. The sexual attraction may not be a choice, but your actions as a result of that attraction definitely are. <O:p</O:p

[Trau]

Catholic doctrine does not talk about the choice of the matter, but says that those who are homosexual have been called by the Lord to chastity. Thus having homosexual thoughts and desires is not considered evil, but the act itself is. Yes, evil is a strong word, but at it's base homosexuality is sinful; therefore evil is applied in the most technical sense.

All of us, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, whatever, will probably agree that the evil of homosexuality is (reflecting on the person) different than the evil of murdering one's wife.

[CzechPrince]

There is no doubt in my mind that it is not a choice. From speaking to some people I know, reviewing the current scientific knowledge, and just asking the question, "Why would anyone choose this?", it was not very difficult for me to make up my mind on this issue.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

Twin studies show that the rate at which both siblings are homosexual is much higher among identical twins than it is among fraternal twins. Now obviously it is not 100% genetic, because if this were the case, both siblings would be homosexual 100% of the time among the identical twins. However, these results do show a genetic component. There are two other studies I am aware of if you are interested. One of them involves the locations of not one, but three separate genes on three separate chromosomes that may possibly play a role in one's sexual orientation.<O:p</O:p

Now when it comes to the issue of homosexuality and pedophilia, I feel both are not a choice. I do not believe one chooses to be sexually attracted to a member of one's own sex, or to children. However, just because you are sexually attracted to a certain person does not mean you cannot control yourself and abstain from any type of sexual activity. Now homosexuality can involve a sexual relationship between two consenting adults. When it comes to pedophilia, there is no consent most times. This is why I have no qualms when it comes to homosexuality, as opposed to pedophilia. The sexual attraction may not be a choice, but your actions as a result of that attraction definitely are. <O:p</O:p

Excellant post. You are exactly like I am, gays are okay with me, no problem with them. I have a close family member that is gay and friends who are as well, and I wouldn't trade either of them for the world.

But, I have no patience for pedophilia or whoever would harm a child like that. It disgusts me. Even the lowest among criminals have a code in prison about not harming children

[CzechPrince]

Catholic doctrine does not talk about the choice of the matter, but says that those who are homosexual have been called by the Lord to chastity. Thus having homosexual thoughts and desires is not considered evil, but the act itself is. Yes, evil is a strong word, but at it's base homosexuality is sinful; therefore evil is applied in the most technical sense.

All of us, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, whatever, will probably agree that the evil of homosexuality is (reflecting on the person) different than the evil of murdering one's wife.

If you notice, the Church leaves room open in the doctrine, basically stating, we, as humans, right now do not know the cause of it, but it should still be avoided. If down the road science happens to find somthing genetic, I don't know how people are going to be able to continue to damn homosexuals to hell.

[Trau]

If you notice, the Church leaves room open in the doctrine, basically stating, we, as humans, right now do not know the cause of it, but it should still be avoided. If down the road science happens to find somthing genetic, I don't know how people are going to be able to continue to damn homosexuals to hell.

Well, the reason that homosexuality is wrong under our faith is because sodomy and other sexual activities do not allow for the creation of life. This is also why the Church forbids birth control and condoms.

[DeclinetoState]

The Bible says nothing about sex with children (by children I mean youth, not offspring). Mary was probably only 13 or 14 when she had Jesus. Of course, if you believe she remained a virgin, that's not a problem, but she was believed to have had sex once it became known she was pregnant--and the scandal there was not due to her age, but her marital status.

During the Industrial Revolution, girls as young as 12 could get married without their parents' permission. Although average life expectancies were much shorter in the late 1800s, this was mainly due to a high infant-mortality rate, and many people still lived into their 50s and 60s, so the argument that it was necessary for children to get married because of the shorter life expectancy isn't totally valid.

One could maintain that it's not at all scandalous for a man to want to have sex with a much younger woman. One who felt that way might be a defender of Bill Clinton.

[DoctorDoom]

Again we have the politically correct attempt to justify one perversion out of the long list of them. If being queer is an "orientation", then so is being pedophilic, necrophilic, zoophilic, and all the other paraphilias. It is shameless bigotry to focus on homos while ignoring all the other forms of perversion.

"Why would anyone choose this?"That's one of the lamest "arguments" in the litany. Why would anyone choose to be a rapist, a pedo, an exhibitionist, a coprophagiac, a frotteurist, a sadist, a masochist, et al? Why would anyone choose to be a mugger, a burglar, a robber, a terrorist, or a murderer?

ALL sin is a choice. If it were not, it wouldn't be sin.

There is exactly zero evidence that homosexuality is genetic, despite years of trying to find the "gay gene". The "research" is hopelessly flawed and scientifically worthless. The only purpose is doing so is to legitimize an immoral and medically disastrous sexual behavior.

I for one have had it up to my eyebrows with "gay" this and queer that. Come up to Massholechusetts if you want to see what catering to militant queers can do. Leave your kids at home. The fags are targetting children here.

[S-T]

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:dv3psB-hS24J:www.chathanson.com/images/the_holy_bible.gif (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.chathanson.com/images/the_holy_bible.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.chathanson.com/&h=175&w=165&sz=5&tbnid=dv3psB-hS24J:&tbnh=95&tbnw=89&hl=en&start=68&prev=/images%3Fq%3DKJV%2BHoly%2BBible%26start%3D60%26svn um%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN)


:claps:

[Trevelyan]

ALL sin is a choice. If it were not, it wouldn't be sin.


Wait, so you are saying it is even a sin to just be attracted to the same sex? If not, then what is your point? I said homosexual activity was a choice.

[DoctorDoom]

Wait, so you are saying it is even a sin to just be attracted to the same sex? If not, then what is your point? I said homosexual activity was a choice.However, just because you are sexually attracted to a certain person does not mean you cannot control yourself and abstain from any type of sexual activity.I missed that, inasmuch as the rest of the post was SSDD and I chose not to wade through the whole thing.

There is no doubt in my mind that it is not a choice.You were not specific about what is chosen, the temptation or the action. Militant homos are trying to force society to accept if not embrace the behavior, the "lifestyle".

FYI: Results 1 - 10 of about 987 for "queer by choice". (0.15 seconds)

[medved]

Homosexuality apparently lowers the human lifespan to about 2/3 of its normal value. It's can't be normal or natural and it's obviouslyt someting you want to avoid.

[Keb]

All of us, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, whatever, will probably agree that the evil of homosexuality is (reflecting on the person) different than the evil of murdering one's wife.That depends on if you believe there are different levels of sin or not.


If you notice, the Church leaves room open in the doctrine, basically stating, we, as humans, right now do not know the cause of it, but it should still be avoided.So if a genetic link is found, then will the "Church" say you don't have to avoid it anymore?


If down the road science happens to find somthing genetic, I don't know how people are going to be able to continue to damn homosexuals to hell.
I don't think most Christian's relish the thought of anyone going to hell.

[TechnoPrincess]

Irregardless of whether homosexuality is a choice or not..acting upon those urges is a sin. Satan uses our lust and urges to tempt us, even Job was tempted to betray God. However it is how we choose to act upon those urges and temptations that determine whether it is a sin. A man looking at another woman and finding her attractive is not a sin, but him lusting after her and acting upon it is as much a sin as homosexuality.
God does not seem to lay out which sins are worse in his eyes than others, people have done that. We all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

[Trau]

If being queer is an "orientation", then so is being pedophilic, necrophilic, zoophilic, and all the other paraphilias.

That is kinda the point of this thread. While homosexuality is not as objectionable as those other disorders (to me, anyway), it is not any more natural. If we properly associate "orientation" with the word disorder, we might convince more people that homosexuality is indeed a disorder. Then again I do not believe that homosexuals choose to desire what they do, only that the choose to act on those desires.

[Trau]

That depends on if you believe there are different levels of sin or not.

What I meant is how we view those people. While in the eyes of God there may be no difference, but to us homosexuals are not seen to be as vile, bad people as murderers are. Unless you had a gay murderer, of course. ;)

So if a genetic link is found, then will the "Church" say you don't have to avoid it anymore?

Absolutely not. The Church says unequivocally that gay sex is wrong. Just the same as adultery, premarital sex, and masturbation. Only sex between a married man and a woman that keeps intact nature's ability to facilitate life is "allowed". Gays cannot be married nor can they facilitate procreation, therefore their intimate relations will never be sanctioned under church law.

[Keb]

Homosexuality was considered a psychiatric disease until the early 70's.

[star2589]

right now, i dont know.

I think that science is the best way to answer these questions, not philosophy.

[Trevelyan]

masturbation.

Now see, I can never get a consistent answer on this one. Some people say it is sinful, while others say it isn't.

It is actually pretty healthy, so I don't see why it should be a sin, but oh well.

[Melz]

right now, i dont know.

I think that science is the best way to answer these questions, not philosophy.

Well so far, science has not been able to prove any gay gene has it? Has science come anywhere close to proving that it is completely unavoidable? Perhaps if ever it IS proven that there is a gay gene which makes their attraction unavoidable, their acting upon it is still a sin, and avoidable. That sounds harsh, but the Bible is pretty self explanatory in that idea. So they have to find ways to be happy without acting on whatever gene it is which dictates what will make them happiest.

[DoctorDoom]

Homosexuality apparently lowers the human lifespan to about 2/3 of its normal value. It's can't be normal or natural and it's obviouslyt someting you want to avoid.In the late 1930s and 1940s, Kinsey and his investigators spent more than 12 years seeking out and interviewing homosexuals. Because Kinsey and his colleagues were regarded as sexual liberators, homosexuals were eager to volunteer for his study. There is no reason to believe that his sample was not representative of all age groups available. Yet fewer than 1% of his homosexuals, male as well as female, were over the age of 65.

The Mattachine Society, the earliest of the "gay rights" organizations, gathered together a representative group of homosexuals for Evelyn Hooker to study in her highly influential 1950s study. The oldest of the 30 subjects was 50, the next oldest was 44, and the median age was 33.

In the early 1960s, Berger attempted to draw a sampling of elderly homosexuals, but had to begin his scale at 40 years and only 34 of 112 were over the age of 59,

From 1969 through 1970, the Kinsey Institute surveyed homosexuals in San Francisco. Although they recruited respondents in eight different ways, only 23% of male homosexuals and only 18% of lesbians were over the age of 45, despite the fact that the investigators tried for 25% from this age group. Their initial decision to draw only a quarter of their sampling from homosexuals over 45 indicates they already knew the problem existed, and they ended up omitting figures on age distribution from their report.

In 1977, the largest survey of homosexuals reported 0.2% of its lesbians and 0.8% of its homosexual males were age 65 or older.

The Spada Report: The Newest Survey of Gay Male Sexuality, in 1978, reported the median age was 30, with only 2.5% over age 65. J. Spada was openly homosexual and polled 1,022 male homosexuals by mail.

An openly lesbian M. Mendola, in 1979, polled 405 homosexuals by mail. The median age of those polled was 34, and only 10% were 50 or over. Source: The Mendola Report: A New Look at Gay Couples.

From the mid 1970s' to the early 1980s, interest in Gay Bowel Syndrome, sexually transmitted diseases, and hepatitis B generated a number of samples of the homosexual population.

- From 1977 through 1979, 102 homosexuals case histories were collected in Seattle and the oldest was 58.

- In 1979, 101 homosexuals who belonged to a group restricted to those over 40 was reported, and only 21 were over age 65.

- Also in 1979, 5,324 homosexual visitors to Denver's STD clinic had a median age of 27, a mean age of 28.5 and the oldest was 67.

- In 1982, only one of 103 homosexuals examined in San Francisco was over the age of 65.

In 1994, an obituary study revealed that the median age of death for homosexual males was 42 and for lesbians was 49. Source: Cameron, Playfair, Wellum, " The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic, " Omega Journal of Death and Dying," 1994.

Pedro Zamora, 22, a well-known AIDS educator and a cast member of "The Real World" on MTV, died of complications from AIDS today at Mercy Hospital in Miami. Partly because he was among few young people speaking out about AIDS, partly because of his heart throb looks and easy manner, Zamora became one of the most sought-after speakers on the disease after he tested positive for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, in 1989 at the age of 17. He took his prevention message into American living rooms as a young gay man with HIV on "The Real World." He would tell students that he got the virus through unprotected sex and that he would probably not live to reach 30. Before a television appearance in New York last August, Zamora fell ill with a neurological disorder, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, which causes rapid deterioration. He had been hospitalized since October 14th. Source: Mireya Navarro, "Life of 22 years ends, but not before many heard message on AIDS, The New York Times; November 12, 1994.

AIDS became the Leading cause of death among men from 25 to 44 in 1992 (in the U.S.). More than 250,000 people have died from AIDS or AIDS-related causes. About 75% of cases have been reported in the 25-to-44 age group. AIDS is also the leading cause of death in men and women in 79 of 169 American cities with population greater than 100,000. In the northeastern United States, where the rate of infection is higher among intravenous drug users than it is among gay men, the incidence of AIDS continues to rise. Although the AIDS epidemic seems to have stabilized among gay men in some areas of the country, there is evidence of a future second wave in that group, Dr. Jaffe said. He cited recent studies in San Francisco, Denver and Chicago showing an incidence of 2 to 3 % a year for new infections in gay men, a high number. Source: Lawrence K. Altman, " AIDS is now the leading killer of Americans from 25 to 44," The New York Times; January 31, 1995.

Nick Mattsson, as a gay man in his late 20's, has never really known love or dating outside the shadow of AIDS and, though he knew few sick people, he associated being gay with getting AIDS and dying young. In San Francisco, two gay newspapers refused for a while to carry ads for HIV-negative groups, and in New York, there is much eye-rolling, if not outright hostility. "My lover was like: 'What are you going to talk about,'" said one participant whose partner is HIV-positive. "Long-term retirement plans? 401(K)'s?" Despite optimism over available treatments, there will be no cure anytime soon. And with evidence that infection rates are rising among young men, the focus can no longer be solely on people with HIV. There is only one way, the thinking goes, to prevent another generation of gay men from dying.

Troy Masters, the publisher of LGNY, a biweekly lesbian and gay newspaper in New York, who is HIV-positive, said "It (is) cool to be HIV-positive and it shouldn't be." Some will live, and others will die long before their time, and that the worries of men who do not have HIV are valid. Some of the (gay) men (coming into clinics or support groups) came in because they had a drug or alcohol problem, others because they were having unsafe sex, others because they just needed to talk about their lives as gay men and could not afford therapy.

Mattsson joined a group because he recognized that the sex he was having was unsafe and "out of control." Marc Davis, an equities analyst who is 29, joined (a group) largely because he was having an escalating problem with cocaine. Ben Stilp, 26, the communications director for the Lesbian and Gay Community Services Center, said he joined a group as a result of two strains in his life: a problem with drugs and, for the first time, meeting men who were infected. One, who became a good friend, was only 30. "This was going to be a battle for my life. And I would have to change some fundamental things about my life," said Stilp. Source: Ian Fisher, "To be young, gay, healthy...and alienated; New support Groups for the HIV-negative handle guilt, fear and isolation, The New York Times; July 14,1996

Life expectancy for a 20 year old gay or bisexual man is 8 to 20 years less than all men. The authors estimate that " nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently age 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday." Source: Hogg. RS., Strathdee, SA., Craib, KJP., O'Shaughnessy, MV., Montainer, JSG., Schechter, MT., "Modeling the impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1997, pp. 657-61.

In 1998, another study using four contemporary databases suggested that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years. Source: Cameron, P., Cameron, K., Playfair, WL., " Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life? ", Psychological Reports, 1998, 83, pp. 847-66.Homosexual Lifespan (http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/hosx_lifspn.htm)

OBJECTIVE: To assess how HIV infection and AIDS (HIV/AIDS) impacts on mortality rates for gay and bisexual men.

METHODS: Vital statistics data were obtained for a large Canadian urban centre from 1987 to 1992. Three scenarios were utilized with assumed proportions of gay and bisexual men of 3%, 6% and 9% among the male population age 20 years. For each scenario, non-HIV deaths were distributed according to the assumed proportion of the total population (3%, 6% or 9%) but 95% of HIV deaths were distributed to gay and bisexual men as this is the proportion of AIDS cases in gay and bisexual men in this centre. The main outcome measures of interest were age-specific patterns of death, life expectancy and life expectancy lost due to HIV/AIDS at exact age 20 years, and the probability of living from age 20 to 65 years.

RESULTS: Estimates of the mid-period gay and bisexual population ranged from 5406 to 16,219 for the three scenarios, and total deaths in these men from 953 to 1703. Age-specific mortality was significantly higher for gay and bisexual men than all men aged 30-44. Life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men ranged from 34.0 years to 46.3 years for the 3% and 9% scenarios respectively. These were all lower than the 54.3 year life expectancy at age 20 for all men. The probability of living from age 20 to 65 years for gay and bisexual men ranged from 32% for the 3% scenario, to 59% for the 9% scenario. These figures were considerably lower than for all men where the probability of living from 20 to 65 was 78%.

CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men (http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657?maxt-show=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&FIRSTINDEX=&volume=26&first%2520page=657&journalcode=intjepid)

I worked as an RN for several years during the eighties and nineties at Stanford University Medical Center, where I saw some of the damage homosexuals do to their bodies with some of their sexual practices. As a result of that eye-opening experience, I much admire the work of NARTH in the research and treatment of homosexuality.

I have long been concerned about the serious medical consequences which result from the gay-affirming attitudes that predominate in the San Francisco Bay Area. For example, I knew personally a prominent dermatologist, a dentist, an engineer, and a hairdresser that died in their mid-forties of infectious diseases related to their homosexual behavior patterns. I know of many others that have died young as a result of living a gay lifestyle.

The co-author of my own medical reference book, Saunders Pocket Reference for Nurses,[i] was the head of the surgery department at Stanford. She related case histories of homosexuals needing emergency surgery due to "fisting," "playing with toys," (inserting objects into the rectum) and other bizarre acts. I am certain--in light of my clinical experience, and since doing considerable amount of studying about it since that time--that homosexuality is neither normal nor benign; rather, it is a lethal behavioral addiction as Dr. Jeffrey Satinover outlines in his book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth.[ii]Why Isn't Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequences? (http://www.narth.com/docs/consequences.html)

Homosexuality kills its victims.

[Eagle1]

homosexuality is a choice, just like all other choices and resulting behaviors they spring from environment.
look at correlation v. causality, just because things occur in the same manner does not mean one causes the other. also, patterns can be established demonstrating the causality of one event unto another
sure, many parents of homosexuals are embarrassed and ashamed, they dont know what they did wrong, and if anyone knew what that one thing or series of things were it cold be easily stopped.
this labeling as some genetic or biological event is the same as saying that all form of criminal and deviant behavior are somehow not the persons fault and we should all try to understand their situation. I for one hold people accountable for their decisions. If someone watches pornogrophy, then violent pornography, then child pornography, then smut films, then sexually assaults people and eventually children; is that somehow and inherent genetic defect? These are learned behaviors brought on by desperation from disappointment at feeling out of the societal loop. They are sick people who have become desensitized to disgusting behavior. There is no excuse, and if the events were brought on by forces the individual is unable to fight, then let the ultimate supreme court decide the ultimate sentence, we will just get them to that point a little faster.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

It is actually pretty healthy, so I don't see why it should be a sin, but oh well.

Really? What health benefits does it provide? (Not being sarcastic, merely wanting expansion of your answer from above.)

[DoctorDoom]

I think that science is the best way to answer these questions, not philosophy.You trust science far too much.

[DesertFox]

Trau, you're thinking on this as I have.

Which means, I think you're right. :D

[CzechPrince]

So if a genetic link is found, then will the "Church" say you don't have to avoid it anymore?

I don't know, I don't work at the Vatican. :grin:

My point is though, is that if there is a gay gene or somthing is found that people have no choice about their sexual orientation, I don't see how some churches will continue to state gays are going to hell, since if that is how god "made them", then that does not make much sense. I do not feel gays, "Choose" who they are attracted to. I have talked to my cousin and my gay friends about it, they cannot help the fact they are attracted to the same sex and they want a same sex partner to live a enjoyable life and die with.

I don't think most Christian's relish the thought of anyone going to hell.

Real Christians don't:thumb:

[PrezLeefun]

I don't know, I don't work at the Vatican. :grin:

My point is though, is that if there is a gay gene or somthing is found that people have no choice about their sexual orientation, I don't see how some churches will continue to state gays are going to hell, since if that is how god "made them", then that does not make much sense. I do not feel gays, "Choose" who they are attracted to. I have talked to my cousin and my gay friends about it, they cannot help the fact they are attracted to the same sex and they want a same sex partner to live a enjoyable life and die with.



Real Christians don't:thumb:

So true CP. But the problem is actually living out a gay lifestyle. That is a choice- that goes against God's perfect plan. I may be attracted to women and that in of itself is not a sin. If I choose to date women then I am sinning. I make the choice not to- more homosexuals would probably be better off spiritually if they resisted temptation. It is a challenge for all christians to follow God's path no matter how they feel.

[Trau]

Trau, you're thinking on this as I have.

Which means, I think you're right. :D

I knew there was a reason I always liked you.:thumb:

[Trevelyan]

Really? What health benefits does it provide? (Not being sarcastic, merely wanting expansion of your answer from above.)

It relieves stress, it is safe, and I believe it can relieve menstruall cramps for females. I also have seen studies that show it may significantly reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer.

Even if there were no benefits, it certainly is not deleterious in any way.

[Trau]

So true CP. But the problem is actually living out a gay lifestyle. That is a choice- that goes against God's perfect plan. I may be attracted to women and that in of itself is not a sin. If I choose to date women then I am sinning. I make the choice not to- more homosexuals would probably be better off spiritually if they resisted temptation. It is a challenge for all christians to follow God's path no matter how they feel.


Yes, definitely. I think you have to look at it as the card you have been dealt by God. Like if you were born without legs, or some other terrible problem. It sucks big time, but you have no choice but to deal with it. God has his reasons, I'm sure.

[DoctorDoom]

So you are claiming that God is the CAUSE of what He has called an abomination, and that therefore He is the source of sin. Is that right?

That's another example of religion twisting Christianity for secular ends.

[DoctorDoom]

BTW, this thread is NOT political. It is thus moved to the News forum.

[CzechPrince]

So you are claiming that God is the CAUSE of what He has called an abomination, and that therefore He is the source of sin. Is that right?

That's another example of religion twisting Christianity for secular ends.

No we aren't saying God caused it. No one knows what causes it. My thing is, having a gay cousin and friends who are, they cannot help they are not sexually attracted to the opposite sex, it's out of the question for them. My cousin tried to change his orientation years and years ago and it didn't work. I don't want to get into a debate about the scriptures, becasue we all know what they say, but what if it is found that it is genetic? I don't think that will invalidate the scriptures, but it may spark a question as to wheather or not they should be read differently, it would be interesting to see.

[Trau]

So you are claiming that God is the CAUSE of what He has called an abomination, and that therefore He is the source of sin. Is that right?

I don't know how the mechanics of it work. What explanation do you have for people who are born with various disabilities and health issues? Did God "cause" these things to happen? I do not know.

I am only saying that homosexual desires are not choices. The choice is to act on those desires.

[TechnoPrincess]

I don't know how the mechanics of it work. What explanation do you have for people who are born with various disabilities and health issues? Did God "cause" these things to happen? I do not know.

I am only saying that homosexual desires are not choices. The choice is to act on those desires.

Exactly. No different than a man choosing to have affairs, or to sleep with a different woman every weekend. Temptation is not the sin, the act of giving into the temptation is the sin.

[Lazarus]

Homosexuality and pedophelia are not "orientations" or "disorders," they are sin pre-dispositions. We are all born with an inherent tendency toward certain sinful behaviors and actions. We either deal with them and overcome them, or we give in and live in them. It's that simple -- humanity, in its utter arrogance, desires to redefine and justify bad behavior because of lust, desire, and want.Right on the money as usual... My pastor has described the sin nature in all humans as having general trends toward either Lasciviousness or Astheticism... And those trends can run toward any number of sub-branches... This is where sexual deviencies manifest themselves... Make no mistake, these are not disorders nor are they natural orientations... They are sins that some people have tendancies toward and choose give in to when a weak social culture tells them its ok or not their fault...

The problem is, you see, God does not follow pop culture social trends... And to God, being the immutable being that he is, what he classified as sin or evil in the beginning, is still sin and evil...

[Lazarus]

Exactly. No different than a man choosing to have affairs, or to sleep with a different woman every weekend. Temptation is not the sin, the act of giving into the temptation is the sin.Well put... Exactly... Our sin natures are the source of temptation to sin... But the source of sin itself comes from the individual's volitional choice...

[DoctorDoom]

I don't know how the mechanics of it work. What explanation do you have for people who are born with various disabilities and health issues? Did God "cause" these things to happen? I do not know.I have a hard time equating health issues and handicaps with what is essentially a moral issue. I can't think of any known handicap or genetically-transmitted disease that causes one to lust for abnormal sex.

I am only saying that homosexual desires are not choices.So the queers tell us. IMO, it's part of their agenda to legitimize and normalize their particular perversion, which has been their goal for decades. And an integral part of that quest is to make their behavior acceptable.

What is behind homosexuality is still anyone's guess, but it's absolutely safe to say that it is not the work of God.

[Rink]

Funny, homosexuals themselves keep referring it to a 'Lifestyle CHOICE'

[TempestTossed]

Funny, homosexuals themselves keep referring it to a 'Lifestyle CHOICE'No, they don't. That is a phrase used by their critics. I Googled it (http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=%22Lifestyle+CHOICE%22+gay&btnG=Search). My experience has been that homosexuals consistently assert that it is their nature, a propensity that they were given no choice in. I can sympathize. I do not experience homosexual temptations. My heterosexuality is a part of my nature like my hands and feet. My heterosexual temptations are to my detriment at times. I have the power to choose whether to act on temptation, but I have limited power over what temptations I have, which is something that gays and straights have in common.

[Rink]

lol

[DoctorDoom]

I have limited power over what temptations I have...Actually, you have no power over them because you reject the source of REAL power over sin and lust. Your choice, of course.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Trau, you're thinking on this as I have.

Which means, I think you're right. :D

I generally agree with Trau's ideas as well.

Although I think the idea that we can ever possibly put our finger on a singular genetic event as a cause for homosexuality. I don't doubt for a moment that genetic make-up plays a role. It appears that some persons are born with a genetic predilection for homosexuality, though much depends on environment.

That doesn't make it normal or acceptable, but it's important that we all maintain a reasonble perspective and a generous attitude against the day of our own foibles.

As a result of the Fall, man changed spiritually and genetically. Nevertheless, God’s law did not change as a result of man’s folly. All of us are still answerable to God’s moral authority regardless of the nature of our “thorn(s) in the flesh.”

Trau's view is righteous and compassionate, just the way God sees it.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

I have the power to choose whether to act on temptation, but I have limited power over what temptations I have, which is something that gays and straights have in common.

Well said. The best that one can do on their own in terms of controlling the sort of temptations that may come is to avoid unnecessary situations associated with those temptations. The very best that one can do, however, is begin by placing one's life in the hands of Christ. Either way -- and one should do both -- one mostly only controls one's response. The limited action that one can take does not change the nature or erase the presence of one's weaknesses, and the power that Christ invokes in one's life is not one's own.

[Federal Farmer]

Right on the money as usual... My pastor has described the sin nature in all humans as having general trends toward either Lasciviousness or Astheticism... And those trends can run toward any number of sub-branches... This is where sexual deviencies manifest themselves... Make no mistake, these are not disorders nor are they natural orientations... They are sins that some people have tendancies toward and choose give in to when a weak social culture tells them its ok or not their fault...

The problem is, you see, God does not follow pop culture social trends... And to God, being the immutable being that he is, what he classified as sin or evil in the beginning, is still sin and evil...
Agreed. Romans Ch 1 spells it out pretty well.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Prince: I don't think that will invalidate the scriptures, but it may spark a question as to whether or not they should be read differently, it would be interesting to see.

I don't see any reason that we should see the scriptures differently. Though not discounting the importance of environment, I've always believed that homosexuality -- more often than not -- mostly goes to genetic make-up.

As I said in the above, the Fall changed things. Man was affected spiritually and genetically. God's word is very clear about that. What I'm getting at is that the discovery of genetics and the knowledge that traits -- good and bad -- are passed on is essentially nothing new in the theological sense. We've always known that the effects of sin are two-fold, physical and spiritual. I'm absolutely convinced that any number of my weaknesses to certain temptations are due to a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Why should I be any different than the homosexual in that regard? In the end, it's all the same: sin.

Nevertheless, God's commandments remain the same as well, condemning the foibles the same as the original act of disobedience that produced them.

Society must not ever do anything to encourage the idea that homosexuality -- or that any other disorder or harmful predilection, however you wish to see it -- is normal or acceptable or equal with that which is right.

It's not normal; it's merely part of the fallout.

It's not acceptable; it's sinful.

It's not legitimate; it's perversion.

[CzechPrince]

Bluemoon and everyone else, agreed.

I don't understand how people can say homosexuals choose to be attracted to the same sex, speaking from talking to gay friends, relatives, and research.

Think about it: As most people here including myself are heterosexual, could you honestly choose to have relations with the same sex? I know I couldn't, even if I tried.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Well, I'm not entirely sure we agree, Prince. I believe that for most homosexuals their proclivity is mostly a matter of genetic make-up. But environment still matters a great deal. I don't doubt for a moment that a good many people have turned out straight in spite of their genetic make-up -- those who got plenty of good upbringing and healthy affirmations from their family. Also, I don't doubt that impressionable youth can be groomed to accept homosexuality as its own. The CA of the German "butch" movement certainly thought so . . . and did just that with a great deal of success.

[DesertFox]

Anybody who has been rimmed knows whence the charm of perversion. The anus is exquisitely sensitive. But where most of us recognize that and stick with good old sex, homosexuals are drawn to repeat what are literally anal urges. I think it's a matter of getting stuck in licentiousness.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

And also . . . well . . . never mind.

[DoctorDoom]

Prince. I believe that for most homosexuals their proclivity is mostly a matter of genetic make-up.The queers have succeeded in their propagandizing if you believe that. There is no objective scientific evidence to support the frivolous notion of a "gay gene".

If one is a Christian, the concept requires that God encoded into the genes a propensity for behavior that He calls an "abomination". If one is an evolutionist, then the assumption is that a mutation that damned well does not enhance survivability is preserved by natural selection. Either way, the "gay gene" is another example of junk science being used for political purposes.

The cause aside, God's word condemns the behavior. And acceptance of the behavior is the focus of the homo agenda.

[Trevelyan]

There is no objective scientific evidence to support the frivolous notion of a "gay gene".

One gene that controls whether or not you will be sexually attracted to the same sex? No. Evidence suggesting a genetic component, however? Yes.

then the assumption is that a mutation that damned well does not enhance survivability is preserved by natural selection.


None of the diseases caused by one's genetic makeup, or even diseases caused by a genetic predisposition, aid in survivability, yet they persist. The reason is because of our advances in technology over the course of human history. The same can be applied when discussing homosexuality. If there are more straight people surviving and reproducing, then it is not essential that all do so.

[Teenager]

Ok, I've never seen this thread before. So, I'm a little late getting into it.

If you notice, the Church leaves room open in the doctrine, basically stating, we, as humans, right now do not know the cause of it, but it should still be avoided. If down the road science happens to find somthing genetic, I don't know how people are going to be able to continue to damn homosexuals to hell.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

CP, humans do not need to condemn homosexuals to hell. But, notice that God does that. Sodom and Gomorrah ring a bell?

To people who believe there's a gene out there- Sin is sin. By definition, we inherit sin through our parents from birth. So yes, we somewhat have a gene to sin. So yes, we somewhat have a gene to homosexuality. But let's not stop there. We also have a suicide gene, as well as an anger gene. But let's go further. We have a war gene. We a have murder gene. We have a robber gene. In fact, we have a gene to every sin that has ever been committed, even a pedophelia gene.

And now, the cool part comes. Jesus takes over. When you accept Him as your personal saviour, all those evil genes are taken away. The old man has passed away, and behold, you are a new creation. When you become saved, he takes away those genes by covering it with His blood. No wonder why He's called the Great Physician. It's like he does surgery and takes out the evil genes.

Cool? Totally.

[DoctorDoom]

One gene that controls whether or not you will be sexually attracted to the same sex? No. Evidence suggesting a genetic component, however? Yes.What evidence? And is the evidence being "interpreted" for political and philosophical purposes, i.e., to support the notion of homosexuality as "natural"?

None of the diseases caused by one's genetic makeup, or even diseases caused by a genetic predisposition, aid in survivability, yet they persist.Red herring. Homosexuality by definition does not result in procreation. How then is it passed on?

[Bluemoon_Rising]

One gene that controls whether or not you will be sexually attracted to the same sex? No. Evidence suggesting a genetic component, however? Yes.

Why should a genetic proclivity for homosexuality -- which I believe to be a very real possibility -- necessarily have anything directly to do with sexual attraction? Why can't it have something more to do with a person's general emotional make up? In this case, certain personality composites are more vulnerable to homosexual temptation. Especially during one's formative years, one's environment may serve to either cancel out the potential outcome or encourage it. I believe it quite likely that for most homosexuals this personality composite is quite pronounced, but If I'm right about its actual nature, it cannot in any conclusive way be called a cause of homosexual attraction, at least not in the sense that you mean.

I think the idea of which the proponents of gay rights are trying to convince us is way too simple and self-serving -- politics over science, infantile simplicity over actual complexities. In short, it’s much harder to demonize sound and imaginative reasoning when the options are not simply A or B. Nature -- particularly human nature -- is typically much more complex than severe naturalists would have it, and their attempts to divorce nature from moral responsibility are futile.

[Trevelyan]

What evidence? And is the evidence being "interpreted" for political and philosophical purposes, i.e., to support the notion of homosexuality as "natural"?

Twin studies. The rate of both twins being homosexual is much higher in identical twins than it is in fraternal twins. Now the reason I say there is evidence for a genetic component rather than a "gay gene" that always expresses its phenotype is because both twins among identical twins would be homosexual 100% of the time if it were a gay gene, but this is not the case. So there are outside factors, not just genetics, at play here.

ed herring. Homosexuality by definition does not result in procreation. How then is it passed on?

Then how do two people with brown eyes have a child with blue eyes?

[Trevelyan]

Why should a genetic proclivity for homosexuality -- which I believe to be a very real possibility -- necessarily have anything directly to do with sexual attraction? Why can't it have something more to do with a person's general emotional make up? In this case, certain personality composites are more vulnerable to homosexual temptation. Especially during one's formative years, one's environment may serve to either cancel out the potential outcome or encourage it. I believe it quite likely that for most homosexuals this personality composite is quite pronounced, but If I'm right about its actual nature, it cannot in any conclusive way be called a cause of homosexual attraction, at least not in the sense that you mean.

I think the idea of which the proponents of gay rights are trying to convince us is way too simple and self-serving -- politics over science, infantile simplicity over actual complexities. In short, it’s much harder to demonize sound and imaginative reasoning when the options are not simply A or B. Nature -- particularly human nature -- is typically much more complex than severe naturalists would have it, and their attempts to divorce nature from moral responsibility are futile.

I do not believe it is simply a matter of genetics either, and the evidence certainly does not support this notion.

[DesertFox]

Queers frequently marry and have kids, then divorce and go play. Which is another thing that persuades me that they are licentious more than they are helpless before their genes, though I do think there's a genetic component. I'm hetero, and I couldn't get it up with another man no matter what depended on it. Queers can get it up with both men AND women.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

The queers have succeeded in their propagandizing if you believe that. There is no objective scientific evidence to support the frivolous notion of a "gay gene".

If one is a Christian, the concept requires that God encoded into the genes a propensity for behavior that He calls an "abomination".

"The queers have succeeded" in no such thing where I'm concerned, and I am not talking about a "gay gene." The genetic proclivity for homosexuality -- or that for any other pathological bent -- has nothing to do with God's actions. The abominations of man's sinful nature are hardwired, the stuff of his spiritual and physical corruption. The only thing unscathed by the Fall is the fundamental structure of the human mind, its rational forms and logical categories. The latter is the only thing that persists intact, least man be beyond reach, beyond comprehension, beyond redemption, beyond responsibility, beyond guilt, beyond repentance.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has showed it unto them: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

Leftists, for example, demonstrate all the time the way in which “their foolish heart[s] have been darkened” as a result of the lies they tell themselves over and over again in spite of the fact that their fictions are so obviously at odds with the recommendations of the rational forms and logical categories of the human mind. In short, they think and behave as they do -- against all common sense and decency -- because falsity is the path of least resistance, requiring the least amount of effort and ability. Some have used the term diseased to describe the leftist’s moral and intellectual banality. And the leftist’s manner of thinking is diseased . . . and self-inflicted. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” But this disease is not of the basic structure of the human mind itself, its of the inherent depravity of the human spirit which drives men to disregard the wisdom of God that is stamped on their souls. Man’s propensity is to embrace the lie rather than the truth, not because he initially believes the lie to be true, but because the truth is just too damn hard to do.

Regardless of what the ultimate truth may be in this or that instance -- there is not a leftist on this board who can rationally explain just how it is that two diametrically opposed ideas are both true in the same way, at the same, within the same frame of reference. Moral relativism is utter lunacy . . . inherently contradictory. The very act of stating the relativist’s claim is to refute it: there are no absolute truths except the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths. LOL! It’s the same irrationality of Nazism, Marxism and any other depravity you wish to name.

On the other hand, moral absolutism presents no such logical conundrums; it is flawlessly consistent, both inherently and externally. Yet popular culture incessantly bombards us with the relativist’s nonsense -- the stuff of Neanderthals, dumb asses, syphilitic morons . . . Brittany Spears.

That we all have certain weaknesses, certain genetic make-ups and personality types that make us more susceptible than others to this or that particular form of rebellion is of no surprise to me. Nevertheless, God’s commandments remain the same; His standard of morality remains the same. God is not mocked. Spiritual death and the perversion of human genetics is not God’s doing, but is the direct result of man’s rebellion. Further, men are not mere animals, instinctual brutes, mere appetite and reaction; they readily understanding that homosexuality, for example, is pathological: they may choose to act on that pathology or repent and be transformed.

A man’s real sins are not his weaknesses or their inherent temptations. Men sin when they disregard God’s judgment, deny their culpability and reject His solution.

There is no contradiction here between Christianity and my position. My position is not that of the gay activist; it is that of God, consistent with scripture and common sense.

[DoctorDoom]

"The queers have succeeded" in no such thing where I'm concerned...Your failure to consider the whole sentence is revealing. By clipping "if you believe that", you twisted the meaning for your own purposes. That's liberal SOP. :rolleyes:

[Bluemoon_Rising]

The original statement you isolated and commented on was this:

Prince. I believe that for most homosexuals their proclivity is mostly a matter of genetic make-up.

You stated:

The queers have succeeded in their propagandizing if you believe that. There is no objective scientific evidence to support the frivolous notion of a "gay gene".

If one is a Christian, the concept requires that God encoded into the genes a propensity for behavior that He calls an "abomination".

I have made it clear that I do not buy into “the frivolous notion of a ‘gay gene’.” My view is not that of the gay activist; it’s infinitely more complex and wholly consistent with scripture. That is all. I don’t see how the following “clips” anything, as the entirety of your concern is acknowledged:

"The queers have succeeded" in no such thing where I'm concerned, and I am not talking about a "gay gene." The genetic proclivity for homosexuality -- or that for any other pathological bent -- has nothing to do with God's actions. -- Bluemoon

That's liberal SOP.

You’re joking, of course. I did not criticize your view, Doc. I concur with it. I’m simply making sure that my position is rightly understood and applied. I think it’s important and should be carefully considered by those who are not familiar with God’s view of things.