Cure for homosexuality? - Page 4 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Wednesday, September 19, 2007 8:12 PM on j-body.org
funny that is is illegal to discriminate and hate on people that are different but is ok to discriminate against homosexuals. Stupid old politicians especially like to do it on the national/international TV, you cant change gay in to straight same as you cant turn politician in to a normal thinking people especially if they are from taxes.
Got bush i do and it itches





Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:19 AM on j-body.org
Keith Jackson wrote:I'm saying that denial of truth doesn't change it. If you really believe a dirt nap is all there is to look forward to... live it up while ya can.


So those of us that are not religious are in denial of the truth?

As far as homosexuality, I certainly do not think its a disease. Nor do I see a need for their to be a cure for it. As far as gay and lesbians being more prominent now, I believe thats only be cause although society is still harsh, its more forgiving than in the "old days". You cant help who you are when you are born. I have absolutely nothing wrong with those that live that lifestyle. I think what proves that its not a choice even more, is that some people who find they are homosexual are in fact not comfortable with it but its something they cant help. Maybe society is what makes them uncomfortable with it but either way it proves that its not something that they choose to do, and it takes time for them to become comfortable in who they are. And in many cases, they feel that they are different way before they become truly sexually active.

As far as everyone being bi in some sense... i agree and disagree. I am certainly straight, I wouldn't be happy long term without a man by my side.. although short term a woman isn't out of the question But I think that varies more so by person, it seems more women are bi than men unless its only because more woman admit it because society seems to be perfectly fine with bi chicks..

I honestly think religion does more harm than a gay or lesbian couple. No offense to those that are religious, maybe more so extremists. Religion was "created" to give people hope, to give people something to believe in. Maybe to ease the pain of death as well as other reasons. But I believe that in fact, it was created, and that is all.

Do you really think we all came from Adam & Eve. So we are all inbred..? Riiiiiiiight




Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Thursday, December 13, 2007 11:02 AM on j-body.org
Quote:

I honestly think religion does more harm than a gay or lesbian couple.


Post of the year.


Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Thursday, December 13, 2007 4:26 PM on j-body.org
Jazer {AzulKav} Turbo Chica wrote:Do you really think we all came from Adam & Eve. So we are all inbred..? Riiiiiiiight


Actually I believe that no matter if we are solely a creation of God with no evolution involved, if we are a product of random subatomic particle interaction with no in existence, or if we are a product of fully/partially God-guided evolution - no matter what the whole truth is - that are ancestors inbred. There really aren't any other possible solutions for a new emerging sexually reproducing species. Think about it.

And of course it isn't like a more primitive version of man would have any issue in procreating with their sister or whatever. Other animals still do it today. In fact, there are still plenty of today's "advanced" [cue the banjo] man who will still do this. Is it really so hard to believe that your ancestors - regardless of how they came to exist - did in fact inbreed? I know it may be disgusting to think about, but quite true. That is in the same "I'd rather not know that but if I think about it I can't deny it" category as the fact that you only exist because your mother was(and probably still is) dick hungry.

Quote:

I honestly think religious fanatics do more harm than a gay or lesbian couple.

Corrected that for you. And really you could just break that down to say - FANATICS CAUSE HARM. I say that because not all fanaticism is religion based. There are enough atheist and/or agnostic fanatics too. Consider national fanaticism and political fanaticism(we're certainly not at a loss for either of these in America). Consider these "safety police" nanny-state soccer mom types. There are people who are fanatical in regards to political correctness, and on the opposite end people who are fanatical about "their race." There are plenty of people right now becoming fanatical about immigration and/or the English language. There are even some people who are fanatical about being "anti-religion" lol.

On the topic of homosexuality - a large portion of the fanatical "anti-fag" crowd aren't even Christians or anything at all. Most often homo-phobic crowd are people who have gay latencies themselves that they try to deny and/or compensate for. We all know that type.

Yes there are is no shortage of religious fanatics, and often those are the same people that are fanatics about some other topic(sometimes they also confuse and/or merge the 2 things - like calling "pro-life" a basic tenant of Christianity when in fact abortion doesn't even get mentioned in the Bible). I think that says more about the person than it does the religion. Some people are more inclined to be fanatics than others. People who become fanatical about one thing are generally inclined to do this with other topics too. Fanatics will be fanatics.

Jazer {AzulKav} Turbo Chica wrote:
Keith Jackson wrote:I'm saying that denial of truth doesn't change it. If you really believe a dirt nap is all there is to look forward to... live it up while ya can.


So those of us that are not religious are in denial of the truth?
I think you aren't looking at that quote in the right perspective. You're looking at it from what is probably the intended implication. But if you take it at the face value of the words involved... Keith Jackson is correct. Although I bet he didn't realize that what he said - while technically correct - is a 2 way street. The truth is the truth no matter what and what you or I believe is inconsequential to that fact. We cannot make something true or not true simply by what we believe. T

he fact that I believe in a God and you do not - these things don't matter in the face of the truth... whatever that truth may be. I may be correct, you may be correct, a Buddhist may be correct, KOTL may be correct, or maybe none of us is even close. But the truth is the truth, and it does not require us to believe it in order to be true.

That is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for humans - our arrogance. Most all think that whatever they believe is the undeniable truth and their beliefs are the final authority on all things. The fact that what you believe may very well be wrong - and that there is a very good chance of that to boot - crosses the minds of very few people. Consider this... how often have you come across someone who disagrees aka believes something different that you do - and your first thought was "she/he is wrong." I'll bet that happens pretty often. I'll admit I've been guilty of it as well. Also consider that one of the most effective means to piss off almost anyone is... to tell them that they are wrong(I suspect there are evolutionary mechanisms behind this probably relating to competition etc). But with that in mind - Keith's statement was technically and logically correct(despite what he actually meant by it)



I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Thursday, December 13, 2007 4:55 PM on j-body.org
i still think its funny that if God created all humans, and a human is gay, that religious people dont recognize it as something that God may have intended but as a choice



Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Friday, December 14, 2007 5:52 AM on j-body.org
bastardkind3000 wrote:
Quote:

I honestly think religious fanatics do more harm than a gay or lesbian couple.

Corrected that for you. And really you could just break that down to say - FANATICS CAUSE HARM.

Jazer {AzulKav} Turbo Chica wrote:I honestly think religion does more harm than a gay or lesbian couple. No offense to those that are religious, maybe more so extremists.

^^
Bastardking3000 wrote:I think you aren't looking at that quote in the right perspective.

Actually I think you are looking at my response in the wrong perspective. I was not "laughing" at his statement due to the fact that it is "untrue" i was looking at it similar to how you said it. A humans arrogance. Even tho you are taking his statement in two ways, he is trying to say those of us that are not religious are in denial of the truth aka he is trying to press that his beliefs (or other religious beliefs) are the truth and our not believing in a deity is not true and we are wrong. Hence why I "laughed" at that statement...

Now I have no problem being proven wrong in situations, so when i die, and im proven wrong then so be it, but until then we all have our rights to our own beliefs.

As far as inbreeding, im sure it happened, years upon years ago, although to say that an entire population (6 billion +) people on earth derived from 2 people.. Not only would different races be taken into consideration BUT it has been proven that inbreeding causes defects. Not necessarily physical or appearance defects, but weaknesses in a gene pool become much more prominent and the offspring begin to be much more susceptible to those diseases/conditions.. etc. Now to say that an ENTIRE population was created by only 2, and has thrived at that... I dont see that possible either.

I certainly agree that its not only christians and other religious groups that are anti-gay, although it seems religious cultures seem to have a harder time accepting it (or dont accept it at all) on more occasions than those that have no religious related beliefs. Religious followers try to please their 'god' (in some shape or form), and if they believe that there is something their 'god' wouldn't approve of, it will be hard for them to adapt, if at all, to that situation, or w/e it is...



Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Friday, December 14, 2007 9:04 AM on j-body.org
Quote:

As far as inbreeding, im sure it happened, years upon years ago, although to say that an entire population (6 billion +) people on earth derived from 2 people.. Not only would different races be taken into consideration BUT it has been proven that inbreeding causes defects. Not necessarily physical or appearance defects, but weaknesses in a gene pool become much more prominent and the offspring begin to be much more susceptible to those diseases/conditions.. etc. Now to say that an ENTIRE population was created by only 2, and has thrived at that... I dont see that possible either.


Actually looking at it from a random-mutation based evolution perspective with sexually reproducing species - 6 billion people on earth didn't derive from 2 people, but rather one specimen whose mutated DNA gave him/her a decided advantage. Furthermore, he/she would then have had to breed with the native population of the previous species - mixing genes. Then there is just a question of if this new improved DNA sequence get carried on to the offspring. If it happens to be a dominant gene - great, but if it happens to be a recessive gene, your odds would get cut in half(they would NOT be carried in the 50/50 chance that the breeding partner's egg/sperm is carrying a dominant gene, and even then sliced further in half(basically) even if the other partner is passing along their recessive gene(a question of which comes up on top)).

So that whole process really does go alot smoother if the "evolved" one happens to be male, since obviously he could impregnate many females at the same time to really improve odds of passing this new gene along. In any case, local populations and all, inbreeding will occur.

Quote:

Not only would different races be taken into consideration BUT it has been proven that inbreeding causes defects.
First off you are assuming basically the same thing here that alot of religious zealots do - that no evolution has occurred since homosapiens came into existence. That obviously is not the case. Humankind was born in Africa, moved out across the globe. Europeans for example had less sunlight to deal with in Europe, and developed less melatonin in their skin - while meaning less ultraviolet radiation protection - also meant that their skin could produce more Vitamin D in this lesser intensity sunlight. One could wonder however, if some of the other suttle differences between races can really be explained as being a survival advantage at all - let alone sufficient to cause those who had it to thrive and those who did not have it to die off. To me that is one serious set-back of a pure random evolution platform.

Anyways that should answer your race question well enough I hope, now for inbreeding. Over one generation, inbreeding will not necessarily cause birth defects. But a lack of genetic diversity over time does cause problems for sure. The danger of it is however generally exaggerated. I mean you don't really see that many 5 legged men in Arkansas do you? Consider that in medieval Europe, royalty only married royalty. That has one clear result - European 'blue blood" is some of the most inbred around.

Also consider that even with or without inbreeding etc - on the average a person will have one piece of genetic code that they got from neither parent. That happens randomly through mistakes in copying genetic code over and over from one cell to the next. It is also quite possible - if not likely - that some of the cells in your own body do not share 100% of the same DNA as some others may. Of course if this mutation happens in either stem cells or the actual reproductive cells, then this mutation will be passed on. If it only happened in your liver - for example - then it would not be passed on.



I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Friday, December 14, 2007 9:23 AM on j-body.org
I believe in evolution. I think life began as a tiny cell and slowly got to where we are today. I thought that in the bible it says that everyone derived from Adam & Eve which is why I stated that.

I also am not assuming that humans have not evolved since they came into existence, Its obvious that we have and different races evolved based on their surroundings (i just didnt feel that i needed to get into that.)



Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Friday, December 14, 2007 2:34 PM on j-body.org
There is debate, Bastard, as to whether or not the "cradle of humanity" is indeed africa, or if the Homo species genus were so really close to each other than the basic progenitor of the Homo sapiens specie, when it moved out of africa, didn't interbreed with other Homo species, like Neanderthal man from the north, and thus produce the different races per cross-breeding.




Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Saturday, December 15, 2007 7:58 AM on j-body.org
BK3K Mutations that are beneficial usually are passed on, but ones that are not usually are culled when the thing is incapable of reproducing.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Saturday, December 15, 2007 9:08 PM on j-body.org
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:BK3K Mutations that are beneficial usually are passed on, but ones that are not usually are culled when the thing is incapable of reproducing.
What do I reply to this but... DUH? I'm afraid I don't catch your point exactly. Did I say something contrary to this?

Although I must ask, what of mutations that have very little effect one way or another? How do those catch on? I especially mean to point out the many suttle differences in various races of homosapien - most of which don't really matter at all in the survival game. While of course some of those are beneficial(like the one I mentioned) - and even then what if it that minor advantage really isn't enough to cause it to thrive much more of those carrying it to thrive than anyone else?

I personally don't think any one race is superior to any other, or even better at any one task than others(although the culture that people are raised in will no doubt affect what skills are valued and nurtured etc). But if these changes occur and take hold simply because they are superior traits - then surely I am wrong about human equality(at the genetic level).

I more subscribe to the idea that maybe God likes variety. But I don't close my eyes to science either.




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Monday, December 17, 2007 8:45 AM on j-body.org
Quite simple:

If the mutation is beneficial, naturally, breeding is encurage and the mutated individual out-competes others.

If the mutation is benign, then the individual comptets equally with others and the mutation gets into the gene pool without dominating it.

If the mutation is malignant, the individual dies off.


Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Monday, December 17, 2007 8:50 AM on j-body.org
I agree ^^ that goes with any form of reproduction.

Which is one way humans interfere with life. It goes down to the weak dying off and the strong prevailing. But curing the weak only pro-longs it. To look at it in a 'negative' way i suppose but i believe that it is true. Obviously on a personal level, if you or loved ones are sick you want them to be cured but it still comes down to that.



Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:13 AM on j-body.org
My point is simple however. Consider different races, and the different traits that are quite dominant locally, but don't provide any edge. Take face structure differences for example. A German doesn't look quite like a Frenchman, but really a German is no less genetically fit to survive or thrive in France. So that does beg the question of why, does it not? One could of course say that for certain breeds of dogs perhaps too - for example.

And of course vestigial organs, since when would having an organ loosing its function actually cause you to thrive? Even in certain circumstances - such as fish moving into a zero light area and loosing their sight completely(pretty much eliminating the possibility of living elsewhere too btw) - even if their eyes cease to have a purpose in that environment, how is it beneficial for their eyes to actually cease to function? How does that help them to thrive?

The human appendix, some have suggested, is such an organ. Assuming this is true, and it was once an organ that helped assist with digesting certain plant matter that we otherwise cannot(like that corn you find in your poo). Its also been suggested that we could even end world hunger if we found a way to restore that organ to its original use. In any case, we overall may have had enough meat in our diets to not "need" that organ in the past, but you can't tell me that we wouldn't thrive much better with it rather than without it - in any point in our history.

Looking at the big picture, not all evolutionary changes in all things that have taken hold are actually positive changes. So I think that does beg some questions.






I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:35 AM on j-body.org
Quote:


If the mutation is beneficial, naturally, breeding is encurage and the mutated individual out-competes others.

If the mutation is benign, then the individual comptets equally with others and the mutation gets into the gene pool without dominating it.

If the mutation is malignant, the individual dies off.


Now, we should be able to turn that around, right? If something dies off, it obviously wasn't beneficial, correct?




















Therefore, those living alternate lifestyles are obviously not beneficial, because they are not breeding at all, therefore using the above statement they will die off...
There's no need to legislate anything, the nature of the problem will cause it to eliminate itself by being incapable of reproducing.
Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:44 AM on j-body.org
I won't argue with that.it makes a lot of sense.

But one thing you do tend to realize in many species is when there is overpopulation, those "weaker" that under harsh conditions would die, tend to thrive as well. Given that, the best thing that the homophobes could to is basically let nature take its course.


Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:46 PM on j-body.org
Bastardking3000 wrote:
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:BK3K Mutations that are beneficial usually are passed on, but ones that are not usually are culled when the thing is incapable of reproducing.
What do I reply to this but... DUH? I'm afraid I don't catch your point exactly. Did I say something contrary to this?
You had said that random mutations that weren't beneficial had a 50/50 chance of being passed on, but really the odds are skewed heavily against it going more than 2-3 generations... also most of the genetic diseases like Tay-Sachs, that require 2 carriers and luck of the draw to manifest tend to survive longer because they're not guaranteed to kill the carrier.

Quote:

Although I must ask, what of mutations that have very little effect one way or another? How do those catch on? I especially mean to point out the many suttle differences in various races of homosapien - most of which don't really matter at all in the survival game. While of course some of those are beneficial(like the one I mentioned) - and even then what if it that minor advantage really isn't enough to cause it to thrive much more of those carrying it to thrive than anyone else?
You have to define a frame of time. Over 2-3 years a genetic predisposition to heavy shedding of skin cells won't be a big deal, but over 5-6 generations though, assuming combining that predisposition and heavy lanolin production, you have the possibility of ulcerative skin disorders.

Quote:

I personally don't think any one race is superior to any other, or even better at any one task than others(although the culture that people are raised in will no doubt affect what skills are valued and nurtured etc). But if these changes occur and take hold simply because they are superior traits - then surely I am wrong about human equality(at the genetic level).

Well, not so much so, it's dependant on the environment: some mongoloids have bat deposits around the eyes, inner fold of the ear and over joints and are better at surviving colder weather, whereas other mongoloids are better adept at hot, humid conditions... the same is comperable with caucazoids and negroids. Point being, it's not necessarily a racial trait, but the individual's predisposition.

Quote:

I more subscribe to the idea that maybe God likes variety. But I don't close my eyes to science either.
Good thing we have reasoning and cognition to accompany faith



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Friday, December 28, 2007 6:38 AM on j-body.org
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Okay... This is one thing that I'm curious about because I'm of the mindset that Homosexuality isn't really a choice, you're either Gay, Bisexual or Straight (I know that a lot of homosexuals dispute this, but there's been enough credible scientific work to at best discredit the idea that homosexuality is strictly a choice).

There is an alarming thing happening in that a few faith-based and even quackery based pseudo-medical conditioning experiments are being conducted to "cure" homosexuality.

Now, I might be a little off base, but what is so wrong with it in the first place? I know straight, gay and bi sluts... it seems that promiscuity is more of sin in some evangelicals' eyes when it's accompanied by homosexuality.

How do you "fix" something like that? Especially when it's like eye colour, something that you don't get to pick?

I may be going out on a limb here, but these people that are convinced they can fix gayness are akin to Dr. Josef Mengele in my mind. They might think they're bringing about the greater good, but they're gratuitously harming people that have nothing wrong with them other than what is against their own societal constructs.

The first part about using shock "therapy" to cure homosexuality... it's quack science. There is ECT (electro-convulsive therapy) which is has a clinical use and has been proved useful in treating some disorders, but that uses relatively low doses, and it's used to correct specific organic disorders. Shock-therapy isn't useful to correct behaviour, and most psychiatrists don't consider homosexuality to be a personality disorder. Am I alone in this?

What's got me on this jag?
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1595


reminds me of the NOW common phrase which has appeared in many lyrics:

"like a christian scientist with appendicitis"



Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Friday, December 28, 2007 8:56 AM on j-body.org
I will point out, Willem, that i've said before that along the religion and science thought-models, gays and lesbians could represent population control.

I will not argue about the drive that makes one gay or not--it's about as hard as defining what makes one person have the fetish(es) that they do. But i will say that from a biological standpoint, there are many examples in nature of population control outside the usual predator/prey model. Certian species of frogs and toads will spawn off tadpoles in monsoon-soaked areas, and depending on how much rain the monsoon deposits, it will affect the ratio of herbivorous tadpoles to carnivorous ones--rather, herbivrous to cannibalistic ones. If the rains are heavy, more herbivrous ones will survive the tadpole instars and become adults that can survive the dry season. If the monsoon was weak, more carnivrous and aggressive tadpoles come out and, cull the herd of herbivorous ones, and weaker carnivorous ones, thus limiting the genepool to the hardiest specimens.

Further, certain species of fish are all born female. Only after surviving for a long period of time do they become male. Again, this is to insure that only the hardiest tried and tested genes are spread into the genepool.

What does this have to do with homosexuality? Simple, I's plauisble that nowadays we're seeing a rise in homosexuality as a natural check mechanism to help slow down our cancerous population growth. After all, gays can't reporduce naturally, right? thus, it could be said that the instance of having more gays and lesbians out there is a way to make sure there's less breeding pairs to cull the herd, since humans tend to not be very discriminating on who they sleep with (don't believe me? Go to your local Wal-mart and look at all of the humans there who have little or no attractiveness in them whatsoever on any level but still manage to have about 5 or 6 kids). Just a theory, though.

It could also be said since the Christian God, by their teachings (or mythology, depening on who has the viewpoint), basically set everything in motion or is keeping everything in motion, allowed Gays to come out--despite the supposed teaching of him that say he abhors them. As such, I cannot see how christians, or any other radical religious zealots, can have such hatred for them.

I think the problem though, lies deeper. Humand are an incredibly narcissitic and arrogant specie. After all, we think we're superior to everything else. I think the problem lies in the fact that on a personal level and group level, we think the genetic material of us, or the groups we associate with (race, religion, nationality, et al) is superior to all others. As such, the fear itself underlies the self-fear of being a person that can't, or won't pass on the bloodline, or when our spawn is in the same position. After all, a father subconsiously knows he's the perfect genetic blend for male humanity, so he finds a woman that he finds is the perfect female genetic blend for humanity (this is both subjective and goes both ways, women seeking the man, etc.), and has kids that will carry that perfection on. Now one of them states that they are gay, and thus will not pass that genetic information on. Kinda a hit to the standard hetero perfectionistic ego that somehow buried in their genetic makeup there had to be this flaw pop up that their spawn wouldn't want to carry the bloodline on, right?

Again, just a theory.


Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Friday, January 04, 2008 12:20 PM on j-body.org
Keeper of the light although I don't agree with you on some things I totally agree with you, I don't see how "christians" could have such hatred for homosexuals either. If Jesus were here physically today he would be hanging out with the "rejects" who the "morally upright" condem. He would probably hang out with Porn Stars, Homosexuals, prostitutes , (which he did), and yes even Democrats.
Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Friday, January 04, 2008 11:06 PM on j-body.org
GrandAmMAtt said "but there's been enough credible scientific work to at best discredit the idea that homosexuality is strictly a choice).

I read a few pages, but couldn't find your source listed..just got tired of reading the same ol' crap from y'all. (I'll hit on Smokey's point in a bit.) I'm assuming it was an independent research done by "They". Now I'm sure someone will fire back with a link they quickly googled, most likely from a study PUBLISHED in some abstract right-wingish rag such as...The New England Journal of Medicine.

Keep in mind, "They" have done studies which show certain people are predisposed to alcoholism, depression, obesity, and even physical violence.

Augustin mentioned widespread homosexuality in ancient Greece. Yes, it was a prevalent activity then. Kind of like how the buggering of boys was just as accepted by the same culture, not to mention medieval Europe and just about everywhere else. Heck, even the peace-loving followers of Islamic Jihad, look forward to X number of virgins and nubile young boys if they die as a martyr for glorious Allah.

So, let's say "They" come out with a study proving that certain people are naturally predisposed to being sexually attracted exclusively to pre-pubescent boys and girls. Is that now a sickness? Is it a choice? If its in their DNA, should they just remain in the closet and learn to hate themselves...and btw, remember religion causes more harm than this-that-and everything else <-- Just in case our friendly neighborhood, "religion is the devil" veteran hasn't said it recently.

Am I espousing pedophilia? Absolutely not. Why? Well, its gross, illegal, and just plain wrong. Besides I don't think it should be allowed. But who am I to try to push my moral / religious / bigoted beliefs on anyone else?

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Saturday, January 05, 2008 7:46 PM on j-body.org
The thing that stinks about posting on page 4, is that people have hashed and re-hashed the topic so much, that some interesting points never receive a response....even if the post in question seems disagreeable to many. I've been away for a long time, but I remember the old days on the JBO. So much hate back then....sigh...

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Monday, January 07, 2008 8:12 AM on j-body.org
Intresting you should mention that, Scott. There is discussion about how the current "hairless being beautiful" trend for both males and females being a case of neotony. In essence, by shaving, well, just about everything below the eyebrows at this point, it could be said that many adults are modeling themselves after pre-pubescent girls and boys because that's what we tend to be attracted to nowadays.

Now, I for one would never condone sex with a minor, but it is an intresting observation on our specie...


Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Re: Cure for homosexuality?
Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:59 AM on j-body.org
KOTL:
Quote:

It could also be said since the Christian God, by their teachings (or mythology, depening on who has the viewpoint), basically set everything in motion or is keeping everything in motion, allowed (1) Gays to come out--despite the supposed teaching of him that say he abhors them.(2) As such, I cannot see how christians, or any other radical religious zealots, can have such hatred for them.


1 God allows alot of things to happen, otherwise there wouldn't be any sin at all. Man has free will, and as such can choose to do evil.

2 I think you made one error in the above statement. God hates the sin. I don't believe God so much hates the person. I don't believe God hates anyone, but I do believe He will punish those who continue to live in sin without looking to Him for salvation.
To give an example to illustrate my point...
I don't like the sport hockey. Does that mean I don't like everyone who plays hockey? No. A lot of my friends play hockey.
In the same way, I believe you can say:
God doesn't like Homosexuality. Does that mean 'God hates fags'? No. Not at all. But I don't think He's very impressed with their actions, and that (I believe) does come with it's consequences whether now or in the afterlife. Whether you believe it or not doesn't affect the truth of it.
Therefore, I don't think any 'true' Christians hate those that live an alternative lifestyle, they should hate the action, not the person.
Hating the person has 0 ZERO Biblical foundation.

So then what should a Christian do?
I believe the best / if not only thing they could do is to spread the Word. Explain to people (whether gay or straight) who God is, what He did for them, and how they should live in honor of Him. The results of teaching people about God, who subsequently accept this teaching, and by the working of the Spirit decide to put their hope and trust in Him, is that they should become aware of their sins and if their faith is true, will try to amend their life to show their faith in Him. That is the only possible cure for homosexuality.
Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search