Gay Role Models

[Mr.Bill]

Alright...if you're going to keep going back to that point, what is your response to all the evidence for nature that I cited?

 

[Mr.Bill]

GP- I don't want to erupt another gay marriage debate right now, so lets stay on topic.

You really can't think of anything?  Have you ever heard of hate crimes?  They still happen today, and it's because there is a potent animosity in many parts of our culture against homosexuals.  I believe you are thinking along the wrong lines.  Yes, homosexuals technically have the same rights as everyone else, but there is only so much that the law can do.  What I am predominantly talking about is the intolerance of our society towards homosexual people--something that cannot be erased through legislature.  Much like the south with African Americans.  That is why I believe that this We Are Family movement is so necessary, because it is an attempt to decrease these intolerances towards differences in other people at an impressionable age--before negative prejudices and stereotypes can settle in.  It sends a very positive message to the world; I believe we need more like it.

 

[Avesther]

How are hate crimes any worse then any other crime?  I think some crimes are oversensationalized, get more media attention then they need.  Being beat up because of your sexual orientation is not right and not one person has actually condoned it, not one.  Nobody here has condoned violence against anybody.


How is a life of a minority any different then the life of a random person subjected to a random crime?


No criminal activity should ever be condoned, nor should any criminal activity go unpunished.  A person who is beat up should receive equal justice under the criminal system whether they were beat up because because they were gay or because they happened to be in the bar when two pool players decide to duke it out.  Any special treatment because you belong to a minority is to say the random person is some how less and not entitled to the same compensation.  It is in itself legallized inequality.  As far as I am concerned, the term "hate crime" itself denotes a for of reverse discrimination of justice based on whether you are a minority or not.

Intollerance does not lead to violence in itself.  In our personal lifes, we are intollerant of all kinds of things, and guess what, we are allowed to be.  We are just not allowed to attack people or spread hate.  We can choose to not have friends who are gay.  We can choose to not have friends that are Ukranian, We can choose with whom we associate..thats is the fundamental principle of freedom of association.  There is also freedom of speech and others as well that can be brought into the fray of things...all of which are allowed with exceptions (no libel, slander or inciting hate).


Proffesional lifes are different.  As professionals (accountants, lawyers, doctors etc) we submit ourselves to a code of ethics, which may or may not allow us to discriminate to who we provide our services.  There are government laws that also protect privilages and other rights such as employement, health care or pension benefits.

And peoples freedom from harm protects them from being victims of crime.  Whether your are gay or not, black or white, asian or balkin, it doesn't matter.  You can expect to live a life free from being a victim of crime and if you are a victim, you are again afforded other rights.


Now, if you told me the government is refusing Gays access to the justice system...I'll stand beside you and fight for thier right of access.  Nor will I  not stand for people being beat up.  But having another video that singles out another group of people is completely useless.  Are we going to force everybody to watch 10,546 videos to deal with all the minorities?

Much better and wiser use of money to instill into people that others have a right to personal security and they have a right to be different and if you violate it, you get to pay the consequences.  This video they are coming out with reaks of a bigger agenda to force people to give up other unaliable rights (is that the term your US consititution uses?) in favour of their own.


I don't agree with that.


----

If some people are beating gays up, send them to jail, get them the counciling they need.  Deal with it the same way you would deal with a somebody who beat up a victim in a home invasion.  Reinforce your bill of rights in the population that all should be safe from harm and stop it with the "we need special treatment" videos.  It detracts from uniqueness of every individual by saying some people need special protection and diminishes the authority of your bill of rights which grants everybody the same rights, regardless of their differences.

----

Jesus taught to love our neighbours and to not judge them. Countries and their leaders and their people will be judged by
God based on Gods justice, not my understanding or lack of understanding of it.

I believe people have a right to live and a right to make their decisions without fear of reprimand from other people so long as those decision do not affect negatively on other people, another group of people or the general populace (and I am sure there are other iterations I've missed).


-----

 

[Gandhi]

The video isn't singling out one group, its about respecting everyone no matter their differences. And I think we need that, I've been beat up because I'm east indian, I know a guy that was killed because he was gay. If a video can show kids to respect each other I don't see whats the harm.

 

[[toj.cc]phantom]

Quote[/b] ]interesting..their own missions statement says the following:
To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own.

Hmmmm... it seems that you didn't read this thing that HICS said. The quote above is from HICS but is from the companies on mission statement. Even though it is talking about many groups but it is still supporting homosexuality.

Quote[/b] ]The video isn't singling out one group, its about respecting everyone no matter their differences. And I think we need that, I've been beat up because I'm east indian, I know a guy that was killed because he was gay. If a video can show kids to respect each other I don't see whats the harm.

Yes you are right that that it will teach kids to respect each other. But it will also show kids that it is alright ot be a homosexual which in my opinion is wrong.

 

[phasetim]

no one honestly believes homosexuality is genetic do you? simple genetics tells you other wise.... homosexuals cant reproduce, the gene would be eliminated.....

sin-- definately
mental illness--- yup...
my genes made me do it?---- well what the heck, we blame everything else on something else

if so, the genes will still be with them as they burn in hell? unfortunately..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A huge problem we have with all this tolerance talk, is eventually a bunch of radicals will take over and they wont have the attitude of "love the sinner, hate the sin" it will be more like "kill the sinner, eliminate the sin" its not a valid christian argument, but after years and years of being forced to deal with issues and swallow your beliefs, you are open to letting anything take over in order to reestablish your doctrine.... or in short, its opening up the can of worms inviting a stupid crusade that will be hidden by religion, and fueled by hatred..

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (phasetim @ Jan. 26 2005,9:48)]no one honestly believes homosexuality is genetic do you?  simple genetics tells you other wise.... homosexuals cant reproduce, the gene would be eliminated.....

sin-- definately
mental illness--- yup...
my genes made me do it?---- well what the heck, we blame everything else on something else

if so, the genes will still be with them as they burn in hell? unfortunately..

Unfortunately it is not that simple. Could one of you please explain why you disregard the ample evidence for natural homosexuality? I am confuzzled.

GP- I believe that we need to qualify the word 'tolerance' further. Am I correct in assuming that you are not against respecting homosexuals as human beings? As opposed to tolerating the practice of homosexuality. The distinction is, I think, very important, as the video in question only strives to do one.

 

[phasetim]

mr bill----- how bout homosexual scientist saying its impossible?

people want to say its natural so they can say its ok... its not ok, its a sickness, a mental illness, its wrong, theres no other way of looking at it.....

how bout this, we stop someone from using drugs, because tis illegal.. whys it illegal? because its harmful for their body right? well, teh average homosexual lifespan is shorter than that of a heterosexual.. so why cant we outlaw it?

 

[Jim]

Quote[/b] ]"The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science," by Drs. A. Dean Byrd, Shirley Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson, quotes one of the most vocal homosexual researchers Dean Hamer who noted: "Homosexuality is not purely genetic ... environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. . . . I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."

Bolds mine.

Since the researcher has said it is not purely genetic, don't you think this sort of proves Mr Bill's point? Neither he nor I have said we believe it is purely genetic, that was the point of our arguments. If anything, you have argued our point for us.

EDIT:
-Deleted-

Nevermind, the guy quoted wasn't a particularly shining source.

EDIT again: Reading further, you'll find quite a few, even those who seemingly disapprove of it (although it is hard at times to tell) are more inclined to believe the environmental aspect.

 

[Mr.Bill]

I concur with Jim, your link more verified what we have been saying than anything else.  Do not misunderstand: I do not subscribe to the belief that homosexuality is caused by natural factors alone--there are environmental factors present.  I do not believe that people are necessarily 'born gay;' rather, it would be more correct to say that people are born with 'greater tendency' to be gay than others.  The problem is that the majority of people, especially conservatives, recognize only these environmental factors, and assume that the alledged 'natural' causes are mere rubish.

So my question still stands, why is it that so many of you disregard the ample evidence that homosexuality is caused by natural causes in addition to the environmental causes?

EDIT- Also, when you are supporting your arguements with outside sources, try to steer yourself towards unbiased texts.  A "Conservative News Forum" seems an unlikely location for such information.

 

[URACorpse]

Quote[/b] ]So my question still stands, why is it that so many of you disregard the ample evidence that homosexuality is caused by natural causes in addition to the environmental causes?

I really only looked at the evidence that links were provided for. I found that the research was either old (>10years) and / or statistics and data were poorly documented. In all they were only conjecture and hypothesis, not scientifically proven fact. They were very reminiscent of papers on Darwin’s theory of evolution, which again is conjecture.

Quote[/b] ]Here it discusses Simon Levay's discovery that homosexuals have significantly larger portions of their hypothalamus than heterosexuals.

Glancing up through the URL for this reference shows that this portion of CMU’s web site is particularly biased in favor of the homosexual agenda. At the bottom of the paper it also has had several of the refs omitted. I find this strange for any “scientific” study to omit any supporting reference. I also noted that it is dated January 1991, 14 years ago. This is hardly a current “discovery”.

Quote[/b] ]Here it outlines the significance of twin studies on the issue of homosexuality.

Looking through this page I found these statements interesting:

“They put together a series of studies that almost everyone agrees established that there’s a genetic “something” in sexual orientation.”

A genetic “something”, that about sums it up I guess.

““Everyone likes to nitpick,” says Daryl Bern, a psychologist at Cornell University. “In the end it comes down to whether you believe the data or not. I believe the data. And part of that is that I trust Mike Bailey. He’s very honest about what he has and he’s very cautious in interpreting it.””

Must be talking about me. I find it interesting that part of this gentleman’s confidence in the data comes from his trust in Mike Bailey. I’m glad he is confident in this man honesty but for me the only person I choose to trust at this level is God Himself.

Again, these studies are hardly current. One is from 1991 and the other from 1993. I’m not dismissing them simply because of their age but I do find it interesting of when all these studies come from.

Quote[/b] ]This deals with childhood tendencies of homosexual men:


Quote
Childhood indicators of male homosexuality.

Whitam FL.

Questionnaires were administered to 206 male homosexuals and 78 male heterosexuals. The most important aspects of the questionnaire dealt with six "childhood indicators" of later adult homosexuality: (1) interest in dolls, (2) cross-dressing, (3) preference for company of girls rather than boys in childhood games, (4) preference for company of older women rather than older men, (5) being regarded by other boys as a sissy, (6) sexual interest in other boys rather than girls in childhood sex play. Significant differences were found between homosexuals and heterosexuals with respect to all six indicators. Moreover, it was found that the stronger one's homosexual orientation the greater was the number of childhood indicators. It is concluded that there are behavioral aspects related to one's sexual orientation which may begin to emerge early in childhood.

The last line states, “It is concluded that there are behavioral aspects related to one's sexual orientation which may begin to emerge early in childhood.”
My opinion here is that they are jumping to conclusions. In a study that is using questionnaires on a population of only “206 male homosexuals and 78 male heterosexuals”, any conclusion is at best a stretch. I also noted that this was dated in March 1977.

Quote[/b] ]people want to say its natural so they can say its ok... its not ok, its a sickness, a mental illness, its wrong, theres no other way of looking at it.....

I agree with the sentiment but not the statement. It’s not a sickness or a mental illness. It is wrong. Simply put, it is sin.

Quote[/b] ]And gen I don't think people have a choice if their gay or not.

I respect a person’s choice to believe as they will but as a Christian my measuring stick is the Bible. In both the old and new testaments homosexuality is treated as a sin, not a choice. Therefore that is my opinion and belief.

Quote[/b] ]What evidence have you seen that proves beyond doubt homosexuals are the subject of choice?

Over the years I have had two personal friends that were Christians and former homosexuals. Both told me that this was a choice for them, not a natural condition. One even told me that homosexuality is solely about self gratification. There is no love involved for one’s partner, they only look out for their own desires and fulfillment. These are his words, not mine. His insight painted a very different picture of homosexuals than what the main stream is trying to show us. Is this proof beyond doubt? Probably not, I just offer this information based on my own personal experiences. The only proof I can offer is the Bible and as far as it being proof beyond doubt is up to a person’s personal faith in God. For me though the Bible is proof enough.

As Christians we do need to love others but we do not need to tolerate sin. In fact, if we do tolerate sin, then we are in danger of sinning ourselves.

In 1Corinthians 6:9-11 it says:
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

These verses plainly state that homosexuals, along with others, will not inherit the kingdom of God. It also says that some (the Christians in Corinth) were these things but that they were washed, sanctified and justified in Christ’s name by the Spirit of God. This tells me that homosexuality, along with adultery, prostitutes, and idolatry is a sin and therefore a choice.

 

[Mr.Bill]

Whoo, that was quite a post.  I don't have time to respond to everything...but I feel that I'm repeating myself a lot anyways.  

Yes, many of these studies are old, but that does not change their results.  I must admit, though, that I did not spend a great deal of time trying to find quality links, so some of the ones I cited above may be a bit sketchy.  There are other studies out there that you may find more feasible.  If you have doubts in their accuracy however, all I ask is that you do not simply 'assume' that you are right and they are wrong: go and find out for yourself.  

Yes, all I am saying is that there is a genetic 'something' in homosexuality.  What that something is and how much leverage it has is still largely unknown.  And yes, there are homosexuals who become so predominantly under environmental factors, as with your two friends, but such cases of homosexuality are relatively unique.  'Few and far between' as they say..so be careful about generalizing on such a small base.  

EDIT- Since this is so confusing to some of you, let me reiterate in a slightly different way.  I believe that homosexuality is a choice.  BUT some people are born with greater tendency to make that choice than others, the range being broad.  I am NOT saying that homosexuals are born homosexual.

 

[Avesther]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">EDIT- Since this is so confusing to some of you, let me reiterate in a slightly different way. I believe that homosexuality is a choice. BUT some people are born with greater tendency to make that choice than others, the range being broad. I am NOT saying that homosexuals are born homosexual. [/QUOTE]

If homosexuality is a choice, whether by predisposition of genetics or enviroment or both, then do we have to tolerate it? Nevermind discrimination.

We do not tolerate all kinds of behavior that boils down to choice. For example, alcoholism is both a genetic and enviromental issue, yet we do not tolerate people who drink and drive.

We discriminate all the time. Marriage itself discriminates also based on age. Our countries have many laws that discriminate based on age or position in life. Only the poor are supposed to get welfare, only the old get pension, only the war veterans qualify for veteran benefits. Discrimination is nothing more then to make distinctions and to define eligability of beneifits and rights under law.

In our personal and professional lifes, we descriminate as well, and we are intollerant of decisions as well. I can't think of a parent that would be tolerant of a childs decision to play with matches in the house under their bed sheets. Employers discriminate against those who are unqualified for a position and they are intollerant of employees who underperform.

While homosexuality does not seem to be as dangerous as drunk driving on the surface, it is a society degrading choice. While you can say, well, you tolerate people drinking in bars and in their homes, so long as it doesn't affect me (or the public) negatively, you are right, to some degree. And you are right to say what a homosexual does behind close doors does affect me. Sexual deviations have always existed and they have not affected me, upto now.

Now, they are out asking for changes to societies moral fabric, changes that are affecting me negatively. There is no way I should tolerate that. They want to be included in the definition of marriage. Marriage is a defining pillar of hetrosexuality...they can not be married because marriage is a uniquely hetrosexual covenant.

Have a look at the opinion paper I posted. Wars of the Ring

I find her position to hit alot the points on the head. She says the things alot of people are afraid of saying.

---

Point about tollerance, what is the video striving to do? Force us to accept decision of others that directly negatively affects society? If the gay agenda was merely to ensure that they had protection and access under the law as people, then they would have stopped a long time ago. Their agenda is to gain acceptance of something they are not entitled to.


---

Mechboy, I'm sorry to hear you were the victim of a crime. I've had my head smashed into a urinal simply because I was in the bathroom when somebody was having a hissy fit. While there is nothing you can do about the colour of your skin, certainly also, there was nothing I could do about my situation. I was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. A victim of crime. But we have equal access to justice under the criminal justice system, regardless of the colour of skin.

I'm sorry to hear somebody was killed because they were homosexual, I know of people who were killed for their wallets.

Crime is crime, sometime we are victims, sometimes we know the victims. But no victim is entitled to more justice then the next based on the colour of skin, or lifestyle choices.

 

[Genesis1315]

Quote[/b] ]If a video can show kids to respect each other I don't see whats the harm.

The video is about tolerance, not respect. And, the harm lies when it is promoting something that is harmful. Would you feel the same if it was promoting tolerance towards alcoholism or drug addiction? They all rank on the same level...deviant behavior.

 

[URACorpse]

Quote[/b] ]all I ask is that you do not simply 'assume' that you are right and they are wrong: go and find out for yourself.

To respond to that I will just say that I don’t ‘assume’ that I am right. But I said in a post above that, “…as a Christian my measuring stick is the Bible.” As such I believe on faith that the Bible is right. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin therefore I believe that it is a sin. To me it is that simple.

Quote[/b] ]BUT some people are born with greater tendency to make that choice than others, the range being broad.  I am NOT saying that homosexuals are born homosexual.

That’s like saying that some are born with greater tendency to be thieves, adulterers, prostitutes, or alcoholics. I believe that any sin, to include homosexuality, is an easier choice if it is allowed or tolerated in the home. If we allow these things to be viewed as acceptable lifestyles for our children then it is more likely that they will make that choice. Would any loving father raise his daughter and allow her to think that prostitution is an acceptable lifestyle? I hope not! In the same light I believe that as loving parents we cannot raise our children to believe that homosexuality is a ‘normal’ or ‘acceptable’ lifestyle.

 

[Gandhi]

I took hescomin advice and looked up homosexuality and the church.
Here's a interesting read, by Boswell
Homosexuality and the church

beliefnet

Here's a interesting translation from the lutheran bible

Levitus 20:13
If somone were to sleep with a boy as with a woman, they have done an atrocity and should be put to death; their blood is on them.

Notice boy instead of man

 

[[toj.cc]phantom]

Quote[/b] (mechboy @ Jan. 30 2005,3:17)]I took hescomin advice and looked up homosexuality and the church.
Here's a interesting read, by Boswell
Homosexuality and the church

beliefnet

Here's a interesting translation from the lutheran bible

Levitus 20:13
If somone were to sleep with a boy as with a woman, they have done an atrocity and should be put to death; their blood is on them.

Notice boy instead of man

Notice Lutheran.

 

[Gandhi]

yes i did one of the many different translations of the bible. How do u know which translation is right.

 

[[toj.cc]phantom]

Hmmmmm, let's take a look at what a nondenominational bible says;

Quote[/b] ] 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

This is from Leviticus 18:22

 

[Mr.Bill]

You may want to also note that in Leviticus it states quite a few other things: for instance, according to Leviticus it is a sin to wear wool and linen together, to eat shellfish, and to shave.  Also note that it is apparently not a sin to own slaves, nor is it a sin to burn people (who have commited some 'abomination') alive.

I'll reply to you other peoples in a bit...I'm really busy at the moment, so I appologize.