Join Now! Forgot My Password
tmeet - Forum - Homosexuality
Discussion Forum Index / Religion and Politics Forums / Homosexuality
Pages: - [ 1 2 ] - Next Page
   
Whisky
32 / Male

Posts:129
Rank: Addict
Posted: May 04 2006 at 06:14 PM

  With the current forum classifications, this belongs in the Sex&Relationship forum, but ironicly, it lacks intellects.

I would reccomend this forum be named Science,Politics,and Religion.
Because clearly nobody from the Sex forums are going to read pages of information, they are too busy masturbating.

So here is an interesting ariticle I pulled off the web, along with my expansion on the subject.

"According to the American Psychiatric Association, there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.

“Wonderful Husband. Loving Father. Former Homosexual. Jesus Christ Changes Lives.”

So read the billboards sponsored by Stephen Bennett, the head of a Christian family advocacy group based in Huntingdon, Connecticut. The ad, part of a nationwide campaign last year opposed to same-sex marriage, features a large photo of Bennett with his lovely wife and two children.

Some advertising companies refused to accept Bennett’s ads because of their “controversial content.” Wherever the ads were posted, gay rights activists rose up in anger to protest the very idea that homosexuals can change, or even should want to.

But Bennett is one of thousands of practicing homosexuals who has reversed his sexual orientation and found fulfillment in heterosexual marriage. His message is simple: unhappy gays do have hope because real change is possible.

Why do the radical gay activists resent Bennett’s message so much? Because it clearly refutes the urban myth they have so carefully crafted: the lie that about 10 percent of the population is “born gay” and simply can’t help it. Many today are being taught to believe that homosexuality is a genetic condition, like skin or eye color. This deception has been nurtured over the years by the pro-homosexual major media. But like other urban myths, this is a lie.

Supporters of this “born gay” thesis frequently refer to a series of scientific studies in the 1990s, particularly one by a homosexual activist researcher named Dr. Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute, a study that supposedly identified an “X chromosome” possibly linked to homosexuality. Published in the journal Science back in July of 1993, that report said merely that researchers were studying the linkage between certain genes and homosexual behavior.

National Public Radio quickly trumpeted the news, followed by the Wall Street Journal and other major newspapers. Next Newsweek emblazoned “Gay Gene?” across its cover. The average layperson reading these reports clearly got the message that science had discovered a gene that causes or determines homosexual behavior. But that is not what the research actually revealed, as even Dr. Hamer himself admitted. Establishing a possible linkage does not prove causality, as all real scientists know.

In their Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation (published in 2000), the American Psychiatric Association contradicts the “born gay” claim. “There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality,” the APA said. So much for the pseudo-science of the New Gay ‘90s.

We should remember that until 1973, the APA classified homosexuality as a deviant mental disorder. But 1973 was not a good year for morals and values in America, being the year that abortion was legalized and the APA revised its DSSM manual.

Then, in ironic twist of fate, Dr. Robert Spitzer, the very same doctor who got the APA to change its stance on homosexuality in 1973, came back in 2003 and changed his own mind. Why did this formerly zealous pro-homosexual reformer have a change of heart? Because -- although he described himself as “initially skeptical” -- he personally interviewed more than 200 former homosexuals who had changed to heterosexual through what he called “reparative therapy!”

To his credit, Dr. Spitzer dared to tell the truth about his findings, despite the rabid rantings of the radical gay activists who foresaw the dire implications of this revelation. Dr. Spitzer’s report, entitled “200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation,” was published in the October 2003 edition of the prominent journal Archives of Sexual Behaviour.

“Almost all of the participants reported substantive changes to the core aspects of sexual orientation, not merely overt behaviour,” Dr. Spitzer wrote. In other words, they didn’t just change their homosexual actions, but their unnatural attractions as well!

What’s more, they were better off mentally for doing so. “For the participants in our study, there was no evidence of harm,” he added. Dr. Spitzer described these 200 conversion decisions as a “rational, self-directed goal” that was achieved. Not a single one committed suicide through guilt-induced self-loathing.

“Mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has as its goal a change in sexual orientation,” Dr. Spitzer concluded. “Many patients can make a rational choice toward developing their heterosexual potential and minimizing their homosexual attractions.”

Coming from the man who was responsible for redefining homosexual deviancy as “normal” more than three decades ago, that’s quite a turnaround.

Conservatives need to stand up and hold homosexuals accountable to the facts. They will have to acknowledge that their lifestyles are personal choices, before anyone else should be expected to grant them the legitimacy they seek.

The Gay Gene doesn’t exist. Whether it’s through “reparative therapy” or through a higher power, the fact remains: homosexuals CAN change . . . if they want to."

- Does a “Gay Gene” Really Exist?
by Nathan Tabor
28 February 2005
Source: www.intellectualconservative.com

Furthermore, a vast majority of gays have been sexually abused as a child, harshly impacting the natural mental projection of sexuality. Rather than seeking therapy,opening wounds,to heal their sexual abuse, many find it easier to normalize and render their abuse as natural sexual activity.With misinterpitations by popular science medias,and a modern quite gay hollywood,more and more straights are jumping into the closet than gays coming out. The combination of sexual abuse, media normalization has deeply impacted the sexual lives of our children, and the future of civilization.

U.S. scientists during the 90's actually found "a cure" to homosexuality. The study was conducted by scientists that were studying correlations between chemical-imbalances in the brain, and the sharp rise of modern metal diseases such as ADD&ADHD. Unlike some patients with ADD&ADHD, overwhelmingly gays don't recongnize themselves with a disease -which shares a common theme with schzophrenic patients(another chemical imblance).

Astonished,the U.S. scientists went public with their findings, only to be highly critized and subsequently silenced by Gays& Lesbians rights groups and activists. They deemed the research as discrimination, and as far as I know that branch of the project was shut down shortly after a court decision favored the Gays&Lesbians groups.

Humans are the only species that tollerate homosexuality. Chimpanzees(which are a 99 percent genetic match to humans),are concidered to be the closest mamal to humans.Although homosexuality is very rare amongst chimps, when one member is found to have homosexual tendancies, the rest of the pack murder that chimp. Zoologist have concluded the reason for this is "basic instinct" not social discrimination.

Homosexuality in any speices occurs not from gentic impurities as previously thought, but rather is a social anomoly in nature(although it's quite complex in humans it shares the same fundamentals), that threatens the continuation of the species.

Nature has always known best, and natures simplistic social models, are no different from our own but with more intrication. With the evidence on the forefront I presented, I would call any disagreement ignorant.
 
   
Vitali
30 / Male

Posts:317
Rank: Administrator
Posted: May 04 2006 at 10:36 PM

  cross-posting, eh?
 
   
Tinkerb1tch
30 / Female

Posts:1601
Rank: Moderator
Posted: May 05 2006 at 09:10 AM

 
  Quote: Whisky
  With the current forum classifications, this belongs in the Sex&Relationship forum, but ironicly, it lacks intellects.

I would reccomend this forum be named Science,Politics,and Religion.
Because clearly nobody from the Sex forums are going to read pages of information, they are too busy masturbating.


Bite your tongue. Just because I post in the SLR forum doesn't mean I'm an idiot... next time watch your generalizations because you would be surprised by some of the people in there!

As for your comment about no one from those other forums reading pages of information... I do it everyday when I'm in school I'm an English major so again watch what you say because your assuming and I hate when people assume!


Thank you and have a nice day! XoXoXo *Tinkerb1tch*
 
   
Tinkerb1tch
30 / Female

Posts:1601
Rank: Moderator
Posted: May 05 2006 at 09:20 AM

  Now about the article...
Homosexuality (in my opinion) based on what I know about reproduction. When a given sex is born with the mentality of the other ... for example when little boys are homosexual it simply means he was meant to be a little girl before reproduction changed its mine and vice versa.

I think the author of this article is a homophobic because his writing seems VERY biased and he writing is harsh.

What the hell is he doing trying to talk about natural and unnatural attractions? I think anyone whos willing to venture there is headed for trouble... No one can define what normal is there are too many versions of "normal" for there to even be a norm.

I don't think its a very good idea to start talking about what kind of relationships are normal because there are all kinds of other questions what can be thrown at whoever tries to define a "normal" couple being a heterosexual one!!

Last edited by Tinkerb1tch on May 05, 2006 a 9:23 AM
 
   
Whisky
32 / Male

Posts:129
Rank: Addict
Posted: May 07 2006 at 11:47 PM

 
  Quote: Tinkerb1tch
 
  Quote: Whisky
  With the current forum classifications, this belongs in the Sex&Relationship forum, but ironicly, it lacks intellects.

I would reccomend this forum be named Science,Politics,and Religion.
Because clearly nobody from the Sex forums are going to read pages of information, they are too busy masturbating.


Bite your tongue. Just because I post in the SLR forum doesn't mean I'm an idiot... next time watch your generalizations because you would be surprised by some of the people in there!

As for your comment about no one from those other forums reading pages of information... I do it everyday when I'm in school I'm an English major so again watch what you say because your assuming and I hate when people assume!


Thank you and have a nice day! XoXoXo *Tinkerb1tch*

You are studying to become an english major. You aren't an english major. You have no degrees but thanks for coming out.
 
   
Jan_na
28 / Female

Posts:1065
Rank: SuperGod
Posted: May 07 2006 at 11:51 PM

  See once again, you simply prove that you are excellent at being an asshole. Bravo! Try attacking the issue next time instead of the person.
 
   
Whisky
32 / Male

Posts:129
Rank: Addict
Posted: May 07 2006 at 11:55 PM

 
  Quote: Tinkerb1tch
  Now about the article...
Homosexuality (in my opinion) based on what I know about reproduction. When a given sex is born with the mentality of the other ... for example when little boys are homosexual it simply means he was meant to be a little girl before reproduction changed its mine and vice versa.

I think the author of this article is a homophobic because his writing seems VERY biased and he writing is harsh.

What the hell is he doing trying to talk about natural and unnatural attractions? I think anyone whos willing to venture there is headed for trouble... No one can define what normal is there are too many versions of "normal" for there to even be a norm.

I don't think its a very good idea to start talking about what kind of relationships are normal because there are all kinds of other questions what can be thrown at whoever tries to define a "normal" couple being a heterosexual one!!<br><br><font size = "-4">Last edited by Tinkerb1tch on May 05, 2006 a 9:23 AM</font>
The article discribes a GAY SCIENTIST that disproved genetics determine sexuality- hardly homophobic. You are just another victum of homosexual propaganda. I'd pray for you but I'm not a spirtual person either.
 
   
Whisky
32 / Male

Posts:129
Rank: Addict
Posted: May 07 2006 at 11:58 PM

 
  Quote: Jan_na
  See once again, you simply prove that you are excellent at being an asshole. Bravo! Try attacking the issue next time instead of the person.
I can't believe you called Tinkerbell an asshole.
 
   
Jan_na
28 / Female

Posts:1065
Rank: SuperGod
Posted: May 07 2006 at 11:59 PM

  sweety. i was talking about you
 
   
Jan_na
28 / Female

Posts:1065
Rank: SuperGod
Posted: May 08 2006 at 12:01 AM

  It seems every time you reply to something, you attack the person instead of the issue at hand. You do make valid points, I shall not argue there, but in the process you completely belittle the opposition, that's hardly a fair debate.
 
   
Whisky
32 / Male

Posts:129
Rank: Addict
Posted: May 08 2006 at 12:01 AM

 
  Quote: Jan_na
  sweety. i was talking about you
She called me Sweety.
 
   
Jan_na
28 / Female

Posts:1065
Rank: SuperGod
Posted: May 08 2006 at 12:02 AM

  and her name is Tinkerb1tch, not Tinkerbell
 
   
Whisky
32 / Male

Posts:129
Rank: Addict
Posted: May 08 2006 at 12:18 AM

 
  Quote: Jan_na
  Ahh, so it is your complete ignorance that causes you to be a bigot and an ass. Oh, that is completely understandable. In fact, I suspect I shall have to start feeling sorry for you...it is your lack of logic which causes you to attack the person. That's alright; we can all just ignore your idiocy.
Tell me friend...since when did 'Jan the Wise' abandon reason for maddness?!
 
   
Jan_na
28 / Female

Posts:1065
Rank: SuperGod
Posted: May 08 2006 at 12:32 AM

  Oh, forgive me if I misled you! I do not see how I could have possibly given you the idea that we were friends! My mistake, I’m terribly sorry.
 
   
yums88
29 / Male

Posts:74
Rank: Senior
Posted: May 08 2006 at 12:35 AM

  words of wisdom from janna the god
 
   
natusik
29 / Female

Posts:288
Rank: God
Posted: May 09 2006 at 05:31 PM

  people where's the love .. as soon i saw the "homosexual" post .. i knew there would be conflicts .. i used to think the same way as Whisky .. then i realized gay people don't really affect me or anyone else .. it would be better to not make it such big deal in media .. seems many kids are exposed to it now .. then i realized kids are exposed to everything violence sex drugs so on .. so who cares just live life and do w/e makes you happy even if it's only for the moment
 
   
Whisky
32 / Male

Posts:129
Rank: Addict
Posted: May 10 2006 at 04:55 PM

 
  Quote: natusik
  people where's the love .. as soon i saw the "homosexual" post .. i knew there would be conflicts .. i used to think the same way as Whisky .. then i realized gay people don't really affect me or anyone else .. it would be better to not make it such big deal in media .. seems many kids are exposed to it now .. then i realized kids are exposed to everything violence sex drugs so on .. so who cares just live life and do w/e makes you happy even if it's only for the moment
Firstly, the article quoted has is not another biased opinion to bash gay culture, rather it's based all on modern advances in genetic research. My addion to this news collum may seem somewhat editorial, but that is simply a preception of the gay community to compensate for the lost sense of belonging, now deserving titles such as "Rejection by Nature".

The article above clearly states an openly gay scientist that researched these findings was on the same team from which the mentioned discoveries derived from.
 
   
TMoore
30 / Male

Posts:13
Rank: Newbie
Posted: May 11 2006 at 11:27 PM

  So far, I think all of you are falling to the typical "debate" style of this age. Attacking each other instead of the issue. Lets try to be intelligent, and our age, instead of acting like little kids. So far, my observation of this entire site is little more than the six year old in the park yelling "You are a poo head!" with the only difference being a larger vocabulary. Lets try to play nice children.

As for the issue, I have no respect for homosexuals. Now, this is not because I am homophobic, but because I have spoken to them. From talking to them, they believe that homosexuality is genetic, but heterosexuality is social. It reminds me of something funny actually. For those of you who saw the 7 min X3 trailer, it is similar to that. In the trailer, they claim to have a "Cure" for being a mutant, and Magneto, and his army, rise up against it. Similarly, I remember a few years ago, they toted having a cure for homosexuality. Similarly, homosexuals were up in arms, claiming there was no neeed for it, that all homosexuals were happy. The fact remains that there are homosexuals who believe the attraction they feel is wrong. Does that mean homosexuality is wrong? No human has the right to judge that. Which is why Religion and society come into conflict so often. But that's another matter.
 
   
Tinkerb1tch
30 / Female

Posts:1601
Rank: Moderator
Posted: May 15 2006 at 09:22 AM

 
  Quote: Whisky
 
You are studying to become an english major. You aren't an english major. You have no degrees but thanks for coming out.


I only said that because you were bitching about people not reading your stupid article... I read all the time and quite a bit so I can handle a tiny article.

Last edited by Tinkerb1tch on May 15, 2006 a 9:37 AM
 
   
Tinkerb1tch
30 / Female

Posts:1601
Rank: Moderator
Posted: May 15 2006 at 09:36 AM

 
  Quote: Whisky
 
The article discribes a GAY SCIENTIST that disproved genetics determine sexuality- hardly homophobic. You are just another victum of homosexual propaganda. I'd pray for you but I'm not a spirtual person either.


Perhaps his job was compromised by his sexuality .. or maybe he got a new bozz who was homophobic... theres so much more that may not be written in that article. I'm not quite sure what you mean by me being a "victim to homosexual propaganda" but its funny that you say that as if you know who I am or what my values are. I'm actually a very open minded person. I never said that my ideas were absolute I was simply offering an alternative. I have homosexual friends both guys and girls and everyone has a different opinion on what homosexuality is and how it works.

I'm not one for religion either but You definately need a prayer. You seem to think everyone who doesn't have the same beliefs as you is an idiot and thats not exactly an ideal quality in anyone.
 
 
Pages: - [ 1 2 ] - Next Page
Untitled Document