Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

If we were created cross wired, that would mean God made a mistake and he wouldn’t be God. He does NOT fail

I assume Norman is just kidding around. Or has never seen an ultrasound of an infant in utero with no head.

DNA can screw up in all kinds of ways. I know of a woman who lived naked, walked in circles, and defecated all over herself for her entire life (of 60 years). She was just born with bad wiring.

Julia

Julia nails it in one.

Norman, I believe you are right and God doesn’t make mistakes. I truly believes that he allows things to happen for a reason. It may be for the rest of us to be open minded and accepting of others just the way they are.

Now, Now Republicans… Don’t break from your Herd Mentality. Homosexuality is a disease. Repeat. Homosexuality is a disease. It is immoral. You must vote Republican or else Gays will marry…. Don’t want them pedophiles around…

There are many Conservative Therapy Centers who will gladly cure you of this Disease. Would you like Links?

Aldous

Do you actually know any Republicans? You seem to have issues.

Of course, I don’t want pedophiles around. Do you?

Is genetics destiny? No. Homosexuality, in my opinion, is more complex than one or two genes or any genes operating by themselves. But I do believe on thing, regardless of what mechanisms it works by: We should be true to ourselves, and live the fullest lives we can on our principles.

As for Gender differences, those can and are often so complex as to preclude appropriate kneejerk solutions to the problem. If you ask me, Gender differences are probably more along the lines of the manner of learning, than the capability. It might be more that we have male-oriented ways of teaching these kinds of subjects than that these subjects are weakness for Women.

Stephen

Look at the books I mentioned, or any others that deal with the genetic factors of human brains.

They don’t say that genetics is destiny. Nor do they say that any person can be turned into anything by nurture. Both those ideas were made obsolete by new knowledge. I am not doing the science justice. That is why I think you should look at the literature.

What I think is not useful are priori assumptions that all people have equal capacities to learn all subjects. This is definitely not true. Life would be very bad if it were. That doesn’t mean people don’t have equal value. That is a non sequitur.

A lot of our current political assumptions grew up during the 1960s, when behaviorism was ascendant (you remember, Skinner, Watson etc). These guys were just wrong. What is worse, many of us imbibed this ideology, not from books, but from old episodes of Star Trek. We now know they are wrong, but we don’t realize how many of our assumptions are built upon this weak base.

The irony I was commenting on (and I am not referring to your post) is the complete certainty among many people that traits like sexual orientation are innate or deeply seated (something I accept, by the way) At the same time and often in the same sentence they reject the idea that there might be innate differences among people – the only idea that would support their earlier contention.

The legal definition of minority is??
Is there a law that protects those that choose to be a minority?

In Maine they are trying to get a law on the books protecting homosexual babies from being aborted * before it has been proven that it is a defective gene that causes homosexuality.

If it is proven that homosexuality is a defect how does that change the conversation?
Would it be considered a handicap?
If a ‘cure’ is discovered and homosexuality can be eradicated should it still have the same rights as any other minority?
In this world as it is * how many gays would choose to remain gay if they could become ‘normal’?

If possible, women who aren’t good in math, and want to be, would probably have the problem fixed if they could.

Homosexuality like cancer or mental illness or retardation, missing limbs or even growing to be overweight is a birth defect springing from generational curses. Specific sins are a matter of choice and can be influenced by these curses but homosexuality and transgender issues are nothing more than the sin we embrace rather than shun. Nothing more nothing less. We all have choices and have been given a hand to play, our acceptance or rejection of the sin in our lives is a result of our belief in God and our choice to trust him or hate and despise him. Very simple, even stupid people like dummycraps should be able to understand this one.

Jack,
I think that the direction he takes it is the problem, as well as some of the underlying assumptions. Of course there are differences between men and women, and these differences may affect the way we learn or behave. Of course, that is very difficult to prove. Even differences between gay and straight are fairly basic (like desire and attraction), and to say that whatever mental wiring is different in those cases can make a difference in complex, learned things like math aptitude is a stretch.

Even if you grant that men are slightly better at math than women, that doesn’t come close to explaining the lack of women in science and math. Desire counts for a lot in terms of achievement, and especially in science, so does luck and who your boss was. I had a little more scholastic ability than one of my friends in high school, but he worked harder, so he was valedictorian and I wasn’t really even close.

I’m kind of rambling, but I think the objection is twofold: one, it’s a cop-out, and two, it opens up a way of thinking that we thought was dead, and good riddance. If you can pass off any discrepancy as hardwired lack of ability, you don’t need to adress the real concerns or problems with the system. As for the second, he lists a lot of other underrepresented groups in the beginning of his talk. I think that African-Americans consistently score lower on standardized tests; would he say that they are hard-wired to be less intelligent? That Catholics are inherently bad with money? That kind of use of science to justify prejudice has led to a lot of dark chapters in human history.

As a final bit of anecdotal evidence; I’m in science and my boss, who is a woman, is much smarter than me, or anyone else I’ve met, and my wife can do circles around me in math. That may just mean that I’m a bad scientist (I don’t think so) or bad at math, (true, but my wife is really good), but I think it just shows that generalizations that seek to limit ability ignore the people who do have aptitude, and exsuse the pre-existing notions of those in power.

Jack,

What I think is not useful are priori assumptions that all people have equal capacities to learn all subjects. This is definitely not true. Life would be very bad if it were. That doesn?t mean people don?t have equal value. That is a non sequitur

I completely agree, but the converse is also true, that we cannot assign aptitude a priori to individuals based on membership in a group.

I agree with Brian, why should I be assigned an aptitude because I happen to be born into a certain group?

I was better at math and science than 90% of the boys in my class and 90% of the ones that were 4 years ahead of me. (in public school, admittedly).

Personally, I discovered that I excelled at technical subjects like organic chemistry when they were taught from a biologists perspective rather than a chemists perspective. Is it my woman’s brain? I don’t know. But I knew a few men that preferred this teaching method as well.

I was going to be a physicist, but I found the teachers tedious, and the options stale. Nobody taught what I was interested in, so I moved into other fields.

If we look at statistics, it appears that women are “genetically” smarter than men. They tend to make better grades in high school, and college. They tend to test better. This has currently been explained by the fact that men value sports at that age, and it’s not their brains: it’s their environment.

Anyway, that’s where I’m coming from.

Julia

If a ‘cure’ is discovered and homosexuality can be eradicated should it still have the same rights as any other minority? In this world as it is * how many gays would choose to remain gay if they could become ‘normal’?

Wasn’t there an Astonishing X-Men story about that recently?

To me there are three issues at stake here: the scientific (what’s proven), the sociological (what’s beneficial), and the governmental (what’s legal). Considering that we are far from consensus on the first two, I think the “governmental” side should be clear: they need to stay out of the sexuality debate as much as they possibly can.

I think the fact that folks who believe something now run to the government for solutions (and turn themselves from communities into “interest groups”) is sad. Whether it’s pushing for gay marriage or pushing against it, the debate is not ready for legislation, and the government should not be our panacaea. This whole process of competing referenda and court decisions makes us look like children, going to Mom or Dad depending on who is more likely to give us the answer we want.

We need to remember that (a) we the people are not children, and (b) the government is our servant, not our parents.

Brian, Julia et al

I think we are falling into error. That is why I mentioned to Stephen about reading those books, especially the Blank Slate. I know it is a big assignment and a lot to ask, but I am unable to explain as well both because of my own lesser expertise and the fact that I don’t have a book length to do it. But let me try.

The overall ability of the group means very little when we are talking about individuals, especially when there is significant overlap. We can’t logically and should not judge the individual by the group.

Beyond that, the relationship between nature and nurture is complicated and interactive. Particular experiences can reprogram or trigger response in genes, which then have the same effect as being inborn. An example is language. Humans are pre-wired genetically to acquire language. What language they acquire is entirely in the realm of environment. But if they do not acquire some language when they are young, they become unable to adequately acquire one later. The same is true of many other traits. Some types of violent behavior require both the genetic propensity and the environmental stimulus during childhood. That explains both why some kids can come through a horrible environment relatively unscathed while others can’t and why bad environments tend to produce bad results. The bad news is that once triggered, it is nearly impossible to reverse. In these particular cases there is little possibility for redemption. THIS is an ethical problem for society when we can really map these genes and we know that violence is not the person’s fault, but we also know that he WILL be violent. What to do?

Women and men have significantly different responses. On the plus side, women are less violent even when they grow up in bad environments. This can’t be explained only by their relative physical weakness. Small, weak men are more violent than women.

Let’s get to the policy. We should be diligent in providing opportunities to everyone and in fighting discrimination. BUT when we look at large numbers of outcomes, we shouldn’t be surprised if the numbers don’t match our sociological expectations. It may represent discrimination, but it also may not and in some cases probably results from nature.

The other policy issue is the truth. Some things we are learning about ourselves are unpleasant or politically incorrect. But this is not destiny. If we find out that some men are more violent than others, that is not an excuse for violence, but it does mean we have to be more aware to cope with it.

“Ah, love could you and I with Him conspire to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire would we not shatter it to bits – and then remold it nearer to our hearts desire.” But we can’t and it is better to know that truth than pretend.

Jack,
I think that you raise good and interesting points. Let me disagree with a few, however. I honestly don’t think that we will be able to map genes for “violence” or even a tendancy toward violence, any time soon. Heck, my group has been trying to map the genes for lupus, a defined, common disease with a definite genetic element, for years, using the most sophisticated techniques availaible, and there is still no identified gene or even set of genes. To say that we will get to the point where we can know that a person will be violent is probably not going to happen.

Even if we do find a gene signature for violence, those things are not measured in absolutes, but in relative risk, odds ratios, etc. In short, nothing is 100% in medicine or science. We can’t even predict genetically-based cancer beyond a certain risk range.

I know that your post is not advocating anything like this, but I think that the idea of classifying people or putting them on watch lists for their genes is equivalent to punishing them for pre-crime. We will never be able to say 100% that a person will be violent, and to treat them differently for something they haven’t done violates every tenent of individual liberty and equality under the law. I don’t think that the benefit of preventing whatever crime they may or may not do would be worth it.

If there is a benefit to the “predisposed for violence” idea, it may be that if we are ever able to identify such people, maybe we can intervene on the nurture side, to redirect the agression towards, say football instead of killing people.

I think you’re right, and that some people are more inclined towards violence or other behaviors than others. There are definitely gender differences and differences between people. I agree that life is not politically correct. But I believe, whether because of my religion or because of my upbringing as an American, (or maybe because of my genes) that there is such a thing as free will, and that even people who are the most predisposed towards failure and violence can choose for themselves to be productive, good people, and even amazing successes, even if they have to battle their tempers every day of their lives.

Concerning homosexuals: I believe there are two thoughts as to why mankind exists. One is the creationists view & the other is the evolutionists view.

If you look at things from the creationists view, God created all things. If we accept God as the creator, then we must also accept the bible as God’s Word, simply because He calls it His Word.

Stephanie said, “ Norman, I believe you are right and God doesn’t make mistakes. I truly believe that he allows things to happen for a reason. It may be for the rest of us to be open minded and accepting of others just the way they are.”

You are partially true in that God does not make mistakes & He does things for a reason. The problem is, we are not to be open minded & accepting of sin. Of all the sins that man could commit, homosexuality is considered to be an “abomination” before God. Why? Because God created man in His own image & instructed man & woman to pro-create. Along with pro-creation, comes the pleasure of sex. Homosexuality is an abomination because there is no pro-creation. It is simply done for the pleasure. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul, dealing with this very subject, said in chapter 1 of Romans, that God would give man over to a “reprobate mind”. It appears, from God’s point of view, that homosexuality is a conscience decision to sin rather being born in that condition.

Now let’s look at man’s existence from the evolutionist’s point of view. The evolutionists believe that changes occur for the perfecting of the species. Whether it is for environmental reasons or the streamlining of the creature, changes occur to benefit the species. Homosexuality does not pro-create & therefore does not benefit the species. In fact homosexuality is detrimental to evolution. The creature’s bloodline would cease to exist with the homosexual union.

I can’t help but believe homosexuality is a conscience decision no matter how man came into existence.

Brian

I don’t think we disagree; it is just that I am not explaining properly.

The main policy point I took from the “Blank Slate” was that predisposition is not destiny. I have personality traits that I can trace back to childhood. I have been keeping a journal for thirty years, so I can document them. Some are good, others bad. I try to take advantage of the positives and minimize the negatives, but the reason I can do that is BECAUSE I am aware of them. Being aware of the truth of our flaws enhances our ability to exercise free will.

Re violence in “Nature Via Nurture”, the author mentioned a study done in New Zealand (I think) where violence was linked to a particular genetic formulation BUT only when triggered by environment. It is more complicated than I am explaining. I don’t have the book anymore, so I can’t cite it exactly. It is as you say, complex and interactive, but useful to know.

The thing I believe we are loath to give up is the idea that anyone can be or do anything. We all know it is not true, but we pretend it is. We can sometimes force something, but it is much easier if we work with nature. We can grow bananas in Wisconsin, but it goes against nature and it expensive and foolish. It is not equally valid. I am bad at math. I had to force myself to learn calculus, but I never felt good about it and have forgotten everything. I can do it, but I am better off working to strength.

The other objection people have is clearly political. Affirmative action and many social programs are based on the idea that anything that deviates from a statistically equal representation is evidence of discrimination. It is not. Small variations when put into large populations might produce large variations in results. That is what Summers was talking about and it is what gave “the vapors” to some of the women in the audience.

I don’t know if you know the story, but one of the women scientists in the audience said that she had become almost physically ill when she heard him speak of the subject. Talk about playing to Victorian stereotype.

Blaine

For our discussion it doesn’t really matter whether we believe God created the situation or it was created through evolution. We can understand the mechanism. If creationists want to say that God works through the mechanism, all I can say is that is a matter of faith beyond my ability to judge.

Re homosexuality, I can take your point that desire and predisposition doesn’t determine behavior. We can say that individuals have the power or responsibility to choose their responses. So a homosexual man could feel the urges, but prevent himself from acting on them. Now we are back to policy issues – should he? Can we expect that? Why?

If it is proven that homosexuality is a defect how does that change the conversation? Would it be considered a handicap? If a ‘cure’ is discovered and homosexuality can be eradicated should it still have the same rights as any other minority? In this world as it is * how many gays would choose to remain gay if they could become ‘normal’?

This is going on in the world today as we speak… Not with homosexuality, but with Deafness. Deaf people do not consider themselves to be handicapped, they consider themselves members of a linguistic and cultural minority. Yet the world at large views them as disabled, measuring by the standards of the majority, and tries at every turn to ‘cure’ them of their affliction. Most Deaf people (and the capital D there is indicative of those who consider themselves culturally Deaf) would not want to be cured, view cochlear implants as genocide, and view mainstreaming Deaf students similar to how the Native Americans viewed the residential schools for Indians—- as a form of cultural eradication. I’m willing to bet most of you would be shocked to know that Deaf parents celebrate the birth of a Deaf child.

The key here is in one phrase— “measured by the standards of the majority.” We are ‘wired’ to view the world thru our own cultural lenses. Its called Ethnocentrism. We have to really fight that wiring to be able to see that people who are different are just that— different. Not wierd, not wrong, not bad, not sinners, not savages, not inferior… just different. Fight your wiring, people!

chimera

Chimera

You are right. I can’t understand that argument that we should celebrate deafness. I can understand why an adult deaf person would not want to change. But if I had a deaf child and could “cure” it, I would have no hesitation. There is a big difference between learning to appreciate what you have and living with differences and not correcting a problem before it becomes manifest.

Abilities are a continuum. A couch potato is disabled compared to an Olympic athlete. We just don’t usually think about it that way. I think we should maximize our options when possible and practical. I had laser surgery to correct my poor vision and before that wore glasses. Would it be better to leave it alone and just learn to get by with poor vision?

I have heard the people at Galudet talk about deaf culture. I believe it exists and respect the current members. But I don’t see the value in not giving others all the options possible.

Jack:

The question was, are we “born that way”. Are we born with certain tendencies or do they develop, by our environment or whatever. I believe it does matter whether the homosexual is created that way or whether it is through evolution. The creationist does not consider the environment or surroundings, but the non-creastionist takes into account the person’s environment, family, or any other outside influence on their life.

The public is split on this issue as it is on politics or anything else. To the creationist who accepts God’s Word as truth, the point of “should he? Can we expect that? Why?” is a moot point. The creationist believes he is what he is because of choice to disobey God and embrace sin.

On the other hand, my point concerning evolution is that homosexuality is a freak of nature. The very nature of homosexuality goes against the evolutionist belief that each species is more advanced than the previous. The answer to the question “should he? can we expect that?” is no! Because by the very laws of evolution, this would be a failure to the advancement of the species. This brings us to the point, is there such a thing as evolution? If we say yes, then we have to come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a freak of nature. If we say there is no evolution, then we have to come to the conclusion we were created with the purpose of pro-creation and again homosexuality goes the very nature of what our creator intended for us.

We are all subject to temptations or “urges”, but God gives us a conscience with the ability to choose right from wrong. If we choose wrong, then God will allow us to do “those things which are not convenient” and the end result is a “reprobate” mind. A mind that does not consider sin or the result of sin.

Blaine

Evolution does not mean that we move necessarily from more to less advanced. Those that have the most advantages and best luck survive. Roaches are very successful, very primitive and have been around a long time.

I understand your point about homosexuality. If it is hereditary, it would disappear though natural selection, since homosexuals would rarely reproduce. But in societies up to our own, homosexuals often did reproduce because of societal pressure. Ironically, if homosexual tendencies are hereditary, the more freedom gay people feel to be gay, the fewer there will be in subsequent generations.

Blaine, I think you presume too much to get support for your opinions. I’m also a conservative Christian who believes in creation, but you must remember that faith and scientific logic are sometimes at odds.

If we accept God as the creator, then we must also accept the bible as God’s Word, simply because He calls it His Word.

That’s only if one believes in the same God that you believe in. There are many who believe in a God who created, but don’t accept the Bible as God’s Word. Man wrote the Bible; the question is whether God inspired it or not. We also don’t have the same Word that the early church had; the main reason we accept the Bible is because we believe in the reputability of those men who decided what should be included in the Canon. Thus our belief that homosexuality is morally (and practically) inexcusable is existential truth.

The creationist does not consider the environment or surroundings, but the non-creastionist takes into account the person’s environment, family, or any other outside influence on their life.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but that seems a weak point at best. Remember that the much-quoted study claming that 10% of men are homosexual was taken from a prison population. I think that few people honestly believe the percentage to be that high. To be consistent in your logic, which denies upbringing as a factor in behavioral development, you must agree that this study is representative of all mankind. I’m not prepared to accept that. Are you?

And finally, as Christians I think that the predestination vs. free will debate is very significant - more significant than evolution vs. creationism - in forming our belief of whether homosexuality is an innate characteristic or a behavioral choice. I agree with you that behavior is a significant factor, and had to shift my theological stance towards Armenianism to be able to support that. Whether God “makes things happen” or “lets things happen” is vital to this debate. I think most events belong in the latter category.

Jack,
as I’m sure you know, there are two branches
of evolution. Macro-evolution which states that
we all evolved from protoplasmic slime and
eventually chimpanzees. It’s still just a theory
for good reason. Micro-evolution however is a proven fact that a species can change or adapt
over time due to circumstances,environment, etc..
Cockroaches, like the homosexual community,
have adapted over thousands of years and are still, unfortunately, quite prolific. Despite the
fact that only humans live homosexual lifestyles
( and don’t anybody try to say that certain chimps
exhibit homosexual behavior when they’re just doing what ALOT of animals do, just showing agressive domination behavior over food, mating or territory), we still are mulling and debating
over whether or not homosexuals are born that way.
Let’s ask some other questions. What would
you likely discover if you did a survey with let’s
say a thousand female “sex” workers ( prostitutes,
porn stars, strippers, etc. ) or women/girls who
are very sexually promiscuous? You would likely
discover that a strong majority of these females
were sexually abused as children and/or had no
positive father figure in childhood. It’s the same
scenario for adults who beat or physically abuse
their kids, animals or women. They either were
abused as kids or saw the abuse inflicted on others often enough to believe it was “normal”.
The psychological mechanics of homosexuality
is just as easy to understand as these others who
have been abused. It doesn’t take a degree in
psychology to figure out that when you’ve heard
yet another homosexual ( or, yes I’ll say it, a
pedophile ) say in an interview that they were
sexually abused as a child, usually by a same sex acquintance, then there’s reason to say “ah-ha!”.
Whether the homosexual community and their liberal supporters want to admit it or not, there IS a causality that is blantantly obvious to
those with an ounce of common sense.
Homosexuality is nothing more than a psycho-
sexual emotional disorder that can be treated and reversed to the original and normal GOD given
predisposition of heterosexuality. Just ask my
older brother who lived in the “gay” lifestyle
for nearly two decades until he DECIDED he WANTED to get out and sought the help of a Christian
ministry that changes the hearts, minds and souls of the homosexuals who DESIRE change.
Now let’s ask another question. IF “gays” are born that way, then that must mean that those
who practice S&M, bestiality, necrophilia and
pedophilia are born that way too. After all, “who
would choose to live a lifestyle that is so hated
and reviled?” I guess that means that lawyers,
telemarketers, bill collectors and used car sales-
men are born that way too. Everybody hates them!

If we’re, as a people, going to sanction homosex-ual behavior by falsely concluding ( based on our
feel good emotions ) that it’s genetic instead of
learned, then we are dooming ourselves to that
slippery slopes of followers and pretenders that
will also want “equal” rights.
Lastly, while even some conservative talk
radio hosts ( Glenn Beck ) cringe at the thought
of comparing PC homosexuals to Un-PC pedophiles,
there IS causation. Does that mean that all “gays”
are child molesters? No. Just as not all straights
are child molesters. Is there a higher percentage
of homosexuals, who at the very least fantasize
about sex with children as opposed to how many
heteros fantasize about sex w/kids? While by
sheer numbers there ARE more heterosexual child
molesters and fantasy pedophiles than in the homo-
sexual community, it’s my fervent belief that by
percentage comparisons there are far more child
molesters and fantasy pedophiles in the homosexual
and bisexual communities.
Why? Primarily due to the oft proven cycle of
abuse, sexual abuse in their case. And because of
the fact that the only way that homosexuals can
attempt to sexually reproduce someone like them-
selves is for them to do to a child what was done
to them when they were a child. Try reading the book “Homosexuality and The American Public Life”
or any book recommended by Exodus International or
N.A.R.T.H. to study the eye opening views of
former homosexuals and socio/psychiatric experts
who sre increasingly getting approval by the
liberal/secular psychiatric community.

Dale,

You should read this:
http://www.cybermale.net/books/animalhomosexuality.html (It has been proven beyond a doubt that animals exhibit homosexual behaviors.)

There was also an excellent documentary on the discovery channel about the transgender kickboxer from Vietnam, and about homosexuality in India and Taiwan. I knew a boy, who from the age of 5 dressed up in his mother’s clothes. He tried to be straight until he was 18 (he was the most popular, cute boy at school). And finally admitted, to his Southern family, that he was gay. There was no trauma. He was just that way, and we all knew it.

I know one lesbian who became a lesbian because of trauma, but the majority of homosexuals I know were always homosexual. This isn’t a scientific pool by any means, but the fact that animals are PROVEN gay should therefore mean that the same things would happen in the human species (What about those gay male zoo penguins that are raising an adopted child?)

As far as your macro-evolution comment. I hear this argument often, and I still don’t understand how people get around the fact that whales have legs floating inside their bodies.

Why do they have useless, back legs, floating inside the skin of their bodies? Where did those legs come from?

And how is that a “micro” evolution moment?
http://daphne.palomar.edu/ccarpenter/whale_legs.htm
http://www.studyworksonline.com/cda/content/article/0,,NAV4-42_SAR1472,00.shtml

Julia

Homosexuality is not in the genes, It’s a choice.
Elsewise God wouldn’t condem it.
God don’t condem you for things you cann’t help.
He don’t condem people for being Black, White, or any other race. He don’t condem you because you have blue eyes, brown eyes, black hair or any other thing the comes from genes.
He also don’t condem you for sickness.
But he does condem you if your homosexual.
By the way lesbians are homosexuals too.

Gandhi:

I am not presuming anything to prove my opinions. I too, am a creationist, but I am trying to understand both points of view from logic. I personally believe faith & true science compliment each other. There are 3 major religious groups in the world: Muslim, Judaism, & Christianity. These are also the oldest of religious groups. Each of these groups traces their origins to Moses & the Pentateuch. The Law of Moses (Ten Commandments) is the basis for their belief & service to God. Contained in this law was the teaching that homosexuality is considered a sin against God & punishable by death.

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew & if compared to the Torah today, would be word for word the same. The New Testament was written in Greek & through the centuries was transcribed to other languages. The King James 1611 was the first widely accepted English transliteration. Even at that, we have the ability to look at modern copies of the original Greek writings. The same Word of God that tells us of the existence of God, of the death of His Son on the cross, of what is right & what is wrong is the same Word that tells us it is inspired. How can we believe in the existence of God (because His Word tells us) & not believe that Word is inspired?

As I said before, to the one who believes in creationism & if I might further clarify, the one who believes God’s Word is inspired; to him the point is moot. Because he believes homosexuality to be a sin against God. This same creationist does not consider ones surroundings to determine if homosexuality is justifiable. To him it is the choice of the individual to sin. I am telling you what the creationist believes.

Does environment have an affect on the individual, one way or the other? Yes, I believe the surroundings do have an effect. You gave an example of those in prison. My sister-in-law wanted a daughter, but her first born was a son. She raised him like a girl. He was given dolls, let his hair grow long, dressed in girls clothes & today, he is in his late twenties, living with another man & as gay as they come. I believe his surroundings made him what he became. But that does not change the fact that I as a creationist believe he was given a choice to make & he made it.

On the other hand I’m having a problem understanding the evolutionist point of view. If the purpose of evolution is for the perfecting of the species, how can a flaw or imperfection occur? Homosexuality is an imperfection because the final result is the annihilation of the species.

I am not a Calvinist; I believe man has a free will. So predestination plays no part in what we are talking about. God allows things to happen. This is called the permissive will of God. The old saying, “give a man enough rope & he will hang himself” is exactly what God does for us. He lays out truth in His word & by the consciences we have & it is up to us to act upon that truth.

Blaine - a couple of points. There are more than 3 major religious groups in the world. Christianity (33.6%) and Islam (18.3%) are the 2 most numerous, but Judaism (0.2%)doesn’t even make it into the top 10. The 3rd most populous religion is actually Hinduism (13.5%), followed by Buddhism (6%) and then Atheism (4.2%) (numbers based on 1994 world population). The 3 groups you mention are not the oldest religions either. Hinduism is believed to be the worlds oldest widely-followed religion - it traces it’s roots back to before 1500 B.C.

Blaine,

All evolution states is that mutations occur, and the mutations that are beneficial compound upon one another through time. Non-beneficial mutations occur all the time, if they do no harm, they may continue. I know a boy who was born with no bones in his arms and legs (tentacular limbs). This is probably not a mutation that will become dominant. (And the reason I’ve seen so many strange things, is because my family has worked with disabilities for a long time). I don’t know if any of you saw the baby that was born with a mutation that made it easy for him to be musclar? He has 10% fat and can lift 10 pounds at the age of 2. (Something crazy like that).

I think it would behoove you to read this:
http://www.gaychristian.net/greatdebate.html
This is the forum where two gay men debate their Christian beliefs about being gay. One has chosen to be celibate for life, the other believes that the bible does not condemn committed gay relationships.

I know a woman who was born with two uterus’s and I know another woman who was born with none. There is a condition called “penis at 12” where parents who believed that their children were girls, discover that they are actually boys when they hit puberty (and their organs descend).

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp
“Of the 53 penguins in the Central Park Zoo, Silo and Roy are not the only ones that are gay. In 1997, the park had four pairs of homosexual penguins. In an effort to increase breeding, zookeepers tried to separate them by force. They failed, said Gramzay.”

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/02/020805penguins.htm
http://archive.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea2.html

All kinds of animals are homosexuals. Which implys homosexuality isn’t a learned behaviour. Now, animals do all kinds of things we frown upon. But I really feel like we all need to start from the same page that some people are born homosexual.

Julia

Good point, Julia. I like the argument that asks anti-gay heteros if they could be trained or have the capacity to choose to enjoy homosexual relations? Gets them everytime.

Mark:

The 3 religious groups I mentioned base their beliefs on Moses’ writings in the Old Testament. I do not believe Hindus, Buddhists, nor Atheists follow or believe the writings of Moses. You better check your history again. If the Hindu religion started in 1500 B.C., which I disagree with, then they were faced with the Jewish religion, which had already been in existence for almost 450 years. The father of the 3 groups I mentioned was Abraham. God called Abraham about 1950 B.C. The Hindu religion postdates the Muslim invasions of India, which began around 1001 A.D. In fact it was the Muslim invaders that gave the name Hindu to the religion of India. The Arabic name for India was Hindustan. Thus the religion was called Hindu. The Muslim & Christian religions both have their roots in Judaism, therefore we can say they are an extension of Judaism dating almost 2000 years B.C. My point in even mentioning these 3 religions is that they considered homosexuality a sin against God.

Julia:

So you are telling me that the boy who was born with no arms or legs was actually evolution taking place before your very eyes. That is amazing! I thought evolution was a slow process & took millions of years to accomplish change. The problem is, we are not on the same wavelength. I do not believe in evolution & I do not believe man came from animals. To say animals are homosexual is ludicrous. Animals act like animals. Animals don’t even mate unless there is a chemical change that causes them to mate. Example: if a new male lion takes over a pride, he kills the cubs of the previous male so the female will be able to come into heat.

Why would I want to read, http://www.gaychristian.net/greatdebate.html? I believe homosexuality is a choice & I believe it is a sin against God. Are my core beliefs going to change if I read this? My question, which has not been answered, is: if homosexuality is inherited & is part of the evolutionary process, then how is it passed on to the next generation. Homosexuals do not pro-create. Let’s use the 53 penguins as an example. From what I understand, they will not mate with females. Does the inherited flaw dissolve with the death of these 53 penguins?

Here is the real problem: if homosexuality is the result of outside influences & not inherited, then we have a problem with homosexuals who want live their lifestyle & at the same time be able to adopt children. Question: by placing children in the homes of homosexuals, will they be influenced to adopt the same lifestyle? These are tough questions. What if in your zeal to be politically correct, you are promoting homosexuality & even placing children in danger of becoming homosexuals. That is a scary thing to do for the sake of political correctness.

David:

Your point to Julia was, “I like the argument that asks anti-gay heteros if they could be trained or have the capacity to choose to enjoy homosexual relations? Gets them everytime.”

The answer is yes, Hebrews 11:25 says that mankind can, “enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;”. Since I believe outside infuences & not heredity causes homosexuality, then I believe any person placed in a tempting situation can do anything.

The original dating of Judaism is problematic, as is the original dating of Hinduism. The Vedas are dated 1800-800 B.C. But the average estimate goes back to 2500-2000 B.C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas

As for the point about my example of the boy, I said it was spontaneous mutation. If this were a helpful trait, I would assume it would take some time to become dominant in the population. I would say that genetically altered crops is our way of selectively speeding up the mutation (or evolution) process. Corn today is radically different than corn 300 years ago. Cauliflower was transformed from Broccoli over a short period of time. Agressive mutations do occur before our eyes. For instance, in Japan, crabs have mutated to form the face of a samurai on their shells because Japanese fishermen throw them back in the water for luck.

As for the gay christian article, I simply think it shows that there are gay people who share your beliefs that their homosexuality is contrary to biblical teachings and so they have dedicated their lives to life-long celibacy. I would think, that you would at least embrace this section of the homosexual population since they aren’t doing anything you disagree with. Can you embrace the idea that someone believes they are homosexual, but chooses to be a life-long celibate? Or do you think it is sinful for them to merely believe they are homosexual?

As for homosexuality being inherited, I would reply by saying that I am a carrier of CF, which means I inherited the mutation from an unbroken line of carriers. I carry a trait that may or may not result in my child having CF. Downs Syndrome occurs (randomly) in 1 in 660 births. DNA is messy, it does all kinds of things, and we all carry millions of traits that we can pass on to the next generation. Some we like (child prodigys), others we don’t like. They are what they are. Some thigns occur more frequently than others, most likely because some wiring switches around more easily than other wiring. CF is something that should be weeded out, but 1 in 30 caucasians is a carrier. So it’s not going to be weeded out.

As for your question about homosexuals adopting children, there are already grown children of homosexuals and there has been no indication that they changed their sexuality because of their parents. The vast majority of children born or adopted by homosexuals are heterosexual. In fact, there was a great story out here in California about three boys who became orphans when their parents died. They were going to get split up in foster care. Luckily, a gay couple agreed to bring all three of them into their home. The boys, on a follow-up, were grateful that they got to stay together. (And still heterosexual.)

Julia

Julia:

I have a question for you. If Homosexuality is inherent & not behavioral, then what about other flaws in society? The last statistics I heard was that blacks make up 17% of the population in the US. Now those numbers may be off a little. The percentage of blacks in prison for crimes committed is much higher than whites. I live between 2 large cities & there is not a single day that goes by where you cannot read in the paper of a murder committed in one or both of those cities. A murder of one black killing another. My question is, is this violence inherent or is it caused by environment? If you say environment, then it blows your theory that homosexuality is inherent. I’m sure we could look at several other problems in society & with individuals & come to the same conclusion. Are we dealing with a race of people that are inherently violent?

Blaine,
I honestly think that Blacks are just born with more testosterone than Whites. The reason…they are better in most sports than Whites. I think it is even evident in singing. Now, environment has a lot to do with it too. A lot of Blacks in this country are a product of their own environment. The music they listen too entices violence, drug use, womanization, and a wide array of acts that are considered negative by the norms of the law. Environment and genetics play both. I would think someone is more likely to become a homosexual if someone was molested when that person was young. Homosexuality is in a lot of people’s genes in my opinion and possibly yours too; but environment is what drives those genes. For example, most humans are inherintantly violent. Your ancestors back a few hundred years were probably savages as compared to today, like mine. Why are you nor I violent now? It is in our genes. Because, our environment has tamed us (product of our environment) and nothing drastic enough has triggered that gene off.

Why do u say that if we don’t think that God makes mistakes and that one is not born gay,that we hate them?No,we do not hate gays,nor does God.God is love,but hates sin!Also why do we have to be Republican to be against gay marriage?I am Republican,but my son is not,and he doesn’t believe in gay marriage.If it was meant for man/man or woman/woman,marriage,did why can they not reproduce or multiply?Why?Because it is a sin against nature.But just because you are against someone,does not mean you have hate in your heart for them.We are to love everyone,even those that do us wrong.

I believe that everyone is born with the potential to be gay.
It is a matter of weather or not the individual acts on their natural impulses.
If someone is a Christ follower, ROMANS is clear about the consequences of homosexual relations.
If I had a strong attraction for a same sex relationship, I would choose to remain single and keep my temple holy.
Without a Christ centered life, souls are subject to constant assualt and temptations from the devil himself.
BJ

Sandra and BJ,
Thanks for the comments from the peanut gallery. Seriously, Watch Blog is starting to get flooded with the Religious Right. THEY ARE TAKING OVER!!!

Blaine,

Nothing is simple. I didn’t say homosexuality is always a result of genetics. I’m sure there are cases where homosexuality is a choice. (Like I said, I do know of a woman who was gang-raped and subsequently became a lesbian) But the animal world, and human history, indicates that genetics have a part in sexual tendencies.

As far as your example of race playing a part in behavourial traits, I would first state that when the Irish immigrated to America, most people thought that they were genetically more violent than their counterparts. And when black families move up the socio-economic ladder their statistics of incarceration, violence, drug use, birth control practices, all move to match their white counterparts. So it appears that income has more to do with triggering violence in humans, than racial predisposition.

That being said, I do think behavioural traits can be passed through genetic lines. Do I think that the genetic mutation of skin color or height or eye shape is linked to a coresponding behaviour trait? No.

When I researched my family history I was suprised to find that there was a strong indication of “FOUI” behaviour (Fountain of Useless Information behaviour.) As you can see, I am a fountain of useless information. I am almost a pathological example of this type of behaviour. This trait has existed in my family for generations. I did not learn it from my father. I discovered this about him only recently. I have exhibited these tendencies since I was 4.

Is it because I’m a white Scottish descendant? I doubt it. But I do think I inherited the compulsion. Do I have the ability to curb this compulsion? I do. But I’m very unhappy when I curb it.

Homosexuality occurs in the same frequency among all races. Scientific genius also occurs in the same frequency. But brilliant authors only occur in societies with printing presses.

Obviously culture has a role.

I know of people “born bad”. But through aggressive behaviour modification therapy, and drugs, this behaviour can be controlled. Schizophrenics do not become non-schizophrenics, they merely learn how to manage their wiring in an effective manner.

Genetic homosexuals CAN change their behaviour. They can imagine, while they are sleeping with a member of the opposite sex, that they are sleeping with a member of their own sex. Are they still homosexual? Yes. Is it fair to the person they are sleeping with to behave in this way? (Probably not). But there have been plenty of examples through time of gay men taking a wife and raising children in order to fit in.

Anyway, I don’t claim to have all the answers. These issues don’t exist in a vaccuum. However, if ostriches and penguins have twenty-year committed relationships with members of the same sex, and foster-raise children, and when introduced to females they refuse to have sex, but when introduced to new males they consider it…

it’s hard to come up with a societal reason that the penguins and ostriches chose to engage in that behaviour.

Julia

Out of curiousity:

Sandra, BJ, Blaine,

If a man, who believes himself to be homosexual, decides to dedicate his life to another man who also believes himself to be homosexual. And these two men live together, and take care of one another, but because they are Christian, they practice a celibate lifestyle, are they sinning before God?

Is it just the actual sex act that is sinful, or is it loving a member of your own sex? Or is it the belief that you are a homosexual that is sinful?

Julia

Julia:
There is no difference between the act & the thought. To desire in the heart to commit the act is just as bad as doing the act.

Matthew 5:27-28, “ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

All of mankind has the innate ability to do all manner of evil. The bible teaches that mankind, left to his own devices, will always do evil. It is not the homosexual tendencies that are inherited; it is the sin nature we inherit. We have a choice to act upon that sin nature. The environment or surroundings influence our sin nature. If we live in a hostile, violent environment, we are more likely to become violent. If we live in an environment of pornography, we are more likely to become debased.

That was the point I was making about children growing up in an environment of homosexuality. I stated earlier, the creationist is not concerned with any tendencies that are inherited. The only tendency we inherit is our alienation from God. We consider any fault that man may have to be a result of our sin nature. Therefore evolution is moot. We believe the sins we commit to be the result of outside influences on our sin nature.

The point I made about violence & black people can be applied to any fault mankind may incur. You can’t say one thing is inherited (homosexuality) and another is the result of outside environment (violence). That is called “having your cake & eating it too”.

As a side note to Leon:

If you remember correctly, the religious right was accused of being the deciding vote to cause President Bush to be elected for a second term. If that is true then we have every right to debate on our own terms. I’m sure you will be able to continue your debate with a bunch of bible thumpers.

If homosexuality is resultant of environmental factors, then the many homosexual Christians that come from anti-gay families I know must not exist. Also, I do not completely believe in the idea of tabula rasa. True, we are almost clean slates when we are born, and socio/environmental factors can have a huge impact on us, but there is no denying genetic predisposition.

To be quite honest, there is no pattern in the origins of homosexuals. In all parts of the world, from all different religions, beliefs and classes, there are homosexuals. To me, this signifies that either a) God actually has a purpose for homosexuals, or b) homosexuality is a disorder such as anorexia nervosa that is ignorant to environmental factors.

(I kinda wrote this fast so point out any mistakes in my logic for me, G’ night all)

Blaine,
I will make this short and sweet because I am slightly aggravated. Yes, the Religious Right determined many elections in 2004 but hey…they are so damn stupid that they fail to realize that the Bush Administration are sympathetic to homosexuals! Take it for what it is worth but they have already proven that they are extremely stupid and ignorant voters.

Blaine,

Why aren’t you actually reading my responses? I did not say that homosexuality is inherited and violence is not. I said homosexuality and violence are inherited (sometimes), and at other times, they are a result of culture. (I believe this happens less with homosexuality, because it’s such a difficult lifestyle choice).

In the case of violence, I don’t think violence can be linked to a race. Nor do I think homosexuality can be linked to a race.

Do we inherit the ability to love our children? Or is that cultural? If a behavioural trait (love of children) can be inherited then can you say culture has nothing to do with it? Of course not, culture effects our opinions on child-rearing. But the hormonal pull of motherhood is also deeply genetic.

I know you’d like to put things in neat little boxes. ALL homosexuals are this or this. ALL women can’t do science, or ALL men can do science. But guess what? The world is varied and complex. There are no rigid rules to anything. At the end of the day, your beliefs have to be backed up by evidence. And it shouldn’t be just anecdotal. If homosexuality has no genetic ties, then the first way to prove that is to prove that no animals are homosexual. But animals are homosexual. Why would the human animal be any different?

Julia

You know what would be really great, a free counrty where everyone is free to live happy then, die. Think about it, you get between 60-100 years on earth. Does anyone want to told how to live those few years. Leave people alone keep your nose out of their business. 50 years ago we had segragated toilets, restaurants, and seating everywhere. But, we realized that isn’t eaqual. Seperate but eaqual doesn’t work. The right knows this and realizes it. So, rather than start from there they want to have two seperate unions one for people like them and one for the heathens. The one for the heathens will not effect their pocketbook which is the most important thing.

As far as homosexuality a learned response and a disease that can be treated watch the documentary on HBO called “Celbicy”. Hopefully the people who are struggling with faith and sexuality can show how difficult it is to be homosexual and not just be infected. To think that somehow you can take out a piece of yourself. Supress yes, remove, no. Nobody has the right to make you anything after birth. FREEDOM the illusion of America.

Wow. People want this black and white conclusion for everything, dont they? Julia, you’ve had some good points and raised some very thought provoking questions throughout, thank you.

Human beings and human relationships have purpose so above and beyond procreation, that arguements dismissing it because of lack of procreation are quite dismal to even see in writing.

Religion is an institution specifically designed to provide simplicity by which the masses can govern their lives. I think organized religion has played a significant role in the foundations of civilization, but I also believe we’ve reached some key points in civilization where religion has become a drag and deadweight to the advancement of our race. (e.g. 359 years for the Catholic church to admit Galileo was correct, Spanish Inquisition, Salem witch trials, gay marriage debate, etc.)

I’m not saying that religion has no purpose in our world today, it’s just clear to me that any opinions/doctrines from the church need heavy scrutiny before being allowed to determine secular law and scientific progression. This idea certainly presents a serious conundrum, christianity was designed with a mechanism to enforce blind acceptance of ideas as facts without proof. In some cases, seeking proof is considered herecy or sin.

It’s going to be an interesting next couple centuries, to see if the world can balance the two. It’s clear that plenty of us want to think for ourselves now, but equally clear some of us aren’t ready.

Amen Chad, Amen.

I’ve met a few of the “cured homos” in my life. Their post-cure marriages are only temporary, and they end up miserable to the core. It makes me sad.

A lot of people just can’t help but stick thier noses in other people’s business. I think that oppressive behavior isn’t necessarily without consequence to the victim. One element of this entire debate that I don’t think I’ve seen raised, and I consider to be a very potent influence is — the psychological consequence of repressed behavior on individuals. Has anyone considered that some homosexuals turn to pedophelia because of the repression society imposes on their homosexuality? Or that other deviations in sexuality might be reactions to supression? Could this also be why catholic school girls are notorious for being some of the sluttiest? Are any of these people bad people or are they themselves victims of a repressive society?

There’s no absolute answer here, and I’m not offering one. I’m merely offering an idea for people to consider.

Julia:

I am reading your responses. Perhaps I am not making myself clear. I do not believe, (based upon Scripture), heredity is the cause of homosexuality, violence, or any other vice mankind may have. Heredity is the cause of the sin nature that all of us have. I believe we have a choice to act upon outside influence to become homosexual, violent, etc. We also have the ability to not act upon outside influence. The choice is ours, individually.

Is the “hormonal pull” of motherhood genetic, or is it because a woman carries the child within her for nine months? If motherhood is genetic, why are so many mothers willing to destroy the child they carry through abortion? Having the ability to love and having the ability to sin are to different things. Love & caring for someone comes natural because it is a gift of God, committing sin is fighting against the very conscience God gave to us. What is it that causes us to feel guilt when we do something wrong? Is it not our conscience?

Someone by the name of Taylor wrote after you & talked about organized religion. I am not part of an organized religion. I am simply a Christian. You think I put things in little boxes & another wrote that I see things in black or white. I do, it is not that difficult. There are two powers that influence mankind. God or Satan, good or evil. I either treat my neighbor right or I treat him wrong. I either tell the truth or I tell a lie. There are no lies that are almost truth.

I have no comment on what jobs men can do & what jobs women can do. I have always worked with my hands, manual work & therefore have never worked with women very much. The few women I have worked with retired early with disabilities, because the work was to hard. I do not have a problem believing women are as smart as men.

Your beliefs may be backed up by evidence. My beliefs are backed up by faith. There are currently 119 posts concerning religion or creationism being taught in public schools. How can someone as I compete with so many negative things being said about Christians & their beliefs? How can I give you evidence of what I believe in my heart about God’s Word. It is impossible.

The belief in God’s words does not need to be proven by fact, because it is not some statistic, not some hypothesis nor theory. It is a way of life. It is unnecessary to prove your heart to those who wouldn’t understand it anyways. It only goes to show your own infidelity with God if you feel you must prove God’s word to anyone but yourself.

I have a question, and I’m not asking for a debate here (for once). Just why is it that Christians are so dead set against gay marriages? I mean, you can argue about the origins of homosexuality all day, but what is it about gay marriage that threatens you people so much?

(I hope that didn’t rub off as sarcasm; I want honest responses)

Blaine,
The reason why you will never win a debate on Watch Blog is because you are driven so much by ideology rather then examining facts.

I think God’s word survived Galileo just fine, and God’s word can survive evolution just fine. That’s not my issue.

God created some penguins homosexual. Are penguins denying god’s law by engaging in 20 year long commited relationships?

Julia

Who Cares?

Do you really think it matters which came first? The chicken or the egg? No we still have a group of people that are trying to say that they have Less rights than everyone else. HOW SO? Ok you can not marry (except in Mass, HI, Etc…) What else is the problem? The reason I despise the Leftist (Say hello Socialcrats) Mung is it is pointless. Who cares if you are a bald midget (I will get hate mail for that) homosexual who is into S&M? Ok So What? What concern is it of mine? None, till you go parading down main street (with your bottom hanging out of chaps spanking a transvestite wearing a tutu) screaming at me that I am intolerant of your lifestyle, and I am a Fascist! Last I checked I could care less if any Homosexuals do anything in their own home, Just do not attempt to put it in my face, or preach your religion at me ( The same goes for everyone else out there) I live and let live, Unless you come for a fight, then you better come for it. This whole thing is a waste of time from our SocialCrat friends to distract us from their real agenda, the resurgence of good old communism. While we mutter and mash on the chicken and the egg they are out to take all of our hard earned cash away (those of us who work, and not sit in mamas basement smoking the happy plant, cash anyway) Well hate me if you like (I hate all equally, so as not to be intolerant) and keep your hands off what is mine. Looking forward to the revolution.

MAY GOD ALMIGHT SAVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM ALL THAT WOULD DESTROY HER.

If you want to discourage gay parades then we should give them the rights that heterosexuals have, the right to marry the peroson you love.

Zeek is correct; the Bible does not have to be proven. You have the option to believe it or not believe it. I believe God’s Word & as a result my understanding of humanity is based upon that belief.

Zeek, as to your question: let me first say, as a Christian, I do not hate homosexuals. As I had said earlier, my nephew is a homosexual. We care for him & he is invited to any family get-togethers. We do not treat him any differently than any other member of our family. We do not hate the homosexual, but we do hate the sin & what it has done to him.

“I have a question, and I’m not asking for a debate here (for once). Just why is it that Christians are so dead set against gay marriages? I mean, you can argue about the origins of homosexuality all day, but what is it about gay marriage that threatens you people so much?”
We do not feel threatened personally by homosexuals or gay marriage. We believe the institution of marriage itself is threatened. Remember, the institution of marriage was set up by God & not by man. If homosexuals want to live together, according to their lifestyles, that is their choice. But, they do not want to do that. They want to force everyone else, especially Christians to accept their marriages as right before God. The whole argument that homosexuality is hereditary is to form an argument that God created these people as homosexuals. This would be in direct contradiction to God’s Word. This is also why the evolutionist claim man is no more than an animal. To claim man is no more than an animal again would be in direct contradiction to God’s Word. The Bible says we were created in the image of God. God is triune: Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. Man is triune: body, soul (mind: the part that determines right from wrong), & spirit. Animals are created duel: body & mind. Homosexuality is among the greatest of sin against God, because of the very fact we were created in His image & told to pro-create. Homosexuals want to enjoy a perverse relationship without the ability to pro-create. It was considered an abomination before God in the Old Testament & is considered the same in the New Testament. God destroyed the cities of Sodom & Gomorrah because of this particular sin.

Julia:

God’s Word will survive evolution & has survived the attacks of some of the greatest minds in history. It has even survived the attacks of Satan himself. The Bible says, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” I do not know enough about these penguins to say they are homosexual. If you base the fact that all animals can be homosexual because of the recent reports of these penguins, then what did you base those facts upon before the penguins came on the scene. As I said before, animals act like animals. I had a beagle pup when I was a kid that used to hump on my leg, did that mean he had sexual tendencies towards boys? I don’t think so, he was just acting from instinct & what triggered that instinct I do not know. I would just boot him good & he finally grew out of it.

Leon: if you are still here. My goal is not to win a debate. I thought the purpose of discussion was to expand our minds. I am just amazed that a political party who prides itself on inclusion could be so hateful & say such vile things against a group of people because they hold to different values. Oh, I’m sorry, I guess you know that now, since you were reprimanded by the web manager.

Leon: Sorry, I mixed you up with aeon flux. My bad.

Blaine,
If the government recognizes marriage between any two people regardless of sex then how does that force Christians to accept homosexual marriages as right before God?

Warren:

Since the government is controlled by the Republicans, gay marriages would mean Republicans support gay marriage. Since the majority of Christians identify themselves as Republican, it would mean they accept homosexual marriages! OH NO’S!

Look out Blaine, you admitted to booting a Puppy! Now the Demunist will sick the animals-are-better-than-people police on you! Again Ho-mo-sex-uals have no less rights than I. If you say that you are commited to each other in love, then it matters not what others think. The Minor problems that exist can be fixed by a will (in the legal term, and by sheer will to be together) that way you can leave each other everything, and who cares what others think. Butch Up Nancys, and ladies in comfortable shoes.
The old communist agenda was to remove GOD and MORALITY, that way the people are less likely to object, as they have nothing to object to. The new agenda is to remove GOD AND MORALITY, so as no one can object to anything you do. New dance, old song. Looking forward to the revolution.

MAY GOD ALMIGHT SAVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM ALL THAT WOULD DESTROY HER.

Warren,
if or when our local or national governments
legalize “gay” marriages, it won’t “force” any
Christian, or any of the other major religions in this country that don’t believe in homosexual
marriage, to “accept” a faulty legal decision by
liberal mayors and judges who are overstepping
their legal authority. As far as what’s “right
before GOD”, the Bible has already made that quite
clear on the subject of homosexuality in the Old
and New Testaments in at least four different
verses.

Zeek,
when I read what I guess you believe to be
logical or factual, I don’t know whether I should
laugh or cry…or both. Republicans can’t be in
complete control when the Dem-agog-ocrats are
always blocking the appointments of qualified
federal judges. Judges who follow the letter of the law, instead of trying to impose their ( or
other countries ) values down our throats like
the judges appointed by Dumbocrats who ruled our
countrys Capitol for over forty years.

Julia,Julia,Julia,
What can I say? There are a few things I may
agree with you on and you do come across as an
intelligent person, but I think you allow your
emotions to override your common sense on many
issues. Secondly, I’m curious as to how is it
that you seem to “know” so many of the…odd
people you write about as examples to support
your beliefs. For example, I don’t suppose that
you could actually introduce me to one of your
whales with the ingrown legs. I’m willing to
admit that I could be wrong, but I’ve been an
animal lover since I was a kid, I’ve watched a
few thousand tv shows on a whole host of different
animals and have dozens of animal books in my
library, but I have never heard about a whale
with under-blubber legs or “gay” animals.

If you went to a Natural History Museum or
surfed the net long enough, you’d find a skeleton
of a whale has bones in its front flippers, but
its back dorsal fins have no bones…or legs.
You say that “you don’t claim to have all the answers” and yet you dogmatically insist that
penguins and other animals are “gay”. You’ve
stated that “It has been proven beyond a doubt
that animals EXHIBIT homosexual BEHAVIORS.” So
what! Gorillas have been shown to understand
American Sign Language. That doesn’t mean they’re
deaf. Chimpanzees and some birds use small sticks to dig grub worms from holes in the ground or
tree trunks. That doesn’t make them engineers.

Animals exhibit all kinds of behaviors that
seem to mimic things humans do. ASSUMING that that
makes them comparable to humans is called anthro-
pomorphism. Don’t you think that if it were really
true that any animal were really “gay”, wouldn’t
the liberal, “gay” loving news media be reporting
non-stop about it. All of my favorite animal
shows would be talking about it and SHOWING it.
The cable channel Animal Planet would probably
come out with a new reality show called “Queer
Eye(s) for the Straight Fly” and those “gay”
male penguins would be trading in their black and
white tuxedos for black and white formal gowns
for a drag show. I hope those little guys are
careful during oral sex. Those beaks could really
hurt.

But seriously. You’ve also said Julia, that
“It’s hard to come up with a societal reason” for
why ostriches and penguins behave the way they do.
Ever heard the phrases “Propagation of the species
or Survival of the fittest”? These birds are
exhibiting survival techniques, not homosexual lifestyles. In nature there are many different
examples of how animals live together to protect
each other and thrive. Some animals live in packs,
herds, pods and colonys. Lions live in prides (not
“gay”) and while the males and most of the females go out to hunt for food, a few of the
lionesses stay behind to protect the young lion
cubs. We humans have something similar. They’re
called Day-Care centers. Does that mean that all
female day care workers are “gay”? HMMMM?

Many animals, especially mammals, exhibit what APPEARS to be homosexual behavior. But NO
ANIMALS live in what we humans know as a “gay
lifestyle”. Like human prisoners, some caged
animals in the nearly uncontrollable grip of
being “in heat” will exhibit homosexual-like
behavior to satisfy its sexual urges and a humans pet will often hump anything from footballs on the
ground to its owners legs (BLAINE) to not only show affection for its owner but also work off
its sexual “exuberance”. These behaviors don’t
mean these animals are “gay”. Just horny.

Most of the behavior in animals that comes
across as homosexual to the novice, is really just
domination behavior, and I don’t mean S & M. For
example, a male animal may mount another male
(this is most common with lower primates) to show
dominance or that he is the alpha male. This
behavior may even become sexualized, but it does
NOT mean that these male monkeys are homosexual.
The alpha male is humiliating the usually younger
or weaker male by showing who’s boss. Same as in
human prisons. It’s all about dominance and CON-
trol and with human prisons, one of the only ways
to “get off”.

In animals , especially with mammals and to some degree, predators, this mounting behavior is
about anything but sex. Unless the alpha is trying
to form a harem, then the alpha mounts a lesser
male to essentially say, “I’m the chief stud,you
are now a eunuch!” But the mounting behavior could
also be over control of a territory or even first
dibs at the dinner carcass. Just because WE call
it “doggy-style”, doesn’t mean it’s about sex for
the two male (or female) animals.

I read the info on the website you suggested
to me Julia. The only thing it proves is that you
can’t see beyond that websites obvious bias. It is
practically a “gay” porn, propaganda site that
wants anyone dense or emotionally weak enough to
believe them, that animals can be “gay”. The site
quotes a books author on the subject that “the
book is also meant to address homophobia & bias”.
The book itself is full of nothing but theories
and claims, and even the books publisher/editor is heralded as “a pioneer in gay book publishing”.

Julia, you admitted that you are a “fountain
of useless information”. I disagree. You’re a flood of nonsensical dis-information. The quotes
and theories and examples you site, appear well
thought out. But it’s mostly absurd hogwash and I
think I know why. You’ve also written, and I quote, “There are no rigid rules to anything.”.
Rigid rules abound in religion, mans laws and in
nature. But when you can believe in and say the
things that you write about, all I can say is.
You either need a shrink, or a minister, or both.

Dale

Aww Dale,

The reason I know so many people is (as I have stated elsewhere) my family has worked in the disability field for a long time. I’ve worked at the Special Olympics, and as a result, have a lot of friends who work in the disability field today. In addition, my “real” job is as a researcher for the entertainment industry, and so, in the course of work, I come across lots of information. I did a lot of work for a show where we wanted to talk about large-sized animals that have only recently been discovered (in the last 100 years). In the process of talking to biologists, I always ask if they have anything else interesting they’d like to talk about. I’ve also studied a lot of crime cases, sociopathic individuals, and a bunch of other stuff.

As for the whale issue, that information came from a friend of mine who has been collecting aquatic fossils for over 20 years. (Who I met because I needed him to fabricate a human skull for a show I was working on):
Here is the corroborating information:
http://edwardtbabinski.us/whales/rudiments05.html
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/zoohons/struthers/hind_limbs.hti
http://www.graysreef.nos.noaa.gov/whalebook/anatomy.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html

As for the comments on homosexual behaviour in animals. I provided three links. Sure, one came from a clearly biased site, but I used it because it gathered more information together in one place. You can simply do a google search on the zoos to see if the article lied. As for claims that sometimes this behaviour is merely impulsive, I’m sure the examples you provided are accurate, and your explanations are accurate. But they still don’t explain why ostriches, and penguins have long-term monogamous (multi-year) sexual relationships with same sex partners. If you can find somethign that proves this behaviour is not true, or you can explain how it is somehow not homosexual behaviour then I will change my mind.

Of course I should not say “There are no rigid rules to anything”. For instance, Carbon always has four bonds.

Your main claim is that my sources are biased, but you fail to prove how the statements my sources made were false. Instead you provide other examples of where animal behaviour can be misinterpreted as homosexual, while failing to address the actual behaviors offered as proof of animal homosexuality. Prove to me a false statement, and I’ll agree I was wrong.

None of this undermines God. There are fundamentalist celibate homosexual Christians. There are non-celibate homosexual Christians. There are pastors who believe in evolution.

The evidence I have seen for the items I have provided to you has convinced me. I am always willing to change my mind, and I’m always open to the idea that I may be acting upon incorrect data. Simply show me.

Julia

Blaine,

Reports of penguin homosexuality have been around for a long time. I’ve only researched this in the last two years, so there was no “before” that I based my opinions on. I didn’t really think about this much at all until recently. Someone said something about a biblical passage, and I thought I’d look up a pro and con argument on it, and then I got onto one of my kicks and looked deeper into all the arguments going around.

I tend to buy into the philosophy that all human beings are complex. That’s why I am continuing to debate here, even though the thinking has been rigid so far. I think people tend to act in a rigid manner, but when you get to know them, you find that they aren’t so straightforward. When you get down to the nuts and bolts of living, “straightforward” decisions often become convoluted.

I had a friend who had to animate the world as created by God in the book of Genesis. When you get into the technical way the animation had to look, it really makes you think about what your beliefs are.

For instance. God created the waters, then he put all the plants on it. (Right? Something like that) Now would you animate little trees growing really fast into big trees? Or would they appear in an instant? Or assemble them bit by bit? Ground first, then grass, then ferns, etc? What do you think?

The client said it had to be *poof* instant. The only way they could do it, and make it look right, was to ahve the earth revolve and show a fully created continent ready for habitation.

Julia

Dale:

Thank you for your comments. You have been able to put into words what I have not. Clearly, my expertise is not in animal behavior. I simply look at things from a creationist point of view.

Julia:

You are asking me to explain things from a theological point of view. As I have said earlier in this article, I believe true science & the Bible complement each other. If science could truly show a contradiction in the Bible, the faith of many Christians would fail. Many theories have been shown but no absolute proof offered. Even today, many secular archeologists, geologists, & anthropologists use the Bible for their research. Not much is said about that, because it does not fit into the anti-God agendas of the humanists.

The Bible actually teaches man was created approximately six thousand years ago. Now when science says the earth is several million or billion years old, this causes the Bible student to sound like a cook. The truth is, most Bible scholars believe there is a time gap between verses 1 & 2 of Book of Genesis. Let me also say at this time, there is as much difference in Christianity as there is between day & night. There are many groups that call themselves Christian in name only. Being a Christian is not a group we belong to or an organization or even a church. Being a Christian is a personal belief, a personal relationship the believer has with Christ.

Now, back to creation. Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Verse 2a says, “And the earth was without form and, void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep:” The word “void” is the Hebrew word “Tohu” and it means “vain, or without use”. So basically the interpretation of verses 1 & 2 is that God created the earth & it was useless. If we read another verse in Isaiah 45:18, dealing again with the creation of the earth, it says, “For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens: God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the the Lord and there is none else”. The word “vain” is the same Hebrew word “Tohu” and it appears at first that we have a contradiction in the Bible. Verse 2 of Genesis said the earth was Tohu, without use or unable to sustain life, but Isaiah 45:18 says God created not in Tohu, without use or unable to sustain life. In fact Isaiah 45:18 specifically says God created the earth to be inhabited. It appears from Scripture that God created the earth perfect & able to sustain life (Genesis 1:1), but something catastrophic happened to cause the earth to be uninhabitable. Is this so much different than what science says, that millions of years ago something happened that destroyed all life? The time span between Genesis 1:1 & 1:2 is unknown, even from a Biblical point of view. It could be thousands, millions, or even billions of years.

We believe God created the earth & it was inhabited by animals, plants, fish, & even birds, but not by man. A catastrophic event occurred which destroyed all of creation. Genesis 1:2 is the beginning of a reconstruction of the earth, to make it inhabitable again & it was during this reconstruction that man was created. The reconstruction took six literal days. Is it so impossible that God could reconstruct the earth with full-grown trees, animals, or even man instantaneously? Considering he was able to die on the cross & resurrect himself from the dead three days later.

Hey Dale,

This was good “It is
practically a “gay” porn, propaganda site that
wants anyone dense or emotionally weak enough to
believe them” Isn’t that how the churches recruit people? You were probably indoctrinated with christianity as a child, an infant probably. Defenseless and weak unable to say no. Or you found the lord after years of not getting anywhere, searching for a purpose in life you stumbled into church because they do advertise and send out recruiters. Again, when you were at your weakest and most distraught, there was the church waiting to give you purpose and understanding.

These values that make people stand against issues that oppose them aren’t their own. They have been handed other people’s translation of a book. Why do you think there are so many different kinds of bible based chuches. Different translations of the same book, maybe. One passage to one man means one thing yet, it means something completely different to another. “the Bible has already made that quite
clear on the subject of homosexuality in the Old
and New Testaments in at least four different
verses.”
Maybe if you thought on your own without refering to your moral compass you’d come to the conclusion that, people in this country should be free and equal. Just because you disagree with something doesn’t make you right. In some cases it may mean your close-minded. I have a question, how much wrong does one have to do in life to be kept out of heaven? Just because the majority of people in America think one way doesn’t make them right. People are dumb. Espescially large groups discussing something they fear and hate. Of course you’d vote no, you don’t apply.

I agree though about the whole marriage to civil union thing. I don’t think the government should uphold religious ceremonies. A marriage is a christian thing unless of course your hindu. Why is it that no matter of one’s religion in the United States people all apply for the same marriage license? If it is in fact a christian practice why is it that athiest participate in the practice as well. Maybe i’m just misinformed. Taxes are another issue here. Will these heathens be granted the same tax breaks as hetero married couples because, thats not fair. Please, we have senators and representatives driving around gas guzzling luxury cars free of charge, with tax payers money. The president and major party opposition in the election get the usage of government aircraft for campaigning purposes again tax payer money. How about instead of looking at the normal people who will benifit from taxes we look at the aristocrats who abuse the system. How about we let the people who just wish to be equals get granted equality and we take away the excess freedom from those who have it. Then we could be equal.

Don’t Quote the Bible.

All of these messages that quote the Bible as saying that God forbids homosexuality are obviously from people who have never read the Bible in its original languages (Hebrew and Greek). Scholars (Christian, Jewish and Secular) all agree that there is no word in the Bible referring to “homosexuality”. There is an obscure pasage in the Old Testament about “spilling seed” and somehow all the conservative interpretations use that one passage to condemn homosexuality.

Also, modern society has long dismissed many of the Old Testament laws that are considered barbaric, antiquated or irrevelant. The Bible permitted slavery, stonning adulterers, divorsing your wife if she was barren, etc. Whey do you conservative overlook those laws and just harp on some obscure text about men sleeping with men.

Based on our US Constitution, the USA is not a theocracy like Saudia Arabia and Israel. We allow all religions in the country and have learned from the past that the mixture of religion and politics is a recipe for tyranny. Many Christian churches accept homosexuality as a normal expression of humanity. Why do conservatives insist that their view of Christianity is the only view? That is intolerance and conceit, especially when most “Born Agains” have never read Hebrew or Greek.

As for the New Testament, one of the only two commandments that Christ said was”love thy neighbor as thyself”. He said nothing about sex, homosexuality, etc. His message was love, not condemnation yet the Christian Right seems to have gotten stuck in the Old Testament of laws, rules, codes, etc. that Christ rejected many times.

Finally, if you ask the great majority of homosexuals they will tell you that if they had had a choice when they were a teenage, they would have chosen to be straight. Who ever wants to be an outcast, a minority and cut off from society? No one. Homosexuality never is a choice, it is a state of being that is as much a part of oneself as being tall, or brown eyed, or blond.

If you start to condemn homosexuals, you are not far from burning witches, gassing Jews, and persecuting all those who believe different than you. Where do you find that in the New Testament?

Ace

Chad comments were as follows:

“How about we let the people who just wish to be equals get granted equality and we take away the excess freedom from those who have it. Then we could be equal.”

I knew that you on the left were always looking for communism to come back, even so This will Never happen; some will always do more, and try harder than others. There is no
EQUALITY OF OUTCOME
I will always do better than most because I desire to, I work harder at it. I started on the streets alone and I wanted the house on the hill. So I made it happen. There is only
EQUALITY OF OPPERTUNITY
Big difference, one says everyone has a chance if they chose to take it. The other says it matters not what you do your fate is fixed. This is why socialist mung is bad. I am always going to think my self better than most (I care not what that sounds like to most I worked and I accomplished, so there :) ) No one can change that. I will say it again I care not what you do on your time or in your home, I do not buy the Idea that a gay life is a choice, for then you have to accept that all alternate lifestyles are choice. Be they criminal (I did not want to steal, rape or murder, I was made that way) Sexual (Me and my goat are made for each other, I had not the choice I just am drawn to goats) or anything else. The argument gives rise to all these things (a polygamist is allegedly trying to get Mass to recognize his right to have more than one wife)

I will state again (mostly to hear myself talk, and to hear the gnashing of teeth on the socialcrat side), I could care less what most do. I will not even tell you that you are wrong (much because YOU will not here me anyway) Where I draw the line and what this is about is YOU WANT THE REST OF US TO AGREE WITH YOUR LIFESTYLE.
You have a right to your choice, and we have the right to ours. You (On the Left) get offended that everyone does not like your choice and says “this shall not do”. So instead of saying who cares, you run to the government and say
” Waaah, those people are mean, make them like me! make it a crime to tell me anything I do not want to hear. Give me special status, I was born this way this is no choice.Waaah!”
BUTCH UP NANCY
The government could threaten me with prison, and I would never give in. The Left is wrong on this.
The left is wrong on Defense of our nation. The Left is just wrong, because it does not support personal responsibility, or personal achievement.

Well that is my take (send all hate mail via e-mail) Looking forward to the revolution.

MAY GOD ALMIGHT SAVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM ALL THAT WOULD DESTROY HER.

Posted by Sean at March 17, 2005 11:56 AM

Sean,

I think you missed it bud. Communism isn’t equality for there is no choice in a communistic society. Freedom only being granted to a select group is what is happening. And all of this:

“I do not buy the Idea that a gay life is a choice, for then you have to accept that all alternate lifestyles are choice. Be they criminal (I did not want to steal, rape or murder, I was made that way) Sexual (Me and my goat are made for each other, I had not the choice I just am drawn to goats) or anything else”
Don’t distort the issue into anything but what it is. If you fear that a decision granting homosexuals marriage rights will somehow open the flood gates; and allow a determination of sexual preference being that of “I was born that way” to alter the society so drastically that murder, rape, and molestation will somehow unpunishable and anarchy will reign supreme. And liberals are the stupid ones with no sense of reality. But, you do believe an invisilbe man in the sky governs all aspects of life while a man living below the earth tries to influence you to disobey and do evil deeds. But, librals are the crazy ones.
I could really care less about what you feel about homosexual marriage and it is your right to discuss it as it is mine. See, equality. Not communism. We both as you said were given equal opportunity. Like getting the opportunity to marry whoever you want, not whatever you want. I knnow accepting others differences is difficult for a bigot but, it’s your right to be upset. If you want to live in a world where one person’s beliefs reign, move to Swaziland, they’re one of the last monarchies left. Unless you just want to live in a moderatly opressed society move to Singapor. I think you and Jerry Falwell should have a luncheon with Benny Hinn to discuss how to control the masses while getting endless donations to save the world from itself. Oh and this is while you bomb a countries to set them free. Freedom America’s illusion.

You know, I too don’t understand why marraige by the state is considered “marraige”. It implies it is a Christian ceremony when it is actually a civil ceremony. The judge is not an ordained minister. The judge has the right to legally recognize the long term commitment of a person from any religion. And it is perfectly legal for a man who has changed his sex to female to marry another man.

Maybe the real problem is that the word marraige has been used by the state at all. If marraige is a spiritual union, then what business does the state have in that? People deliberately get hitched before the state so they can say they have a “civil union” but what they take home is a “marraige certificate”. Perhaps it should be called “certificate of union”.

Anyway, God’s law should rule those who believe in God (of course the myriad numbers of ways it’s been interpretated mean that there’s many different forms of God’s laws). But for those who don’t follow those laws, we use the civil law. The civil law, for instance, allows us to eat cows, while our Hindu fundamentalist friends vilify this practice as criminal. Bestiality can never be legal under civil law because animals can’t consent to the relationship. Child molestation can’t be legal because the child doesn’t consent. The reason we don’t prosecute S&M (even though I think it’s a little weird), is because the party who is beaten has consented to being beaten.

In homosexual relationships both individuals have consented to the relationship. Whether it is acknowledged or not, they will continue to be in the relationship. No one has suggested that those who consent to these relationships should be jailed (as I think they would suggest in the cases of bestiality). So obviously we don’t think this behaviour should result in criminal prosecution. Why then, do we think that having them sign a paper before the state that gives them property rights with one another, the right to see each other at the hospital, and the right to file taxes together, is so terrible?

Julia

Dale, I was joking. A point I thought was made obvious by the way I wrote and what I said.

Guess not.

Blaine, I think my Genesis comment was a red herring, and off topic. However, thank you for answering. Personally, I take Genesis in the form of an allegory. A simplified story to explain that the world came from God in an orderly progressive fashion. Also, Genesis is old testament, and I believe Christianity claims that the new testament is the foundation of Christianity. The old laws and stories are no longer in effect. For instance, what would we do these days with Deutoronomy? (I really hope there are no fundamentalist Deutoronomy followers here, because I have to say, that really is taking it too far).

The Catholic church felt that if the sun was proven as the center of the universe, that the bible would be incorrect. Hogwash. I don’t think the Bible clearly states that life has only existed for 6000 years. That idea was formulated around 1200 wasn’t it? And it was based on that begat begat begat section. I don’t think you have to buy into that interpretation.

I personally buy into Justin’s view of how homosexuality fits into the bible. http://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.html

I feel that if we can interpret “Thou shalt not kill” into “Thou shalt not murder” and then get really picky and say “killing in self-defense” “killing in protection of country” “accidental killing with a car when you didn’t see someone run into the road” then we’ve already moved away from saying that the rules are straightforward. That the bible is rigid and without flexibility. Honor they mother and father… probably should be extended to step-parents. Or adoptive parents.

Jesus said keep the Sabbath holy, but he also said, don’t get carried away with the rules. If you have to work a little bit on the Sabbath, then, that’s fine too. But in general, try to do your best with it.

The bible has to fit into a world where Neanderthals existed. DNA testing has proven that they are part of a different genetic line than us. I don’t think their existence is a threat to the bible. It may be a threat to a certain interpretation of it…

so anyway, that’s my thoughts
julia

Of the 53 penguins in the Central Park Zoo, Silo and Roy are not the only ones that are gay. In 1997, the park had four pairs of homosexual penguins. In an effort to increase breeding, zookeepers tried to separate them by force. They failed, said Gramzay.

Only one of the eight bonded with a female. The rest went ba