On Homosexuality & Religion [Merged]

As a conservative revolutionary, I think all republicans, Christians, everyone should support gay marriage. Now, your precious Bible might tell you homosexuality is a sin, but so is coveting, and guess what.. living in a capitalist society you covet every friggin' day!

The point is, we have to set priorities. Determine the actions that result in the least amount of evil or alternatively the greatest amount of good.

What does gay marriage do as far as evil?

It go's against the traditional idea of marriage.
It creates a slippery-slope. (Only if you're retarded and don't put your foot down.)
It go's against The Bible's teachings. (Like alot of things don't.)

What does gay marriage do as far as good?

It helps the economy. (Marriage costs money.)
It makes people happy. (Gay people anyway.)
It encourages conservative values. (Better to be married then living together having sex, correct?)

That third reason is reason in itself to defend gay-marriage. As far as I'm concerned, as a very religious person myself.. Homosexuality is not a sin no more then being born blind is a sin. It's a fluke. A fluke that can prove to strengthen your character and teach you something if you're not an idiot about it.

Originally posted by Green Arrow
As a conservative revolutionary, I think all republicans, Christians, everyone should support gay marriage. Now, your precious Bible might tell you homosexuality is a sin, but so is coveting, and guess what.. living in a capitalist society you covet every friggin' day!

The point is, we have to set priorities. Determine the actions that result in the least amount of evil or alternatively the greatest amount of good.

What does gay marriage do as far as evil?

It go's against the traditional idea of marriage.
It creates a slippery-slope. (Only if you're retarded and don't put your foot down.)
It go's against The Bible's teachings. (Like alot of things don't.)

What does gay marriage do as far as good?

It helps the economy. (Marriage costs money.)
It makes people happy. (Gay people anyway.)
It encourages conservative values. (Better to be married then living together having sex, correct?)

That third reason is reason in itself to defend gay-marriage. As far as I'm concerned, as a very religious person myself.. Homosexuality is not a sin no more then being born blind is a sin. It's a fluke. A fluke that can prove to strengthen your character and teach you something if you're not an idiot about it.

The most interesting Conservative perspective I have yet seen on KMC 👆

Am I shocked ? Well, only that a person of your mentality gets the chance to voice his opinions on KMC...you will find that most debators on KMC are either FAR RIGHT or FARRR LEFT.....extremism is common on this website, and it's refreshing to see another person who takes a middle or integrated stance.

So far.....Conservative Democrats, Liberal Republicans, Gay Conservatives, Gay Republicans, Male Feminists, Female Patriarchs, Pro-Life women, lol what's next ?

Originally posted by Green Arrow
As a conservative revolutionary, I think all republicans, Christians, everyone should support gay marriage. Now, your precious Bible might tell you homosexuality is a sin, but so is coveting, and guess what.. living in a capitalist society you covet every friggin' day!

The point is, we have to set priorities. Determine the actions that result in the least amount of evil or alternatively the greatest amount of good.

What does gay marriage do as far as evil?

It go's against the traditional idea of marriage.
It creates a slippery-slope. (Only if you're retarded and don't put your foot down.)
It go's against The Bible's teachings. (Like alot of things don't.)

What does gay marriage do as far as good?

It helps the economy. (Marriage costs money.)
It makes people happy. (Gay people anyway.)
It encourages conservative values. (Better to be married then living together having sex, correct?)

That third reason is reason in itself to defend gay-marriage. As far as I'm concerned, as a very religious person myself.. Homosexuality is not a sin no more then being born blind is a sin. It's a fluke. A fluke that can prove to strengthen your character and teach you something if you're not an idiot about it.

Well, homos are genetic flukes.

That is only if it is genetic. There is little evidence for this. Genetics fairly obviously influence the likelihood of homosexuality, but definitely do not predetermine. There the genes for it could be quite common.

Originally posted by Nellinator
That is only if it is genetic. There is little evidence for this. Genetics fairly obviously influence the likelihood of homosexuality, but definitely do not predetermine. There the genes for it could be quite common.

Educate yourself.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Educate yourself.

It really pisses me off when people say they support equal rights, but stop short of saying that those rights should also extend to homosexual couples.

Equal rights means allowing homosexuals to be treated just lie heterosexuals-with the same acceptance and respect. Don't support homosexual marriages/unions? You don't support equal rights.

I don't even care about equal rights, equality is not a big concern of mine. But alot of good can come out of gay marriage. I also see gay marriage as an insturment for allowing more parents. Seeing as gays can't reproduce, they'd depend on adoption as thier source of building a family.

Children need homes, and if it can help the children then damnit. Let them have weddings. And what'sup with this civil unions crap? I thought it was liberals who makeup words?

Originally posted by Kasey Chambers
It really pisses me off when people say they support equal rights, but stop short of saying that those rights should also extend to homosexual couples.

Equal rights means allowing homosexuals to be treated just lie heterosexuals-with the same acceptance and respect. Don't support homosexual marriages/unions? You don't support equal rights.

Originally posted by Nellinator
You see, I am fully aware of these studies. Have you also read the actual scientific report? I have and can tell you that clear false conclusions were drawn. These studies actually support what I said. Identical twins being gay is 52%. Therefore, it is not predetermined. Its pretty clear that there is predisposition but is not entirely based on genetics. Hormonal patterns during pregnancy also can predispose a person to homosexuality.

The fact that if one sibling is homosexual, the likelihood of an identical twin also being homosexual is 52% does not seem very compelling, unless one also considers the likelihood of this occuring as expected by chance is 4%.

Moreover, if sexual orientation does not have a biological substrate, then how do you explain the fact that homosexuals are biologically different from heterosexuals, i.e. the brain structure, inner-ear, and fingerprints of homosexuals are different than those of heterosexuals, and that homosexuals are genetically different from heterosexuals, i.e. homosexuals share a genetic marker and stretches of DNA that are not shared by heterosexuals?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Read A Real Scientific Report
Hopefully that works. But you may need a password. Anyways, it clearly thats that in a study of 106 gay males undergoing sexual reorientation therapy 19% became exclusively heterosexual. About half of bisexuals became completely heterosexual. That means 27% of the men in the study came out heterosexual. Plus add more from the 33% who would not disclose sexual orientation. Of course 78% of these men had expressed desire to change, but 6 of the new heterosexuals had reported a pretreatment desire not to change.
I can go on longer about sexual reorientation, but hopefully that is enough to show you that your sources ignore other studies based purely on blind bias.

According to over 35 years of extensive research by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the American Psychological Association there is currently no scientific evidence that sexual orientation is learned or can be changed.

Furthermore, there is not even a single instance of successful sexual reorientation published in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

I did explain everything you just asked. Genetic and biological predisposition. It is not concrete as the 52% indicates. Take away some of that do to similar environments and the number is lower. Many heterosexuals are similar to homosexuals in all those regards. Linked genes probably have something to do with all the differences and so on, but once again, homosexuality is not concrete at birth. That is all I am arguing.

Just like people can be genetically prone to be aggressive or violent it can be conditioned. Your claim that no peer reviewed account of reorientation has taken place is false because the article I posted is peer reviewed.
Efforts to Modify Sexual Orientation: A Review of Outcome Literature and Ethical Issues
Throckmorton, Warren, Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 10402861, Oct98, Vol. 20, Issue 4

Originally posted by Nellinator
I did explain everything you just asked. Genetic and biological predisposition. It is not concrete as the 52% indicates. Take away some of that do to similar environments and the number is lower. Many heterosexuals are similar to homosexuals in all those regards. Linked genes probably have something to do with all the differences and so on, but once again, homosexuality is not concrete at birth. That is all I am arguing.

Just like people can be genetically prone to be aggressive or violent it can be conditioned.

You have not explained anything. You are simply speculating.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Your claim that no peer reviewed account of reorientation has taken place is false because the article I posted is peer reviewed.
Efforts to Modify Sexual Orientation: A Review of Outcome Literature and Ethical Issues
Throckmorton, Warren, Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 10402861, Oct98, Vol. 20, Issue 4

The Journal of Mental Health Counseling is not peer-reviewed, nor is it a scientific journal.

"Efforts to Modify Sexual Orientation: A Review of Outcome Literature and Ethical Issues," is an editorial.

In fact, aside from producing a series of "educational" CDs and videos, e.g. "Truth Comes Out," "I Do Exist," and "Change Is Possible," editorials are the only thing Warren Throckmorton has had published.

A little research, and it is easy to understand why: Warren Throckmorton is a licensed therapist, and is not qualified to diagnose mental illness. Moreover, he is an associate professor at Christian liberal arts college, Grove City College, and a member of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

Sorry, try again. 🙄

I am speculating. But that is the conclusion that I have drawn based on evidence. Homosexuality is genetically influenced but not genetically concrete. If it was concrete the concordance in identical twins would be much closer to 100%. I have explained why I believe what I believe and that is all you really asked for so I did explain.

Yes, but it is important to note that everything I said was actually from the work Charles Socarides (an atheist I might add). A very respected and influential psychiatrist. Another respectable person who showed that homosexuality can be changed is Spitzer, the same man who was most influential in having homosexuality taken off the list of mental disorders. Reparative therapy is admittedly lacking in empirical evidence, but the number of reports showing that it can be done is fairly large. Also, repartive therapy is hard to get accepted by most psychologists as psychology is dominated by left wing gay rights supporters.

All that said, I believe that the strongest testimony of reparitive therapy is that of 'ex-gays'.

Originally posted by Nellinator
All that said, I believe that the strongest testimony of reparitive therapy is that of 'ex-gays'.

Like Mark Foley or Ted Haggard?

well since gay has to do with religion, and religion talks about the soul and spirit, what about the idea that a female spirit is stuck in a male's body (succubus or incubus)? Every culture talks about these spirits that has sex with people while they are asleep, but, what happens if it gets stuck, or comes into an infant and is stuck? I'm not trying to take us back into the dark ages, it's just food for thought.

and our dna is constantly being rewritten, right? it's being written as we breathe and live.

and someone mentioned something about what a woman goes through during pregnancy, well, remember that issue about how a woman maybe able to effect the race of her child during pregnancy if she already has the code for it?

maybe there is a lot more going on between the child's mind or brain (via chemicals passed from mother to fetus), that we still don't understand...?

I'm pretty sure you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with regard to genetics and endocrinology.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm pretty sure you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with regard to genetics and endocrinology.

are you talking about me? a lot of what is talked about in genetics is based on theory. and from what I understand about science, some of it is true, but some theories are really politically biased, so, if homosexuality is wrong, they try to prove how it's wrong or bad, if homosexuality is mainstream, they try to prove how it's good or ok. Just read about the ones who break through the theories, these scientist are heckled at best. if you know more about genetics, as I wouldn't see why you wouldn't know more about it, explain what you know, I know how to research a matter, I'll do my homework and we can compare notes.

Originally posted by Oncewhite
are you talking about me? a lot of what is talked about in genetics is based on theory. and from what I understand about science, some of it is true, but some theories are really politically biased, so, if homosexuality is wrong, they try to prove how it's wrong or bad, if homosexuality is mainstream, they try to prove how it's good or ok. Just read about the ones who break through the theories, these scientist are heckled at best. if you know more about genetics, as I wouldn't see why you wouldn't know more about it, explain what you know, I know how to research a matter, I'll do my homework and we can compare notes.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm not particularly interested in the genetics and prenatal endocrinology, but I'm quite certain there've been no studies into women affecting the race of their children via hormones. And science doesn't intend to prove social stances "right" or "wrong", science simply proves what is and what is not, based on available evidence.

Then I don't error in stating that you don't know the scientific community, they have their prejudices and theories and these theories are sometimes skewed based on their society.

How can you be CERTAIN that the mother doesn't effect the race of the infant via chemicals IF she has the code in her genes already? The old wives tale, remember? If a pregnant woman thinks hard about a man, her baby ends up looking like him, they warn pregnant women about this all the time. Science is lazy when it comes to the mind, imo, they don't want to acknowledge it's power, and esp. the power a mother has on an infant.