Christians need to stop attacking gays!!

Shannon Alexander

Shannon Alexander

Well-Known Member
Kaendar said:
No. Thats stupid. Its the same thing as using drugs or having non marital sex. You say im sorry for falling weak to temptation of _____ watever it is. Once again, this is IF you believe in that.
Click to expand...
Non marital sex is not on the list of sexual immoralities... soooo...
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Kaendar said:
And here is a girl that words it so nicely,,

A similar question was asked before but the poster also included a link to a document which stated scientists have never been able to find a "gay gene". Back in the 90s some scientists claimed they'd found it but were later humiliated for being unable to substantiate their claim with infallible scientific data.

I believe gay people aren't born gay and straight people aren't born straight. Something that to date can only be guessed at causes this trigger. I think different factors make different people gay. No scientist worth his salt will lay claim to knowing precisely what causes homosexuality. They will speculate and put forward theories, qualifying statements with "we think", "we assume", "found some evidence" etc. But unfortunately scientific fact is elusive. I personally wouldn't presume to know what makes a gay person gay. But I guess it would be a pretty difficult life given that it's a Heterosexual World. (And perhaps some would argue it's a White Heterosexual Man's World!).

I work with intersexed females. We know precisely what causes their specific birth defects. In spite of that, many of them feel guilty or ashamed of their condition. It's really quite sad.

I've managed to find this info from American Psychological Association. Hope it's useful to you.

'Gay' gene claim suddenly vanishes
American Psychological Association revises statement on homosexuality

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no "gay" gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.

A. Dean Byrd, the past president of NARTH, confirmed that the statement from the American Psychological Association came in a brochure that updates what the APA has advocated for years.

Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

However, in the update: a brochure now called, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," the APA's position changed.

The new statement says:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. ..."

Conclusion: It's not genetic, but so what? People will do what they want to do whether you like it or not. No one yet truly knows why it happens but it is definitely more than just simple 'choice'.
Click to expand...
I thought the APA had "no credibility man"?

What happened with that?

Kaendar said:
The APA has no credibility man, they can be bought out.
Click to expand...
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I thought the APA had "no credibility man"?

What happened with that?
Click to expand...
the APA is science, so he does not believe in it when it comes to this issue. science is known to correct itself when wrong or premature, ideologue bigots like kaendar are known for the opposite, to fall back on religion to justify their views.

thus, when the APA says homosexuality is not a mental disorder and stands by it for decades, he says they have no credibility.

but when the APA finds out that a study they trusted had questionable methodology or flawed findings, he marches it out as a trump card.

this is confirmation bias in action.

fuck off, kaendar.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
kaendar ignores that his own copy and paste contradicts him (and is also misleading).

the APA's statement says genetics are a factor, yet the publisher of the article says "so it's not genetics". this is obviously misleading and biased. it does go on to say that it is more than just choice, as kaendar claims.


  • "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. ..."

    Conclusion: It's not genetic, but so what? People will do what they want to do whether you like it or not. No one yet truly knows why it happens but it is definitely more than just simple 'choice'.



    ​




 
Kaendar

Kaendar

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I thought the APA had "no credibility man"?

What happened with that?
Click to expand...
Because when they changed the original decision in 73, alot of insiders were saying they were very "influenced" into doing that. Basically they got bullied into making that decision.
 
Shannon Alexander

Shannon Alexander

Well-Known Member
As I'm certain you didn't take my previous advice of reading the writings of Solomon when it comes to animals and souls I doubt that providing you with a further biblical reference will do absolutely any good... But in the hope that you further educate yourself in the writings in the bible of which you keep speaking, I ask you to read Leviticus... I'm not going to provide you with the actual verse number as I believe you should get a deeper more intimate understanding of more than just one point... but for this discussion on sexual immorality I say Leviticus...

I find it hard to take people seriously when they bring up the bible as a point of reference without having actually read the bible...

In Leviticus you will find the list of Sexual Immoralities as held by the Jewish people... As a warning for you so your brain doesn't shatter completely it does not mention pre marital sex at all...

I spent a month reading the bible just researching this very point...
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Kaendar said:
Because when they changed the original decision in 73, alot of insiders were saying they were very "influenced" into doing that. Basically they got bullied into making that decision.
Click to expand...
or they just started basing their classifications off more valid studies and better science.

tell ya what, kaendar. you start copying and pasting evidence to support your theory, and for every one you post, i'll post 3 studies that show that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

deal?
 
Kaendar

Kaendar

Well-Known Member
Why is thread going into this? Totally de railed by the same ppl as usual. RIU is like the family that can never have fun together because the few select cousins always get drunk and fuck up something. A thread in SSP never stays on topic.
 
Kaendar

Kaendar

Well-Known Member
Shannon Alexander said:
As I'm certain you didn't take my previous advice of reading the writings of Solomon when it comes to animals and souls I doubt that providing you with a further biblical reference will do absolutely no good... But in the hope that you further educate yourself in the writings in the bible of which you keep speaking, I ask you to read Leviticus... I'm not going to provide you with the actual verse number as I believe you should get a deeper more intimate understanding of more than just one point... but for this discussion on sexual immorality I say Leviticus...

I find it hard to take people seriously when they bring up the bible as a point of reference without having actually read the bible...

In Leviticus you will find the list of Sexual Immoralities as held by the Jewish people... As a warning for you so your brain doesn't shatter completely it does not mention pre marital sex at all...

I spent a month reading the bible just researching this very point...
Click to expand...
I have read the bible, many times. I also have quite a study guides and picture reference books for it. As a teenager in church I never listened to what the pastor said, I always entertained myself by reading the bible. So reading the bible 2 hours every sunday and 1 hour every wednesday, I got thru it a few times. Also, im glad you mention Leviticus because it is the second most interesting book after Revelations. I know all about what your saying, but any pre marital sex is still considered fornication.
 
Chief Walkin Eagle

Chief Walkin Eagle

Well-Known Member
How to start an argument on the internet... 1) Post your opinion... 2) wait... Not that Im supporting you. Your opinions on homosexuals are fucking ridiculous.
 
Shannon Alexander

Shannon Alexander

Well-Known Member
Kaendar said:
I have read the bible, many times. I also have quite a study guides and picture reference books for it. As a teenager in church I never listened to what the pastor said, I always entertained myself by reading the bible. So reading the bible 2 hours every sunday and 1 hour every wednesday, I got thru it a few times. Also, im glad you mention Leviticus because it is the second most interesting book after Revelations. I know all about what your saying, but any pre marital sex is still considered fornication.
Click to expand...
I've had conversations with Theologists that disagree with you... but hey... not all of them see it the same way... and I can only express my own views based on my understanding...

And Revelations is a horrid book to read... one of my least favourite parts of the bible after all that begatting that goes on early...
 
Shannon Alexander

Shannon Alexander

Well-Known Member
Kaendar has inspired me to knock the dust off of my Bible...

Because as far as my understand goes in the bible Fornication is in reference to unlawful sexual acts... that being the law as stated in Leviticus... which does not mention pre marital sex...


I may be wrong... But I'm going to do a real proper write up and post it on July the 25th...
 
Barrelhse

Barrelhse

Well-Known Member
Those people aren't really christians. They're a group of ignorant people who band together and find things to hate. It's all based on stupidity and insecurity- fuck 'em all.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
PetFlora said:
If Jesus was gay, would they still love him?
Click to expand...

It is pretty easy to see that he probably was a libertine of all sorts and some of the stories that were censored, concerned certain men he would spend the night with.

Remember, his main teachings started with, "You have heard that..., but now, I tell you this." He was against the church and was attempting to surplant the message of Fear, with Love. But, the best he got was an overlay, the New Test. If the old Test. had not been brought forward, the cult would have died. Peter made a name for himself by having the Roman women hang out with him, non-sexually, but to deny their husbands. Peter was a radical gay, using his warpped view of the Cult of Christ to mess with Rome. He suffered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top