First let's get something out of the way -- they're not family planning clinics. They do not help you to plan a family. They are BIRTH CONTROL CLINICS. They are about AVOIDING a family, not planning one.
That said, let's move on.
Family planning clinics around the state are bracing for closures, reduced hours and fewer staff and services if a $7.5 million cut contained in the state budget signed this week is not reversed.
Ya know, if the left wants us to "stay out of people's bedrooms", why are they wanting us in there rolling condoms on the guys' dicks? If your sex life is purely your business, why do you want me to underwrite it?
Planned Parenthood provides many preventive services, including screening for breast and cervical cancers, high blood pressure, anemia and diabetes, and testing for HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted infections.
Have people get these things from regular medical facilities, not facilities that exist primarily to promote risky sexual behaviors. As Marie Tasy, executive director of New Jersey Right To Life pointed out, "There are a number of primary health care facilities that provide the same non-abortion services as Planned Parenthood, so women in New Jersey will have other places to obtain this type of health care. The state is not obligated to fund Planned Parenthood." Cause ya know, there'd be a lot less need for cervical cancer screenings and STD screenings and treatments if there was less of the causal sex that PP promotes.
The closing paragraph is the kicker:
"What are the men of this state going to do when they realize the women can't get birth control?" asked Brooks, of the Greater Northern New Jersey Planned Parenthood. "Are we supposed to tell the adults of this state, 'Just say no?' "
The horror! Men having to either keep it zipped or buy their own condoms!
It all boils down to "Men are entitled to frequent sex with women who won't get pregnant -- or who will at least scrape it out if they DO get pregnant!"
Yeah, they do it "for the women". In a pig's eye.
ADDENDUM: The discussion about "prevention" (read: "putting more money into PP's pockets") prompted me to look up this blast from the past. I'll repost it here verbatim:
HT: Imago Dei
Planned Parenthood Golden Gate issued a press release ironically titled, Guttmacher Institute Rates California Number One in Preventing Unintended Pregnancies
You'd think that to rate #1 in preventing unintended pregnancies, you'd have, well, the fewest unintended pregnancies. But California's abortion rate is #1 in the nation, not #50.
Then how did California, with its astronomical abortion rate, manage to rate #1 in "preventing unintended pregnancies"?The study, Contraception Counts, rated states on service availability, laws and policies, and public funding to determine which states make the greatest efforts at preventing unintended pregnancies.
So the AGI gives an A for effort, not for results. So, based on the AGI's standards, the states that are best at "preventing unintended pregnancy" are 1. California, 2. Alaska, 3. South Carolina, 4. Alabama, and 5. New York.
The lowest ranked states were: 51. Nebraska, 50. North Dakota, 49. Indiana, 48. Ohio, 47. Utah.
Let's look at how these states rank in abortion rates (abortions per 1,000 live births, a good measure of what proportion of pregnancies were intended versus unintended.) I use the CDC rankings because they're more recent, and also because they count abortions among residents, including those who travel out-of-state for their abortions:
California is -- #1. Alaska is #35. South Carolina #29. Alabama is #28. New York is #2. Average ranking: 19
So of the states that AGI thinks are best at preventing unintended pregnancy, none of them are even in the top ten of lowest abortion rates! And the two states with the highest abortion rates get ranked #1 and #5 at "preventing unintended pregnancy"!
Nebraska rates #42 in abortion rate, North Dakota #46, Indiana #38, Ohio #17, and Utah #49. So four of the states ranked "worst" at "preventing unintended pregnancy" were in the bottom 20 for abortion rates, three of them in the bottom 10, two of them in the bottom 5. Average ranking: 38
So, the worse the state is at "preventing unintended pregnancies," the lower the abortion rate.
Tell me that makes any sense.
To my thinking, the five states that are best at preventing unintended pregnancies are Colorado, Idaho, Utah, South Dakota, and Arizona. These are the states with the lowest abortion rates. The states worse at preventing unintended pregnancy are California, New York, Florida, DC, and Delaware, the states with the highest abortion rates.
Would somebody please explain to me the logic that rates the state with the highest abortion rate the "best at preventing unintended pregnancies"?
Clearly, the AGI's idea of "success" is some strange, new usage of the word which I'd previously been unaware of, to paraphrase Arthur Dent.
160 comments:
They are not about avoiding a family. They are about being able to decide what size family you want and when. To do otherwise is positively neanderthal.
They are not 'out there rolling on the condoms', they are making condoms available to those who want them and trying to provide knowledge for their effective use.
Honestly GG, sometimes your subjective semantics actually devalue your arguments.
Closing these clinics will cause more undesired pregnancies, which will cause more abortions.
Do you LIKE the fact that women will get more abortions after these clinics are closed?
Do you LIKE to see abortion rates go up?
"Men are entitled to frequent sex with women who won't get pregnant -- or who will at least scrape it out if they DO get pregnant!"
Waaaaaait, are you saying that the main reason that women have sex is to please men?
And I know you're against abortion in any form, but are you against contraception all of a sudden, too -- even among married couples who want to prevent pregnancy? Planned Parethood was my primary health care provider when I was single, and then when we were newlyweds -- they helped me AVOID an abortion.
Look, I understand why pro-life people are against abortion -- but I would think it would make them (at least the non-Catholic ones) even MORE in favor of contraception and sterilization.
I have covered again and again and again how the throwing contraceptives at people does not reduce unintended pregnancy because it increases risky behavior. You can read the most comprehensive analysis of how bogus contraception-as-prevention is here. The AGI's own data show that throwing contraceptives at people INCREASES the abortion rate.
Yet they push for throwing more contraceptives at people. Insanity, evil, or both?
You cannot document something like that ("throwing contraceptives increases the abortion rate"), because: 1. It's not true, and 2. If it were true, you still wouldn't be able to document it because you can't carry out properly controlled studies.
Right, and for thousands of years when no one had access to contraception, humans didn't engage in risky behavior. Uh-huuuuuuh.
The AGI study you cited in your old post found that abortion rates are often higher in staes with access to contraception -- it did not prove causality. Anecdotally, I know for a fact that in California, access to contraception is very easy -- but I also knew many women who didn't bother using it, and gee, they got pregnant. Horse, water, drink, etc. -- you can't force people to use contraception, anymore than you can force people not to use it.
But making it avaialable for the people who choose to use it (even some of us married people!) is neither insanity nor evil -- it seems to me to be good common sense.
What are the teen pregnancy rates in each of those states?
Also, I like sexual health clinics because unlike a GP who doesn't really specialise in things down under, I can walk into a clinic and get seen by professionals who know what is normal and not and deal with you in a very professional way with sensitivity required. I went for a check up on somwthing that was bothering me which wasn't really sexual but left getting what I needed and feeling confident in their opinion.
and finally, sitting in the waiting room with all the people waiting I had a sense of connectivity and realisation that just like we all eat, drink and shit - we also ALL have sex.
I would not like to go back to the way it was where only sinful people had sex and girls who were unlucky enough to get caught out by pregnancy get sent to nunneries/laundries and their children get ripped from them and given to childless married couples.
I wonder how you would like things to be if you could wave a magic wand?
Yes, people have always engaged in risky behaviors. But the RATES at which people engage in behavior depends on how risky they perceive it to be. I wrote a piece on risk compensation.
Yes, for any particular sexual encounter, contraceptive use will reduce the likelihood of pregnancy. But from a public health standpoint, ready availability of contraception creates a mindset that sexual activity does not carry a risk of pregnancy, and thus significantly increases sexual activity. The result -- more sex in riskier circumstances. As the Wall Street Journal noted, "In a survey conducted by the Guttmacher Institute of 1,800 single men and women aged 18 to 29, more than 80% of both sexes said it was important to them to avoid pregnancy right now, yet 43% of those who are sexually active said they used no contraception or used it inconsistently."
So wait, the problem is that people are engaing in sex without using contraception, even though it's available?
And you think the solution to this is to remove the availibility of contraception, thus depriving those of us who are using it responsibly? And perhaps this will compel the people who aren't using it to somehow realize it's no longer available? And this realization will make them wake up to the reality of their risky behavior?
If they're not using it, or using it inconsistently, the problem is how to get them to use it, if they are serious about avoiding pregnancy. I suspect not all of them are serious.
There are plenty of us out here for whom abstinence is not an option, who would abort if we were unlucky enough to conceive. Shouldn't contraception be readily available for people like me?
Morons think that they can have sex and avoid pregnancy. Period.
Animals are the ones who have sex without control. Period.
Thus, those who have sex thinking that no one will get pregnant and do so without restraint are morons and animals. Period.
L, I give up. If you can't get your mind wrapped around it, you'll never get your mind wrapped around it. Sigh.
RE: "You'd think that to rate #1 in preventing unintended pregnancies, you'd have, well, the fewest unintended pregnancies. "
WRONG! In order to be #1 in preventing unintended pregnancies, your rate of unintended pregnancies has to be lower than it would be if you were not taking the preventative measures you are taking. Whether or not your rate is lower than other states is entirely irrelevant.
See, this is basic intro-epidemiology stuff. This is stuff one learns in freshman-level epi/stats.
" In order to be #1 in preventing unintended pregnancies, your rate of unintended pregnancies has to be lower than it would be if you were not taking the preventative measures you are taking."
Good point. Which would mean that the state that has the MOSLT RAPIDLY FALLING abortion rate would likely be the one with the best "prevention" program, right? Got any data on that?
Which states has the highest teen pregnancies?
Christina how come you can't get into your head that repression of sex leads to even worse consequences eg catholic peadophilic priests, honour killings, nuns laundrettes etc
Also, that not everyone is at it like rabbits - there are responsible adults out there!
Yes Segamon - the over fifties that are having sex do not think they will get pregnant, men with vasectomies do not think they will get pregnant, women with the coil or infertile couples do have sex without expecting pregnancies. Gay and lesbian people can have sex without pregnancy.
Whose the moron now?
People do have sex for reasons other than procreation! That what sets us apart from animals.
Christina, no, if you were #1 at preventing unplanned pregnancies, that doesn't necessarily imply that abortion rates are dropping in your state. It implies that they are dropping more, or rising less, than they would be if your preventative measures were not in place.
As it happens, abortion rates are dropping pretty much everywhere (big trend, I don't mean small fluxuations). For two reasons: 1. Baby boomers aging out of fertility faster than their kids age into it, and 2. morning-after pills, plus the non-secret that ru486 can be used alone as a "morning after pill" up to one full month after sex. Methotrexate too.
This is why so many abortion clinics are closing, and why the new ones tend to be big complexes. Less demand means fewer providers and more concentrated.
I think less demand for abortion is GOOD news.
But if clinic closures lead to less availibility of contraception, then that's profoundly regrettable and shortsighted.
I, for one, don't want to have an abortion. And yet I am now living in a country where contraception other than condoms just isn't availible -- and the abortion rate is steady.
Lil, we have a society that pushes the idea that all sexual urges are natural and to be embraced, then you act as if it's sexual MORALITY that causes sexual sin?
We had a society that pushed the idea that all sexual urges were unnatural - and then we saw some major sexual sin - are you saying that's a better option?
I'd like to take morality out of the equation and think about sex from an emotional and physical health point of view. As long as you're not hurting someone, some animal or yourself sex is ok. The problem with using morality as a guideline is that everyone has a different idea of what's moral or not. You can expect everyone to follow what you believe - can you?
Lilliput, your last paragraph above is probably the most cogent and concise summation of this whole scenario that I have yet seen.
Lil, show me what's so healthy about the modern "sexual liberation".
GG, it's really not that long since women couldn't vote. Non-whites couldn't vote. Unless you were rich you had to doff your cap and say sir and ma'am.
Sexual liberation decreases frustration, hypocrisy and patriarchy.
It allows humans to enjoy and share the pleasures we have been endowed with beyond the 'in heat' and 'rutting' in animals.
The only unhealthy aspect is the unwarranted guilt and repression brought about by medieval mindsets caused by jealousy, self-righteousness and a desire to control other members of society.
What's so healthy about the modern "sexual liberation?"
I greatly appreciate it that I was able to have premarital sex with my husband without having to wear a scarlet letter A.
And I'm glad my friend who conceived out of wedlock was able to keep her baby instead of being forced to put it up for adoption.
Sure, there are bad stories, involving irresponsible people. But there are plenty of good ones, too.
Even if it were true that life was better when society was more repressive of sexuality, there's no way to turn the clock back and return to those times.
Outlawing abortion will NOT accomplish this for you. It will just drive abortion underground again, and next time, it may be more dangerous than it was before.
Christina, what I find particularly healthy about the current sexual liberation is that sex and sexual urges are at their core viewed as healthy and normal whereas previously they were viewed as sin and not to be allowed. On finding their kids masturbating - which is again something perfectly healthy and normal even amongst very young kids, parents would scare them by saying its a sin, something dirty that you shouldn't be doing. Now they say - its ok to do it but its something that people do in private.
I find it healthy that parents talk to their children about sex - all aspects from when they did it themselves to what to expect and how to do it safely - both emotionally and physically. Nobody spoke to my parents about sex - it was something taboo. Something everybody obviously thinks about and does but is not to be mentioned.
I find it healthy that women are now viewed as more then their vaginas and have a choice about marriage or not, education or not. Obviously women are still seen as sexual beings and of course we have boobs and bums thrust apon us in the form of scantilly clad models - but at least the women benefit directly from their bodies by earning their own money. It used to be the woman's brothers or fathers that used to benefit from the sale.
Of course I am talking here about the average healthy human being. There are cases when things go wrong but at least we view them as wrong and try to find the underlying reasons and possible interventions. Previously they were a way of life.
The only unhealthy aspect is the unwarranted guilt and repression brought about by medieval mindsets caused by jealousy, self-righteousness and a desire to control other members of society.
Do you have any data that supports this conclusion? It seems that if this were the case, then the people who were most sexually promiscuous and/or liberated would be the healthiest mentally and would feel the most satisfied with themselves.
I find it healthy that women are now viewed as more then their vaginas and have a choice about marriage or not, education or not.
Soooo... when men opened doors for women, took off their hats in their presence, stood up when women entered the room, and offered them seats on the bus, that was because women were just viewed as vaginas? Yeah, we have it so much better now.
Lilliput, the only moron here is the one who has to be reminded that the obvious does not have to be stated. I.e. it is OBVIOUS that a person who has had both testicles surgically removed (aka bilateral orchiectomy) cannot father a child under conventional "God-given" human behavior such as vaginal intercourse.
BTW, there are numerous men over 50 years of age who can father children if they procreate with women prior to menopause. Further, there have been many women who have successfully become pregnant by conventional methods who were over 50 years old. One of these mothers were Aracelia Garcia 1999 who conceived naturally at the age of 54. There is even a Wikipedia page dedicated to this very topic.
BTW, men who have had vasectomies should have the foreknowledge that there IS a failure rate to the procedure. Having a vasectomy is no guarantee (while castration IS).
The intra-uterine device (IUD), you refer to it as "the coil", has a 1% documented failure rate. This is hardly the percentage that would allow a person to have vaginal intercourse without any chance of pregnancy.
Many people who have been deemed infertile by the medical community may have the possibility of becoming pregnant without medical intervention. For example, men deemed as infertile by oligospermia (less than 2 million sperm per mL) have a 7.6% chance of conception within 2 years according to Medline.
BTW, it should have been obvious to you and any other literate individual that I was referring to VAGINAL sex. Gays/Lesbians lack the faculties to accomplish vaginal intercourse (what I was referring to when I used the word "sex"). Furthermore, it should be obvious that bisexual intercourse (in which it is possible that a sperm may come into contact with an oocyte under the conventional aka "natural" method) can also result in the conception of a new human being.
My comment stands true. Those who read my comment must use something called common sense. I doubt that you lack common sense, Lilliput. Rather, you wanted to "prove" me wrong in some way. Contrary to your opinion, my statement is FACT when applied correctly. Anyone can twist a fact to make it SOUND false using rather horrible logic (this is something that politicians do).
Hilarious!!!
Lilliput stated: "As long as you're not hurting someone, some animal or yourself sex is ok."
But this statement is contrary to Lilliput's previous statement: "I'd like to take morality out of the equation [regarding sexual activity]..."
Good stuff, Lilliput. Keep up the hilarity.
I forgot to address this point: "People do have sex for reasons other than procreation! That what sets us apart from animals."
I agree with this statement. I defer my answer to Pope John Paul II's encyclical titled Theology of the Body. http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tbind.htm
SegaMon, none so righteous as they who display the most extreme sanctimoniousness eh.
Do you know which has the lowest success rate - abstention!
Heterosexual couples don't only have vaginal sex either.
Heterosexual couples don't only have vaginal sex either.
Perhaps not, but they shouldn't have anal sex -- it's dangerous. Not only is it far more likely to spread disease (the CDC has concluded that "men having sex with men" are something like 44x more likely to have some STDs, although this isn't apparently "newsworthy"), but it can also damage the colon, anus, and rectum. Some things were only meant to be used one way, and you take your chances when you violate nature.
"....when men opened doors for women, took off their hats in their presence, stood up when women entered the room, and offered them seats on the bus..."
And were preferentially hired for jobs, and had to co-sign for their wive's loans...? Yes, the BAD old days, to which I shudder to imagine returning. Give me an equal paycheck over a hat tip, thanks.
"...the people who were most sexually promiscuous and/or liberated would be the healthiest mentally and would feel the most satisfied with themselves."
I'm not promiscuous, but I do consider myself liberated....and yes, I'm very satisfied with myself and my mental health.
If one's sexual morality is measured by the rate of sexual diseases, then lesbians must be God's chosen people. ;)
Kathy, why did I just get an "objectionable content" warning from Google when I tried to click on your blog? It looked like a typical infertility-turned-attachment-mommy blog to me -- are there swear words or some hidden messages there?
Ugh, SegaMon, I'm Catholic, and Humanae Vitae makes me puke!
What about homosexual animals Kathy? To say it is a violation of nature is biblically opinionated and inaccurate. There are physical dangers inherent in all activities.
I cherish the concept of women having equal rights in all areas - I also open doors for them, just the same as I do for men. It's called civility and there is no diminution of it just because we reject patriarchy and misogyny.
With the way that men have historically treated women, I'm surprised that 99% of women aren't lesbians!
What about homosexual animals Kathy? To say it is a violation of nature is biblically opinionated and inaccurate. There are physical dangers inherent in all activities.
I cherish the concept of women having equal rights in all areas - I also open doors for them, just the same as I do for men. It's called civility and there is no diminution of it just because we reject patriarchy and misogyny.
With the way that men have historically treated women, I'm surprised that 99% of women aren't lesbians!
Kathy, why did I just get an "objectionable content" warning from Google when I tried to click on your blog? It looked like a typical infertility-turned-attachment-mommy blog to me -- are there swear words or some hidden messages there?
Are you talking about my Blogger blog? Not sure, except that I may occasionally post graphic birth/breastfeeding pictures. I really don't do much with the Blogger blog; my main blog is on WordPress and while I do not regularly swear, there *might* be occasional swear words [sometimes I quote people, but would usually edit the words like sh*t or f***]. No hidden messages, though. :-)
What about homosexual animals Kathy? To say it is a violation of nature is biblically opinionated and inaccurate. There are physical dangers inherent in all activities.
Homosexual acts in animals are typically a sign of male domination, isn't it? And, yes, it still would be a violation of nature even though brute beasts do it. Whether homosexual men have such a high rate of disease [not just STDs but also various diseases and injuries brought about by anal sex] due more to anal sex or due to their high levels of promiscuity (which accelerates the rate at which diseases can pass from one person to another) is a matter of conjecture to me -- I don't know if it's been studied. Most likely, it's some of both.
There may be physical dangers inherent in all activities, but the rate of injury, of "danger" from normal consensual heterosexual sex (excluding weird sexual fetishes, S&M and such) is probably minuscule compared to the rate of injury or "danger" from typical consensual homosexual sex. Do you know the rate of injury to the colon, rectum, and/or anus during consensual anal sex?
L said:
And were preferentially hired for jobs, and had to co-sign for their wive's loans...? Yes, the BAD old days, to which I shudder to imagine returning. Give me an equal paycheck over a hat tip, thanks.
My original comment was in response to Lilliput's comment, "I find it healthy that women are now viewed as more then their vaginas." I was dispelling the notion that in our history women were formerly viewed as being merely their vaginas. Compare that to, for example, rap songs. Which group more views women as being merely vaginas -- the "sexually liberated" rap group, or the "patriarchal" typical man of the 1900s-1950s?
Does that mean that it was perfect? No, of course not. But it doesn't mean that women are viewed more highly now than they were then; in fact, I think the opposite is true.
No Kathy, it is not a sign of male domination. And again, it is not a violation of nature.
At what level of risk do you decide an activity is too high a risk? Most people wouldn't take the risk of racing motorcycles or mountain climbing - others do. Would you condemn them?
I love the flow of ideas and I shall add my two pence;)
1.Kathy you're correct - women are objectified today too, and I mentioned it in fact with supermodels etc that can benefit from using their bodies by making money and being able to do with it what they wish. And I agree that its not by any means perfect but its better then what it was. I'm all for men opening doors for me, standing up when I enter and taking off their hats - but I think these gentleman also believed women were less intelligent, had less rights and wanted their women safely at home fulfilling their destiny of looking after these very same gentleman - iys just not for me. I also wonder if I for eg had my virginal reputation threatened - would these gentlemen still be so polite? Finally the veneer of good manners hid a very ugly process of sending ladies who were unlucky enough to get pregnant away and steel their babies as this was punishment for having unmarried sex. Isn't it just better to realise that everyone is having sex - not only the ones that get pregnant.
2. Segamon - you got me there - I concede that not hurting others is a moral issue and therefore I contradicted myself - well spotted. It does jave a bit of a biological base in that if u hurt someone or thing + they can hurt you back - so it is advantageos not to hurt anyone.
3. I don't get the anal sex thing - why did God put orgasm hot spots in the anus if we are not supposed to use them? Why does God create homosexuals that can't betrue selves - it makes no sense to me. I don't know if you guys have any gay friends but with mine its pretty obvious they cannot have sex with a women. What are they supposed to do - to me its just the greatest torture God can give to ayone.
My mistake, Kathy -- I am in Japan, so blogger is in Japanese, and the warning was on the blog you follow, "Baby Dust," not on your own blog -- though it didn't seem particularly objectionable, either, unless people hate breastfeeding or something (actually I hated breastfeeding myself, but I don't find content related to it objectionable in the least).
You know, throughout human history, in all societies, I think there has always been (and always will be) a certain subset of men who viewed women as vaginas and uteruses and nothing more (and a small subset of women who view themselves this way). And I think the vast majority of people, both liberal and conservative alike, for various reasons, disagree with these views.
Societies where traditional gender roles are the norm can offer women protection and security -- but often at the price of freedom and legal rights. And in societies like ours, where women have freedom and rights, women have lost some of that security. I can understand why some women might want it back. But I, for one, would rather seek total freedom and equality than have what I see as a burden of societal protection -- that's just me.
Yeah, I'm Catholic, and I disagree with the stance of my church about homosexuality in general. Why would a benevolent God create people who were "intrincically disordered" and insist that the only righteous path for them is to deny their sexuality and live a life of chastity? I'm not gay myself, but if any of my children are gay, my hopes for them would be exactly the same as any parents: that they find a loving life partner.
L, you said, "Why would a benevolent God create people who were "intrincically disordered" and insist that the only righteous path for them is to deny their sexuality and live a life of chastity?"
So many things can go wrong with human beings in so many ways. We can be born missing limbs, or blind, or with extra chromosomes. We can develop diseases later in life, or be maimed in accidents. If it's possible for things to go amiss with every other part of us, why would it be impossible for things to go awry with our sexuality?
If sin accounts for all other evils, why wouldn't it account for some hapless people being stuck with abnormal sexuality, the same way some people are stuck with abnormally formed limbs, or abnormal minds that make them think they're Napoleon, or abnormal ears that can't hear?
It has been said so often by homosexuals and homosexual sympathizers that homosexuality is genetic that many people have unwittingly begun to believe that lie, but that is not supported by research.
One study (which I think is the basis of all the ballyhoo about "homosexuals are born that way," though I could be mistaken) looked at the brain structure of homosexual men and compared it to the brain structure of heterosexual men, and found that there were brain differences. Big deal. There are also differences in brain structure between London cab drivers and non cab-drivers, but it's because they use the portion of their brain that mentally stores maps of the city to help them more easily do their jobs; they're not "born cab-drivers," for goodness' sake!
If it were possible to "make" people homosexual, I would certainly make all of my children into them (since I am a "homosexual sympathizer" to the greatest degree possible). But I brought them to gay rights parades, I put them in schools with gay teachers and gay families and darn, they appear to be turning out straight! (Maybe the little guy won't disappoint me?) Certainly, life as a lesbian would help protect my daughter from predatory men! But alas, it's not so easy. They just weren't born that way. :(
And Christian, you can certainly say homosexuality is abnormal, because it varies from the statistical norm. But I reserve the label "intrinsically disordered" for people who are only aroused by children, or who can only have intercourse by raping someone, etc. I believe that there's nothing "disordered" about consensual sexual activity between adults, particularly when it involves emotional fidelity, commitment and love. Commitment and responsibility -- the world could use a little more of it.
I don't know if you guys have any gay friends but with mine its pretty obvious they cannot have sex with a women. What are they supposed to do - to me its just the greatest torture God can give to anyone.
What are men who get off on having sex with little girls or boys supposed to do with their sexual desires? What are people who get off on having sex with animals supposed to do with their desires? What about men who get off by raping and torturing and murdering women? Are pedophiles and people who commit bestiality and sex molesters born that way, condemned to live a sexually frustrated life? Or did they become that way, partly because of their own actions, and partly because of the actions of others?
Notorious murderer Ted Bundy, and I think also Jeffrey Dahmer, admitted that their exposure to pornography was a key factor in leading them to commit sexual assaults and multiple murders. It starts off innocently enough, I suppose -- just looking at some porn mag as a young child or teenager -- and for most men, it never goes much further; but for some, it becomes an addiction, and they "need" more and more explicit stuff to get the same "high" that they crave. Eventually, magazines and movies don't "do it for them" any more, so they turn to actions. This is how pedophiles are created -- not by God, not born that way, but by their own actions and their own thought patterns.
Homosexuals are not "born that way," although many homosexuals and ex-homosexuals report that they long had an attraction to people of the same sex, even back to childhood. Sometimes there is an event or a series of events (such as, having a distant or absent father, along with an overbearing mother; or some form of child sex abuse, particularly an early homosexual encounter) that these people can report as playing a big role in their sexual desires. Some researchers have noted many common factors in the childhood of homosexuals, even if the homosexuals themselves didn't believe or understand that it/they played a role in their having homosexual desires.
Finally, what is a married man to do who has adulterous desires? Is he just to throw up his hands and say, "Well, God made me this way; God made me desire the company of many women; I just can't help it"? Rather, he is to say, "I committed myself to one woman, and I will put all thoughts of adultery and of other women out of my mind." By following the former course, he will eventually cheat on his wife; by following the latter course, he will defeat the sinful thoughts and remain true to his wife and keep their marriage pure.
Your homosexual friends have no desire for women because they have allowed their homosexual thoughts and desires to grow strong and triumph, instead of instantly banishing such desires when they first appeared -- just like perverts who want to rape little girls or sodomize little boys, or those who get sexual pleasure from torturing women to death. Not because they're born that way, but because they allow their perverted thoughts and desires free reign until they eventually become enslaved to them.
If one's sexual morality is measured by the rate of sexual diseases, then lesbians must be God's chosen people. ;)
What is the rate of sexual diseases of lesbians as a group, compared to a group of people who were virgins when they married, and had sexual relations only with their spouse?
Isn't it just better to realise that everyone is having sex - not only the ones that get pregnant.
Realizing it and promoting it are two very different things. I recently read an article from someone who participated in the "free love" Sexual Revolution of the late 60s and early 70s. Although I don't remember much about the article, I do remember that prior to that time, doctors worried almost exclusively about "the big three" STDs -- chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis. During the "anything goes" mentality of the time, sexual diseases increased not only in rates of incidence of the known and most common STDs, but also in the types of STDs -- with previously unknown diseases becoming identified and then well-known in medical literature. With roughly 1/4 of teenagers currently having an STD, no, I don't think you can say that "it's better we admit that people are having sex." The reality is, that while some people did have premarital and extramarital sex, the numbers and incidence was low, at least partly because of the shame attached to being found out. "Everybody" was *not* having sex -- Raquel Welch even said something along those lines, as she looked over the past 50 years, with the 50th anniversary of the introduction of The Pill: 'In stark contrast, a lack of sexual inhibitions, or as some call it, "sexual freedom," has taken the caution and discernment out of choosing a sexual partner, which used to be the equivalent of choosing a life partner.'
From someone who lived through it, and is by no means a prude, she testifies that prior to the advent of birth control in the 60s, women had a lot more "caution and discernment" when choosing a sexual partner, "which used to be the equivalent of choosing a life partner."
Kathy, I don't know how you can equate paedophilia or rape with homosexuality? The former two are not about sex but about power. Homosexuality has been present in small percentages amongst human populations since the dawn of time - so yes it might seem an abberation - but its quite stable in terms of populations over time. We don't yet know why people are gay - so until we do - surely we should wait with the judgement and the sin?
Paedophiles, rapists and people with a beastiality fetish harm society, they may have been abused or harmed themselves so again we cannot judge them - just keep them away from society and give them the therapy they need to recover from their affliction.
I'm afraid that the caution and discernment women used in the 60's to choose their mate
In terms of wayward husbands - again I think god made man that way and the bible is full of men taking more wives and some concubines - and it was seen as normal. It was one rabbi who had enough of his wives fighting that decreed monogamous marriages - it certainly didn't come from God.
As for STDs - besides AIDS that only evolved in the seventies, I'm half sure that infection rates were higher then today except nobody publicised it. Popular reference to the clap, crabs and syphilous are mentioned in plays and books and as there were no treatments I imagine sufferers just went forth and infected others.
I'm wondering about the quality of caution and discernment used by women in the fifties of choosing their life partner - wasn't it exactly those women who then led the feminist revolution as married life wasn't all they needed it to be?
What about homosexual animals Kathy? To say it is a violation of nature is biblically opinionated and inaccurate.
I let myself get diverted from what should have been my main point, in my previous response to this.
The colon eliminates fecal matter that contains disease-causing materials. That is its natural and obvious function. During anal sex, the colon is almost always torn, which allows fecal matter to penetrate into the body, often bringing infectious disease. This is not natural, but is, in fact, unnatural. It is natural for the contents of the colon to be eliminated from the body; and these contents are in the colon precisely because they need to be eliminated from the body, not retained in the body, much less to be forcibly intruded into the abdomen due to a tear in the colon and the thrust of a penis or some other hard object.
Certainly, life as a lesbian would help protect my daughter from predatory men!
Would it? And would it protect her from predatory women? What is the rate of domestic violence among homosexual couples, compared to heterosexual couples?
L., may I ask you why you're Catholic and call yourself a Christian when you don't believe the Bible?
Kathy, I don't know how you can equate paedophilia or rape with homosexuality?
They are all forms of sexual perversion. Actually, since pedophilia just means being sexually attracted to children, it is not an act of sex nor of power, but is just a desire. Child sex abuse or child molestation are sexual acts, but they may or may not be due to power -- some advocates of child molestation (or so-called "man-boy love" and possibly other names) say they want to "free" children from their sexual innocence and purity (although that's not how they describe it). Homosexual sex may also be about power sometimes -- it certainly is in some situations. Pedophilia is not only about power, but about lust -- unattainable sex.
Paedophiles, rapists and people with a beastiality fetish harm society, they may have been abused or harmed themselves so again we cannot judge them - just keep them away from society and give them the therapy they need to recover from their affliction.
How do those who commit bestiality harm society? Sure, they harm animals, but animals aren't people, so don't constitute "society." On the other hand, homosexuals are far more likely to carry and transmit diseases (many homosexuals admit to hundreds of sex-partners, both of the same and of the opposite sex) than heterosexuals, making them much more likely to spread disease both sexually and non-sexually. That is a harm to society that the FDA has recognized in the form of refusing to allow blood transfusions from men who have sex with men, saying: Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors.
Kathy, I guess I do see animals as part of our society - just ones that cannot talk.
As for HIV - I gues my expwrience in africa has shown me that its not a homosexual disease. Its a very clever virus but we have been able to tame it and with time it will be erased - in time for the next one to evolve.
I think that you are too black or white on homosexuality - which u can be on paedophiles. There is always harm to a child in sex abuse. There is a possability of two homosexual men having a beneficial romantic relationship. They are not all having loads of sex - truat me - I know a few who are not. Besides, what do u want to do - outlaw sodomy like the old days. Lock and beat up homos? What's your solution?
I think god made man that way and the bible is full of men taking more wives and some concubines - and it was seen as normal. It was one rabbi who had enough of his wives fighting that decreed monogamous marriages - it certainly didn't come from God.
We've gone over this before, but I'll pretend we haven't. How do you know "it certainly didn't come from God"? If you are correct, did the same rabbi go back and alter the creation story so that God made only one wife for Adam? Oh, yeah, that's right -- you believe in Lilith despite the huge inconsistencies which much exist between the Genesis account and any creation of Lilith by God, and despite the fact that you believe in some form of theistic evolution in which man evolved from monkeys. Yet even taking Lilith into account, you still have God creating one female (at a time, anyway) for one man, not multiple females.
You may "think god made man that way," but that is merely your opinion which doesn't really carry much weight, does it? Besides, you don't really believe that god made man any way, but rather that man evolved from monkeys and is really just an animal.
As for STDs - besides AIDS that only evolved in the seventies, I'm half sure that infection rates were higher then today except nobody publicised it. Popular reference to the clap, crabs and syphilous are mentioned in plays and books and as there were no treatments I imagine sufferers just went forth and infected others.
This is partly true -- there were no treatments; although how many people they infected depends on how promiscuous they were. Without treatment, once someone was infected he was always infected, whereas now, some infections can be cured. In the 1950s, there were articles written that forecast the end of STDs, because syphilis, chlamydia and gonorrhea had such high cure rates, thanks to antibiotics.
Here's an interesting article on STDs. Although it doesn't give estimated rates of STDs in the past, it does note that when "venereal diseases" (euphemistically named after the goddess of love, Venus) were first defined, there were only three noted: syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea -- I assume that crabs were not considered a disease, since they are a parasite. And another interesting article, although with no past rates of STDs given: Shifting sexual and marital habits are two factors behind the growth in sexually transmitted disease. Americans are more likely to have sex at an earlier age than they did in years past. They also marry later in life than Americans did two to three decades ago, and their marriages are more likely to end in divorce. These factors make Americans more likely to have many sexual partners over the course of their lives, placing them at greater risk of sexually transmitted disease."
One or both articles note that there was a surge in STDs around the time of each World War (I presume from soldiers visiting infected prostitutes or foreign women and then bringing the disease home to their current or future wives), but a lull besides. Until the sexual revolution, in which The Pill enabled women (supposedly) to have sex without fear -- without fear of pregnancy in most cases, but they were exposed to all sorts of STDs that had they not been on the Pill they wouldn't have. Instead of conquering STDs, a new plague was released in the form of the Sexual Revolution. I guess a lot of people think that an orgasm is worth risking their life for?
I'm wondering about the quality of caution and discernment used by women in the fifties of choosing their life partner - wasn't it exactly those women who then led the feminist revolution as married life wasn't all they needed it to be?
Perhaps some; perhaps many of these women were just stupid and didn't realize how good they had it. Much like many women now who are staying home with their babies in the name of feminism, although their mothers threw off the yoke of being a stay-at-home mom in the name of feminism. What goes around comes around, as they say.
Have you ever noticed that some people are just intrinsically unhappy, but instead of changing themselves and making the effort to become intrinsically happy, they just try to blame it on outside forces or other factors? Most unhappy people I know of are like that -- they whine and gripe and complain, saying that if this or that were different *then* they'd be happy. Have you ever noticed that frequently "this or that" happens and they're still unhappy?
As for HIV - I gues my expwrience in africa has shown me that its not a homosexual disease.
Not solely, but the incidence outside of Africa among MSM (men having sex with men) is frighteningly high.
In Africa, the disease was spread in large part due to reusing contaminated needles to give vaccines. Isn't that ironic? -- in trying to help people by vaccinating them, they end up giving millions a death sentence, beginning with the initial victims, and then they spread it to their spouses, children, and sex partners (both male and female), plus various other people with unsafe and unhygienic practices, such as reusing needles and other nonsterile medical practices.
The spread of the disease was probably furthermore increased with many Africans' practice of "dry sex" -- they actually use drying agents in the vagina to do away with the vagina's natural lubrication, which is part of the protection in sex. With dry sex, cuts and abrasions are much more likely to happen (on both men and women), leading to high rates of infection. This doesn't even take into consideration the culture of many African nations of polygamy; not to mention some cultures which require that women have sex with a man in the town after her husband dies, in order for her to be ritually clean and able to marry again. Perhaps there are other sexual or cultural practices which increase the incidence of HIV/AIDS as well -- like female genital mutilation, for example.
Sure, HIV/AIDS can be passed between partners in heterosexual sex; but it is most easily spread through homosexual/anal sex. The presence of other STDs can increase the rate of AIDS infections as well; and MSM are much more likely to have infections than the general population, partly due to their unnatural sex acts and partly due to their tendency to be ultra-promiscuous.
I think that you are too black or white on homosexuality - which u can be on paedophiles. There is always harm to a child in sex abuse. There is a possability of two homosexual men having a beneficial romantic relationship.
From a former homosexual: The truth of homosexuality is that it is, like so many other things, a sin. And, the truth about healing from homosexuality is that, like so many other sins, it can be done.
For Christians to say that homosexuality is OK is for Christians to keep fellow brothers and sisters in bondage, suggesting a) it's OK, and b) other people trying to help them out of bondage are "hateful." For Christians to accept some kind of validity with respect to homosexuality is for those same "Christians" to turn on the Lord Jesus — whose arms are open to welcome homosexuals out of their identity, out of their habits, out of their former life, and into His liberating Grace.
L, before you wish your daughters become lesbians to avoid domestic violence, perhaps you should read this.
Kathy to be honest I think we are all a bit like that - or have periods where we are unable to move ourselves out of an uncomfortable comfort zone. In addition we all constantly project onto things and people what we cannot handle ourselves - its part of the human condition.
I think the women of the fifties were rebelling against the lack of freedom to do what they wanted to do, railing against the rigid norm of a woman's place is pregnant barefoot in the kitchen cooking for her man. Now women have realised that they can have it all - just not all at once!
"L., may I ask you why you're Catholic and call yourself a Christian when you don't believe the Bible?"
Excellent question! I am not even sure I believe in God all the time, and I certainly don't believe in a lot of the teachings of my church. I am not quite sure myself why I still go -- can it be that it's about more than gay marriage and sexuality?
I'm a cafeteria Catholic, obviously. :)
--> "Have you ever noticed that some people are just intrinsically unhappy, but instead of changing themselves and making the effort to become intrinsically happy, they just try to blame it on outside forces or other factors? Most unhappy people I know of are like that -- they whine and gripe and complain, saying that if this or that were different *then* they'd be happy."
No, don't know any gay people like that -- they're all very happy with their longterm partners. Oh, wait, you weren't talking about them, ha.
How many gay people do you actually know, Kathy?
Lesbians have very low STD rates, but like all gay people, they have higher rates of depression and mental health problems because they are living (or hiding) a way that some people find revolting, and some even seek laws against. I know some whose families disowned them.
http://books.google.com/books?id=6b1_hmDZqM4C&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=lesbians+%22rates+of+sexually+transmitted+diseases%22&source=bl&ots=YTc5BLAl71&sig=M6lXS46OFQPuGZBfNIJ4oWUqVWw&hl=en&ei=3vY4TJy1Lc6HkAWksdyvAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=lesbians%20%22rates%20of%20sexually%20transmitted%20diseases%22&f=false
I was being tongue in cheek above when I said I wanted to turn my children gay -- I don't believe it's possible.
On the other hand, I went to woman's college, and there were plenty of "LUGS" ("lesbians until graduation") so I agree that for some people, same-sex attraction is just something they try on for size as part of their sexual experimentation. All of the LUGS I knew are now married to men, while all of the people I knew who claimed that from early children, they never felt a twinge of attraction to the opposite gender, are with same-sex partners.
Gee Kathy, there have been millions of gay men that have married women and had the normal life trying to stay in the closet - sometimes on pain of death - as homosexuality was punished by death - and they still couldn't "recover".
As open as we are about gays now - its still easier to be straight - I think if they had any choice about it they would excersize it.
From early childhood, I meant -- not from early children.
You know, I understand why people who believe something is a sin don't condone it in any form, no matter what it is (gay marriage, abortion even for rape/incest victims or to save the mother's life, etc.). If people truly believe that something separates people from God, then I understand why they would be personally opposed to it, and even encourage laws against it.
Because I'm Catholic, I can't help but know lots of very kind, compassionate pro-life/anti-gay marriage people, who believe that their opinions are in the best interests of all mankind. Even though I disagree with them, I believe I understand where they're coming from.
I like living in a country with entirely secular laws, personally.
I'm a cafeteria Catholic, obviously. :)
Obviously. Some call it "Dalmatian theology" -- "the Bible is only inspired in spots [and I'm inspired to know which spots are correct]."
No, don't know any gay people like that -- they're all very happy with their longterm partners. Oh, wait, you weren't talking about them, ha.
I'm glad that all the homosexuals you know are just brimming over with peace, love, joy, and contentment, with no sadness or sorrow at all.
How many gay people do you actually know, Kathy?
One of my facebook friends is a practicing lesbian who has been in a long-term relationship with the same woman for 20 years. Prior to that, she was heterosexual, married to the father of her children for many years. Since I only know her by computer, I can't comment further.
Most of the people I know are those I know from my church and various other churches in the area. We live in a rather conservative area to start with, and I actually don't know if there are any practicing homosexuals at all in our area. There probably are, but it's not like anyone emblazons "homosexual" across their foreheads when they go into the grocery store.
No, but plenty of them wear gay pride tee-shirts. I have a friend who has one that says "homo-genius."
I knew a lot of gay people from my own church, believe it or not -- there were some two-daddy families at my kids' Catholic school, and openly gay teachers.
I grew up in a conservative Connecticut suburb, and I even knew a few gay people there -- my childhood sweetheart, in fact, is gay (and has now been with the same man for 25 years).
In fact, the gay people I know ARE "just brimming over with peace, love, joy, and contentment," maybe because they are living openly rather than hiding, and they are all in committed longterm relationships. I think stability naturally lends itself to contentment for most people.
"Dalmation theology" -- interesting! I never heard that one before. But it's more like this: I slowly decided over time to question some of the truths that I was taught since childhood never to question as absolutes. Does that mean I should have rejected EVERYTHING, and decided that because some things aren't true, everything must be false? I don't think so. But that's just me.
Kathy you are simply displaying the most base ignorance of and gross distortions of the facts of these matters.
People are born gay. The facts are in. The case is closed. Any attempts to deny this are based on denial of the truth and claims based on subjective and distorted views.
Gay conversion therapy does not work. At best it is gay denial therapy. Just ask George Rekers or the innocent who harm themselves and others through their self-denial. People such as those you quoted above are merely using the bible as a condom to protect their homosexuality.
To draw any link other than 'moral turpitude' between homosexuality and things like paedophilia is blatant scientific and biological bigotry.
The repeated claim that man is descended from apes is a typical misrepresentation made by people such as yourself. Man and apes are descended from a common ancestor and therefore display strong similarities.
Virgins who don't have sex until they make a committment to one partner are often disappointed to find that they are alone in what they brought to the relationship.
The greatest failure rate of any form of contraception is actually amongst the people who make vows of abstinence.
Lesbians have very low STD rates, but like all gay people, they have higher rates of depression and mental health problems because they are living (or hiding) a way that some people find revolting, and some even seek laws against.
Are you so sure their problems are other people's fault (in contrast to your previous comment that implied that all the homosexuals you know practically exude rainbows from their fingers because they're so happy, and don't blame others for being unhappy... because they're so happy and aren't unhappy -- at all!), or is it possible that there are other reasons for their depression and mental health problems?
For instance, the previously quoted Michael Glatze (who, btw, was a gay-rights activist up-and-coming "young gay" celebrity, working at a gay magazine, and left his "ideal relationship in terms of the gay world" [to people on the outside], and walked away from his job with the following on his computer screen: "Homosexuality is death. I choose life") said in an interview, in response to the question, "what's wrong with homosexuality?":
Well, I think I already described that. It's death. When I say it's death, what I mean is it's death to your soul. So, you know, you're always wanting a part of you that you don't have. It's like - I don't know; I've never watched horse racing, but you know they have those rabbits that lead the horse around, you're being led around by something that's basically a construct of your - a very integral, and deep-seated construct of your own psyche. And, so, basically, you're not completely whole. And, then you justify it. And, you say, "well, that's not true." And blah blah blah. And, then, the only thing that reminds you of that fact is Jesus Christ. So, that's why you see so much of the liberals and the homosexual world trying to get rid of Christians - they call them "crazy," or "evil," or whatever - because, they represent the conscience, which reminds people of the truth.... So, for me, homosexuality was very clearly death. It was spiritual and psychological death. It was not being complete.
If Michael Glatze is truly happy being an "ex-gay," or whatever he calls himself now, then more power to him. Maybe he was never really gay in the first place? Who knows what is in his heart and soul.
And I don't know any liberals or homosexuals "trying to get rid of Christians." In fact, I know many liberal, homosexual Christians.
Just because I don't happen to know any particularly unhappy gay people doesn't mean they don't exist. There are biological reasons for mental illnesses, too.
My group of friends and aquaintances is hardly a scientific sampling -- most of the gay people I know are educated, upper-middle class and urban.
Gee Kathy, there have been millions of gay men that have married women and had the normal life trying to stay in the closet - sometimes on pain of death - as homosexuality was punished by death - and they still couldn't "recover".
...all the while feeding their homosexual fantasies and urges, most likely.
The Bible makes it very clear that when a person yields to sin, he becomes a slave to sin. Although you disbelieve the New Testament even more than you disbelieve the Old Testament, you can surely see the truth to that statement. For instance, a person yields to drinking alcohol, drinks too much, and then becomes enslaved to alcohol -- perhaps for a night, as he's tipsy or drunk; perhaps for life, as he becomes an alcoholic. How many people have gotten drunk or taken drugs, and then blamed the drink or drugs for their problems? They're called "addicts" for a reason: "to devote or surrender (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively." They have devoted themselves and/or surrendered themselves to something habitually or obsessively... and then found when they tried to break free that the chains were too strong for them, and they were literally enslaved to that something. It is possible to break free from enslavement, from chains, from bonds; but it's not easy! And if a person consistently makes his bonds and chains stronger and thicker, it should come as no surprise when he has ever-increasing difficulty in breaking free from what has brought him so much misery.
When people feed their addiction, whether it's an addiction to drugs, alcohol, pornography, etc., they unsurprisingly find that their addiction grows stronger. And just as a person who is being starved becomes more desperate for food, when a person tries to break his addiction, the addiction fights back. It takes perseverance to beat an addiction; but when a person consistently starves his addiction, he eventually finds it becomes weaker and more easily defeated.
No, but plenty of them wear gay pride tee-shirts
Not in my area.
I slowly decided over time to question some of the truths that I was taught since childhood never to question as absolutes.
And by what standard did you judge?
People are born gay. The facts are in. The case is closed.
And your source for that is...?
Gay conversion therapy does not work.
It does for some.
Virgins who don't have sex until they make a committment to one partner are often disappointed to find that they are alone in what they brought to the relationship.
This statement is unclear to me; what do you mean "they are alone in what they brought to the relationship"? You mean, that virgins who marry are often disappointed that they don't have an encyclopedia of sexual knowledge to bring into marriage? I'm thrilled that I have no other man to compare to my husband, and although I didn't know sex by experience when I got married, I was an eager learner. :-)
Every respectable scientific journal not falling under the auspices of religion, or even the gay community.
No, that's gay repression therapy. An alcoholic is always an alcoholic, even if they abstain. Same for gays. The intrinsic neurological factors which make people gay cannot be 'doctored'.
What I meant was that their partner is not truly a virgin and on a surprising number of occasions, bring an STD of some form with them.
An 'eager learner', that's great. Just like going to college and only ever attending classes on one topic, lead by one teacher, and then going out into the world and claiming to have a great deal of knowledge. You wouldn't know what you are missing out on.
"And by what standard did you judge?" --->
By common sense, experience, and observation of the outcomes of the experiences of others. That's how I learn.
You mention addition above -- I agree it's a grave problem for some people, whether it's alcohol, drugs, porn, masturbation, etc. There are religions that don't permit followers to drink alcohol or caffeine, or to be alone with an adult member of the opposite gender -- the reasoning is, no path of temptation to follow, no sin. If people truly believe this is the best way for them to live, I personally have no objections, but I choose to live differently myself.
"Just like going to college and only ever attending classes on one topic, lead by one teacher, and then going out into the world and claiming to have a great deal of knowledge." ---> I would say this gives someone great knowlege of what that one teacher has to say, and some of can be applied to other situations as well.
But only Kathy is uniquely qualified to speak about her own life and experiences -- the same way only I am uniquely qualified to speak about mine, etc.
For example, a dear member of my own family objected when I married outside my race, culture and religion, and said that she felt sorry for our future children. She was only speaking from her own observations (and fortunately, my experience proved VERY different from what she imagined).
Addiction, not addition -- SPELL CHECK, you let me down everytime by failing to know what I mean! :)
I don't think its addiction that's the problem in homosexuality but aversion to sex with women.
How do you forcew yourself to do saomething you don't want to do? Now I can imagine sitting opposite a salad forcing the leaves down when I'm on a diet - but if I've had enough and spit the leaves out - I'm sure the leaves won't be too hurt - I can't say the same for a woman.
Also, Kathy we are learning more about neuroscience and how our brain work all the time. We know already that neurons that fire together wire together and beyond a certain physical age its very difficult if not nearly impossible to change - so how much free choice do people really have.
I was thinking that Christina was right when she said a whole lot of things go wrong in our bodies - and homosexuality might be one of them - but in that case God doesn't think its sinful for a deaf person not to hear or a blind person not to see so therefore how can it be sinful for a homosexual to not love having sex with women?
I think it's not considered sinful for a homosexual to not love having sex with the opposite gender -- the sin is the homosexual act itself.
And my point about addiction was just that addiction itself is problematic, including sexual addiction of any kind. If all you can think about is sex all day long, and it's interfering with your ability to function, then it doesn't matter if you are gay or straight (or love hamsters!), you sound like you need help. For most people, gay and straight, sex is part of a balanced life.
Every respectable scientific journal not falling under the auspices of religion, or even the gay community.
A link, please; not group-think.
The intrinsic neurological factors which make people gay cannot be 'doctored'.
But are they "intrinsic"? You claim they are, but we know that while the brain may be "hard-wired" in some ways, in many other ways, what we previously thought to be predetermined and unchangeable is now known not to be. We know that early life experiences shape our lives and emotions and responses -- Lilliput frequently talks about needing to kill the unborn of unwed mothers and poor people because of their higher rate of personal and social problems, crime, etc. when they grow up (although she doesn't phrase it that way; I put it in a sharper way, because that's exactly what she is advocating for, though she phrases it in softer terms). Does anyone think that these babies are born criminals, or would everyone say that it is more due to "nurture" than "nature"? We know that when children/teenagers drink alcohol or do drugs, that it affects and stunts their brain; we know that when a child is sexually abused, that s/he is different from what s/he would be had s/he not been abused; we know that children of loving parents tend to turn out better than children of abusive parents; and we know that children subjected to abuse tend to turn around and abuse others. Some girls or women are raped or sexually abused and become super-chaste, to avoid any potential of repeating the sex scenario, and others become very sexually promiscuous, perhaps as a way to try to conquer or overcome their experience.
Experiences change people -- even their brain structures, and the earlier the experience, the greater the potential for change.
An 'eager learner', that's great. Just like going to college and only ever attending classes on one topic, lead by one teacher, and then going out into the world and claiming to have a great deal of knowledge. You wouldn't know what you are missing out on.
No. It's like going to college and only ever attending classes on one topic, lead by one teacher, and then acing every test by that teacher because you know him, his teaching style, his tests, his methods, his personality, his etc., etc., etc., so well. I don't need to know how to sexually please a woman; I don't need to know how to sexually please any man but my husband; and I don't need to have a memory in my head of other lovers (who may have had different likes and dislikes) if I'm wanting to have sex with my husband and please him in bed. Far easier to deal with only one man than to deal with one man plus the ghosts of lovers past.
"And by what standard did you judge?" --->
By common sense, experience, and observation of the outcomes of the experiences of others. That's how I learn.
Yet you remain in a church that you disagree with on some very major issues, you're not even sure all the time that there is even a God, and you reject parts of the Bible while still calling yourself a Christian. Yet I should bow to your superior common sense?
You have decided that God made homosexuals that way; therefore, the Bible is wrong that homosexual acts are sin. Yet despite what Rupert and others have decreed, it has never actually been shown that people are "born gay." What has been shown is that homosexual men tend to have a certain brain structure, compared to heterosexual men, which is more similar to heterosexual women. Then it is decreed that it is the cause of homosexuality, rather than an effect; or that the differences were there at birth (which is in fact not known, only hypothesized), rather than being due to life experiences such as being sexually abused as a child, or due to the person's giving himself over to lusting after men, thus strengthening the neuropathways involved.
You have decreed that abortion is not that bad, despite the fact that God has declared that He made man in His image, and that it is murder to kill an innocent man (and his offspring... which is everybody, born or unborn).
"...observations of the outcomes of the experiences of others..." -- as if you're omniscient. Sometimes the brightest smiles hide the darkest moods.
And my point about addiction was just that addiction itself is problematic, including sexual addiction of any kind.
It is true that the addiction itself is problematic, and that when one addiction is taken away, a new addiction usually takes its place. For instance, I remember hearing about people who have gastric bypass surgery and then cannot over-eat; they tend to pick up other addictions, because their base problem -- a void they're trying to fill -- is still there. They can't fill the emptiness with food any longer, so they turn to something else. The addiction remains the same, just manifested in a different form.
Perhaps this is why the Bible says, "put off the old man, and put on the new man." It is not enough to just try to stop sinning -- that would create a vacuum; instead, one must put off one thing and put another thing on in its place.
But "addiction" is not merely a constant desire for something; it is a giving over of yourself to something, nor is it always bad. In one of Paul's letters in the Bible (if you believe this part), he commends a group of people for having "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." That's a good thing.
How do you forcew yourself to do saomething you don't want to do?
I'm not saying that a man who lusts after other men has to go screw a woman when he does not find women attractive, nor that such a man should go get married when he is still lusting after men. And I'm also not so sure that all those who call themselves homosexual find the opposite sex repulsive, but just that they prefer their own sex. And what should about bisexuals? -- they willingly have sex with members of the opposite sex, so in their case, heterosexual sex would not be forcing oneself to do something one doesn't want to do.
The answer is not so much forcing yourself to do something you don't want to do, but changing your attitude and your desires, so that you don't want to do what you shouldn't do, and so that you *do* want to do what you should do. Believe me, I don't always *want* to do the things that are entailed on me as a wife and mother; but I find that when I have such an attitude, it is because my attitude is wrong and should be changed. Speaking of changing, I can't recall a single time that I actually *wanted* to change a diaper, but I did it -- and cheerfully most of the time -- because it was my duty and the right thing to do.
One of your problems is that you believe too strongly in "can't help it"-ism. I borrow from Robert Kyosaki who wrote Rich Dad, Poor Dad: "Don't think, 'I can't afford it.' Instead think, 'How can I afford it?' The first statement shuts down your thinking and your creative ability; the second statement opens up your mind to explore the possibilities." Put another way, "Can't never could; won't never would"; and "whether you think you can, or think you can't... you're right!"
We know already that neurons that fire together wire together and beyond a certain physical age its very difficult if not nearly impossible to change - so how much free choice do people really have.
I agree with this to some extent, and this is just my point in a lot of what I've said to L & Rupert -- "neurons that fire together wire together" is probably the biggest explanation for homosexual behavior and differences in brain structure. Which is another reason to be careful of what you do, particularly in your youth. As some people's neurons "fire together and wire together" to make strong pathways to become addicted to porn, alcohol, or drugs, so other people make strong pathways to be upright and honorable citizens. "Remember now thy Creator, in the days of thy youth, before the evil days come..."
"Yet you remain in a church that you disagree with on some very major issues [YES!], you're not even sure all the time that there is even a God [TRUE!], and you reject parts of the Bible while still calling yourself a Christian [Catholic, yes]. Yet I should bow to your superior common sense?"
Wait, did I ever ask you to bow to my "superior common sense?" If you inferred that last part, in any way, I assure you it was not what I intended.
I will continue to embrace my homosexual friends as my moral equals, and contracept my babies into oblivion, and you can go right ahead and feel smug and superior and righteous. I would expect nothing less.
"Yet you remain in a church that you disagree with on some very major issues [YES!], you're not even sure all the time that there is even a God [TRUE!], and you reject parts of the Bible while still calling yourself a Christian [Catholic, yes]. Yet I should bow to your superior common sense?"
Wait, did I ever ask you to bow to my "superior common sense?" If you inferred that last part, in any way, I assure you it was not what I intended.
I will continue to embrace my homosexual friends as my moral equals, and contracept my babies into oblivion, and you can go right ahead and feel smug and superior and righteous. I would expect nothing less.
One more thought, Kathy, just for your information:
The Catholic Church considers anyone baptized a Catholic to be a Catholic, whether they willingly accepted the sacrament of baptism or not (such as the case of babies, as I was). A Catholic who is not in full communion with the Church is still considered Catholic. Even a Catholic who has been excommunicated (such as someone who obtained, procured or performed an abortion) is still considered Catholic, and is technically still supposed to go to mass.
So considering myself Catholic is not as odd as it may seem to you.
Now, if I considered myself a devout Catholic, then that would be odd, as well as intellectually dishonest. I am not devout, by any stetch of the imagination, and never claim to be.
Kathy, but that's the thing you just don't get - I bet there are thousands of teenage boys who are sitting at home wishing they were straight, denying their attractions cause believe me - its better to be straight then to be getting the shit beaten out of you cause you're a homo! And they still can't straighten themselves out! I know gay guys who denied it to themswlves and others till their late twenties - so I don't get the "if they don't give into it or don't think about it then they can conquer it story" sorry.
Wait, did I ever ask you to bow to my "superior common sense?"
In a way, you do, in trying to talk me out of my stance on homosexual behavior. Here goes: "The Bible says homosexual acts are sinful. My 'common sense' has told me tha homosexual acts are fine (as long as they're between two consenting adults), therefore the Bible is wrong on that part. Since the Bible is wrong there (based on my common sense and experience, which outweighs everything else), anybody else who believes the Bible is right on homosexuality is wrong." You see? You judge the Bible based on some pretty fallible notions, and then seek to persuade others that their stance, which is Biblically based at least in part, is also wrong. Based on your "common sense and experience."
May I ask what absolutes you were told never to question, that when you began to question, you decided were wrong?
And about the Catholic Church considering any former member a still-current member... the point is not what others think about you, but that you call yourself a Catholic and you attend a Catholic church, even though you strongly disagree with them. "Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car." I guess I'm still just trying to wrap my brain around why you keep going to a church you profoundly disagree with. What is it, "fire insurance"? a "get out of hell free" card? Habit?
"Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car" -- being born a Catholic or standing in a church doesn't make you one -- baptism does. I am not a "former member" -- I am a Catholic, I attend mass weekly, go on religious retreats, and sent my kids to Catholic school when we could afford it.
"You judge the Bible based on some pretty fallible notions, and then seek to persuade others that their stance, which is Biblically based at least in part, is also wrong." ---> The second part of your statement is false. Sharing my opinion is not the same as seeking to persuade others -- well, perhaps for you, they are one in the same, but not for me.
I was told never to question the absolutes that abortion, premarital sex, contraception and homosexuality were abominations. I accepted without question that they were. But the time I was 15, I had changed my mind on all three. Perhaps the Church is about more than those issues? Just maybe...?
As far as a "get out of hell free" card, I decided I would rather be in hell with my totally Christ-rejecting spouse than without him in heaven, so salvation is something I never think about -- I'm just trying to take my life on earth day by day, and do right while I'm here.
"I guess I'm still just trying to wrap my brain around why you keep going to a church you profoundly disagree with." ---> That makes two of us. And believe me, there are plenty of Catholics like me.
Question for you: Why would you care? I assume you're not Catholic yourself -- why would you care if someone else considered herself so? What's it to you?
Kathy, again you confuse religious and scriptural teachings and your personal interpretation with science. You then attempt to obfuscate the science by introducing disassociated factors which are not within the same neurological realm.
Whilst environmental and extrinsic factors can impact on brain structures, they do not make left-handed people right-handed, nor do they turn gay people straight.
You initially stated that gays are not born that way and that conversion therapy works, so I suggest that it it your responsibility to cite peer reviewed scientific cases which have not been conducted or written under the auspices of organizations such as AiG or any other non-independent sources.
I think that the viewpoint of people of faith, in regard to many topics, remains quite low on the echelon of Maslow's hierarchy of needs whilst everyone else has transitioned higher up that ladder.
L. - I think one topic/one teacher has very limited application outside it's area. Kathy, if you only ever learnt to cook one meal, would you be happy having it day after day for the rest of your life? I'm not saying you need to 'eat at a different restaurant' - just look at what else is on the menu that you can put on the plate in front of you - knowledge.
You can believe in God without believing the bible you know? Its like saying I believe there is a God but I'm not sure what it wants from me? There are many books which allege they are written for and by God - which one am I supposed to believe - old testament, new testament, Quran, conversations with God etc all equally believable with as much proof as you want.
Question for you: Why would you care? I assume you're not Catholic yourself -- why would you care if someone else considered herself so? What's it to you?
Part of me doesn't care, but part of me cares deeply. No, I'm not a Catholic and I think they're wrong about a great many issues as a church (based on what the Bible says, and how various Catholic teachings go directly against plain Scripture); however since there are probably many true Christians who call themselves Catholics, and since so many people outside of Christianity consider Catholics and Catholicism to be the main denomination of Christianity, it bothers me that people such as yourself can wear the cloak of Christianity in calling yourself Catholic and attending mass, all the while denying major tenets, including the very existence of God. Part of it just blows my mind, and I'm asking you because, as I said, I'm trying to wrap my brain around it -- it's rather like someone being a member of both the NAACP and the KKK, or of both Concerned Women for America (very conservative) and the National Organization of Women (very liberal), or joining a breastfeeding organization like La Leche League while denigrating breastfeeding. Part of it is trying to comprehend how you can find anything but confusion in your life with your attempt at reconciling the irreconcilable. And part of it, a good deal of it, reminds me of 1 Kings 18, when Elijah asked the Israelites, "How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him." I know that there are many Catholics who believe the same as you, but that doesn't make it any better; rather, it makes the Catholic Church weaker and more corrupt. Just as it has weakened their organization/ denomination to have all the priest molestation scandals, with the refusal by many in authority to stop the abuse as they should have, so it weakens them to have false professors such as you in their midst, while they refuse to take steps to deal with you as the Bible directs.
It also blows my mind that you have decided that premarital sex, abortion, and homosexuality are not sins, but I guess there are none so blind as those who will not see.
You initially stated that gays are not born that way
That was in response to Lilliput's assertion that God created homosexuals as homosexual. The initial assertion was that homosexuals were born that way; that needs to be proved.
...and that conversion therapy works,
I said, "it does for some," and I could find links for many former homosexuals who are now heterosexual. I noticed something in one of Lilliput's comments that was a "heads I win, tails you lose," sort of comment. In response to me talking about Michael Glatze leaving the homosexual lifestyle she said something like, "Maybe he wasn't really gay." Well, that begs the question, doesn't it? All people who live as homosexuals "can't change because they were born that way," and anybody who *does* change "wasn't really gay to start with." Very neat and tidy, eh?
... so I suggest that it it your responsibility to cite peer reviewed scientific cases which have not been conducted or written under the auspices of organizations such as AiG or any other non-independent sources.
As if many doctors and organizations that have written pro-homosexual studies are entirely independent? There was a recent study released that claims that lesbians are better moms than heterosexual couples. But if I remember correctly, the lead researcher(s) is a lesbian, and many pro-homosexual groups paid for the study. Is that not bias?
Kathy, if you only ever learnt to cook one meal, would you be happy having it day after day for the rest of your life?
Well, if the choice was between a delicious meal and learning how to eat sh#t 100 different ways, I think I'd rather cook one meal. But since we're talking about sex and not food, yes, I'm very satisfied with my marital relationship, and not getting butt-f***ed. Clear enough?
Actually, I don't deny the existence of God. I just honestly admit I have questions, and that my faith has never been strong. That's very different from denying that God exists -- which in itself requires faith in atheism.
How exactly does the Church "refuse to take steps to deal with you as the Bible directs?" It says that because of my beliefs, I am unable to receive sacraments, unable to be in full communion with God. What more would you like them to do? Bar me at the door?
And as for "false professors," I never hold myself up as an example of a good Catholic -- I am not one. I am indeed Catholic, but I am honest about exactly what I am.
Oh, and thanks for comparing me to the molestors -- sweet of you. :)
"...or joining a breastfeeding organization like La Leche League while denigrating breastfeeding."
I fit this, too!
I am quite passionate about rights for nursing mothers, so people frequently mistake me for a breastfeeding nut, when in fact I couldn't stand to have those nasty little suckers on my tender body parts. I hated hated HATED breastfeeding -- just typing it is making me cringe umcomfortably. But my kids never had formula.
"It also blows my mind that you have decided that premarital sex, abortion, and homosexuality are not sins..."
I notice you left out contraception. Do you share the opinion that it's an abomination, too?
"Part of it is trying to comprehend how you can find anything but confusion in your life with your attempt at reconciling the irreconcilable."
Maybe becaise I concentrate on the similarities rather than differences, and try to find the common ground? I've never had trouble with this -- I struggled a lot more when I tried to see the world in black and white, before I acknowleged all the goodness that lay within the gray and stopped getting hung up on the extremes.
Kathy, I'm sorry, I had no intention of meaning you should do that sort of thing! I just meant in what you would call 'normal' activities. Nice meals.
And you've done it again! The lesbian study has not been scientifically verified and peer-reviewed. So it is not analogous. Studies showing the causes and impact of homosexuality which meet the criteria stated earlier are not 'pro-homosexual'. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean they are wrong.
Since you are unwilling or unable to provide references for your claims which meet the criteria, I have done so for the truth:
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/press/pressreleases2009/statement.aspx
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=psychotherapists-trying-to-treat-pa-2009-03-26
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983713,00.html
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
http://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch16_sfl/what_causes_homosexuality.html
I assiduously rejected a lot of information which met the criteria simply because it appeared on sites which could be construed as pro-gay. I did not find any material which met the criteria on faith-based sites, for either of our viewpoints.
You can believe in God without believing the bible you know? Its like saying I believe there is a God but I'm not sure what it wants from me? There are many books which allege they are written for and by God - which one am I supposed to believe - old testament, new testament, Quran, conversations with God etc all equally believable with as much proof as you want.
The Old Testament is filled with prophecies that came true -- not only prior to the time of Christ, but literally dozens that were fulfilled in one Man, Jesus Christ (the odds of one man just "happening" to fulfill even a percentage of all the prophecies is statistically close to zero), including His birth, which He could not have orchestrated as a mere human fetus. The Bible has been tried and tested as no other religious book has been, and has never been proven wrong.
Some 50 years ago, scholars were certain the Bible was wrong because it named Hittites as a people group, and there was no evidence of Hittites; then archaeological evidence was found that confirmed the Bible.
Within the past couple of months archaeologists have discovered a previously-unknown portion of ancient Jerusalem which corresponds to Biblical accounts of Jerusalem in David's time, and it is even dated by archaeological methods to the time of David. Yet the lead archeologist is trying to find some way of getting out of the plain and obvious interpretation of the evidence, trying to figure out where she went wrong, because scholars have declared that civilization in that era couldn't possibly build such structures as were a) talked about in the Bible, and b) were found in Jerusalem, right where and when they were supposed to be. Talk about willful ignorance!
Going onto the New Testament, there is much evidence that all the books were written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70 (although some, including my husband, think that the works of John, including the Gospel, Revelation, and perhaps the three letters, were written after that time, but before the end of the first century). Acts, for example, does not tell of the execution of Paul, leaving him in prison in Rome -- an odd ending if it were not written at the time Paul was imprisoned in Rome, prior to his execution. There are also many small details that could only have been written by someone who was actually living at that time, and living through it -- details confirmed by archaeologists, some within even the past few years, although prior to this proof, it was asserted that there were errors in Luke's writing. There is one case in particular -- one governor, proconsul, protectorate, or some other title, given to a prominent leader in one of the cities that Paul visited, that Luke records and many historians said was wrong. But recently they found records that show that the man was indeed given exactly that title, but only held it for a short time -- a few months, maybe a couple of years -- which small detail indicates that Acts was written no later than the mid-60s and is extremely accurate.
This means it (and most if not all of the other parts of the New Testament) were written at a time which the testimonies and words of the disciples of Christ could have been easily countermanded and contradicted by eye-witness proof to the contrary, if there *was* such proof. You may not be able to prove or disprove some story about your great-great-grandmother; but if someone went around spreading lies about *your* personal history, or that of your mother, you set the record straight and be believed, with the other person being put down as a liar. Had the early Christians been lying about what Jesus had said and done, or what He had prophesied, there would have been thousands of witnesses eager to prove that they were liars. Yet they couldn't.
No other religious book even comes close.
How exactly does the Church "refuse to take steps to deal with you as the Bible directs?" It says that because of my beliefs, I am unable to receive sacraments, unable to be in full communion with God. What more would you like them to do? Bar me at the door?
You said you went to Mass; I assumed that you also took the sacraments.
Sorry that the comparison was offensive -- it was first thing that popped into my mind as a proof that the Catholic Church is weak and unwilling to exercise discipline among its members. I've heard that some people or groups have from time to time made a stink about people such as Nancy Pelosi or the late Ted Kennedy being allowed to take communion or raising a fuss that they need to be excommunicated, but I assumed they were still in full fellowship with the Catholic Church, despite their pro-abortion stance. Maybe I should have compared you with them instead.
Excommunication is extreme -- even the priest-molestors weren't excommunicated, nor are practicing homosexuals. There are mortal sins, and then there are excommuncation-worthy sins. These days, pretty much the only things that will get you excommicated are ordaining female priests (or being as ordained as a female priest yourself) or having/directly procuring an abortion.
And as for Nancy and Ted, since neither presumably had or directly procured abortions themselves, their mere support of abortion policies was debatable. Some said it was exactly the same, some said it wasn't. I don't know if Nancy considers herself to be a good Catholic or not, nor do I care. I did vote for her, though.
"The Bible has been tried and tested as no other religious book has been, and has never been proven wrong."
Well, except for the do-not-eat shellfish stuff.
The Bible is indeed a fascinating historical record, even for those who don't believe it was divinely inspired.
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html
First up, Alfred Kinsey and Karen Hooker, who don't say anything about inherent, genetic, and/or biologic differences between homosexual and heterosexual men.
Swaab, Allen and LeVay's research is hardly unassailable
Yet interestingly enough, Levay says, "Time and again I have been described as someone who 'proved that homosexuality is genetic'.... I did not. Homosexuality is a behavior that anyone might be tempted to engage in."
Plus there is a great deal of overlap in the size of INAH3 among the sample, so one cannot look at a sample and say, "This is x size, so it must be a homosexual; while this is y, so it must be from a heterosexual"; and it does not rule out the possibility that, as in so many other ways, when you use a certain part of the brain, it becomes more developed -- such as the London cab-drivers I mentioned earlier. In order to show it, one would have to examine the brains of living newborns to see if there are any differences in size in this or any other area of the brain (which I would think would be rather difficult, since most brain studies are done on dead people) and then follow them for 20-30 years to see if there was any correlation in brain size/structure at birth and subsequent sexual attraction/activity.
Also, several of the researchers cited in this article are homosexual: LeVay, Hamer, and the men involved in the study on the twins (btw, if it's genetic, why weren't identical twins 100% both homosexual?), so they may be biased.
I find the last line of the article supremely interesting. While the 2nd sentence of the last paragraph admits that there are no definitive answers, the last sentence reads: Perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age.
What? Environmental and cognitive factors shape individuals at an early age to create/make homosexuals? Gee, that's what I've said all along.
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
-- doesn't actually cite any studies, so there's not really much to say about it.
It's past midnight, so I'm going to bed; will continue reading the links tomorrow.
I don't know if Nancy considers herself to be a good Catholic or not, nor do I care.
From what I've seen and read of her, she's probably like you -- Catholic when it's convenient for her. For instance, although liberals are the first to scream and holler about "separation of church and state" when Christians object to any political action or policy, she recently invoked Jesus or the Bible in some way -- it happened when I was on vacation so I didn't see much of it, but it was something like, "Jesus would support illegal immigration" or telling priests that they should tell their congregations that they should support illegal immigration or something. Blech.
You left out 'and anatomical' Kathy.
"From what I've seen and read of her, she's probably like you -- Catholic when it's convenient for her."
Ha! It's really inconvenient for me, actually -- it would be most convenient just to say, forget all this, and stay home on Sunday morning and make waffles. When would it ever be "convenient" for me? I'm not a politician, so I don't get to invoke Jesus on public policy.
If what you meant to say was, "From what I've seen and read of her, she's probably like you -- not a good Catholic," then hey, I might agree with you.
And I am a huge believer in the separation of church and state.
Kathy, you make me laugh, the people most versed in the old testament ie the jews, did obviously not see the evidence that one man ie Jesus fulfilled all the prophesies in the old testament. Now I'm no expert but I have heard that the new testament was written at least a century or more after Jesus died so we will never be sure what actually happened.
I have always been taught that there are some things in the bible that cannot be proven - and that's where belief comes in.
The Quran starts after Jesus and brings us Mohammed as the third and final prophet - and I'm sure muslims can provide equal measures of proof to things that happened in the Quran.
That's why Jerusalem is filled with churches, synagogues and mosques and people walk into the one they've chosen that feels best to them.
Kathy, repeating question -- do you think using contraception is a sin? To make it consistent with the beliefs you have already expressed, I will phrase it this way: Do you think for a couple united in holy matrimony, using contraception is a sin?
Well, except for the do-not-eat shellfish stuff.
What, you mean shellfish that carry bacteria and are dangerous to eat when it's hot? -- particularly when there were no antibiotics and probably few or no other medicines that could counteract food-borne illnesses?
Besides, there may be more than one reason for a particular food law. I can think of no health reason why it would be unsafe for a baby animal to be boiled in his mother's milk (although a reason may exist). However, it may be that the Canaanites practiced this as a form of magic, or a heathen ritual; or perhaps it's just a form of "cruelty" to cook the baby in the milk that should have sustained its life.
the people most versed in the old testament ie the jews, did obviously not see the evidence that one man ie Jesus fulfilled all the prophesies in the old testament.
Actually, all of the first Christians were Jews, with even many priests becoming Christians:
Acts 6:7, Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.
And many others Jews believed what the early disciples said, but due to fear of being put out of the Temple or synagogues, they did not make public profession.
If you read the New Testament, and particularly the sermons and teachings by Peter, Paul, Stephen, and others that are recorded in Acts, you'll see that they "taught from the Scriptures" and "reasoned from the Scriptures." What Scriptures? Not the New Testament, which was in the process of being written at that time; it could only mean the Jewish Scriptures. When Philip met the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8), Luke records that the eunuch was reading from Isaiah (chapter 53, as we number them today), and "Philip began at that same Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus." In fact, a clear account of Christ's death comes not from the gospel accounts but from that section of Isaiah -- His silence before the accusers, being beaten, wounded, lashed with many stripes, being forsaken and appearing as if God was punishing Him, being executed among the wicked/ transgressors, being buried in the tomb of a wealthy man. From Psalm 22 are many other examples; while Jesus as a mere man could have contrived to say, "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" he could not have contrived for the priests to ridicule him and say, "He trusted in God, let Him rescue him"; crucifixion was not even known at the time David wrote that psalm, yet he writes, "they pierced my hands and my feet"; further, David notes that "they divide my garments among them," and "cast lots" for his clothes -- again, this could not have been contrived by Jesus.
The Apostles and other early Christians reasoned and taught from the Jewish Scriptures (i.e., the Old Testament) about the Messiah, testifying that what the Scriptures foretold about the Messiah were fulfilled in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. They did not wait until a century after Jesus' death to go spread the story of His life and death around; and the unbelieving Jews most certainly tried to squash the story wherever it was told, so if they fabricated any part of it, it would have been exposed as a lie, and the religion would have vanished from the earth within a generation, as the unbelieving Pharisee Gamaliel foretold, "if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God" (Acts 5).
...do you think using contraception is a sin?
No.
There may be sinful attitudes and thoughts that cause a person to want to use contraception, but I don't believe that it is a sin to use contraception. [I make a distinction between methods and medications that prevent fertilization of the egg, and medications that allow fertilization of the egg but prevent implantation.] I believe Catholics (and others) who draw a hard line take much of their teaching from "the sin of Onan," the son of Judah who "spilled his seed." I don't think it was the act of spilling his seed that was the sin, but rather his attitude -- refusing to raise up seed that would be called his brother's, rather than his own.
Yes, I agree here are excellent reasons not to eat certain shellfish -- but a blanket ban on them, under penalty of sin, isn't so relelvant in the age of refrigeration, is it? (And I have read that the "mother's milk" is a mistranslation, and originally referred to an unborn animal cooked in its amniotic fluid -- by roasting a pregnant sow, for instance.)
The Catholic teaching on contraception isn't about "spilling seed" (though, thanks to Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life," this seems to be a common belief).
In fact, it's more about "The Meaning of Sex." According to Humanae Vitae (Pope John, 1968), sex must "retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life," and so therefore all methods of contraception are held to directly contradict the "moral order which was established by God." Of course procreation isn't the only reason for sex (and of course some couples are medically incapable of it), but to artificially remove the element of procreation -- to treat fertility as a disease, in other words -- is the sin. The Church's stance against homosexuality is based on the same grounds. No matter how loving a homosexual union is, it will never contain the "intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life."
Couples who use contraception are withholding an element of themselves from the union, and in the words of one Catholic blogger, " It injects a little seed of selfishness into the relationship, and makes it possible for one to begin to objectify the other, and to focus on sex as a means of self-gratification, rather than of self-giving."
It all seems very arbitrary to me, to define the purpose and meaning of other people's sexuality. It's something I think every couple, gay and straighht, have to figure out for themselves.
Yes, I agree here are excellent reasons not to eat certain shellfish -- but a blanket ban on them, under penalty of sin, isn't so relelvant in the age of refrigeration, is it?
No, but the Law of Moses wasn't written in an age of refrigeration, was it? Besides, Christians are not under the Law of Moses -- that was done away with, or fulfilled in Christ [the Council at Jerusalem specifically answered the question of whether Christians needed to keep the Law of Moses, and the answer was 'no'; yet as a Christian kindness to avoid offending Jewish sensibilities, they asked that Christians not eat things that were strangled nor to eat blood]. Some Christians believe that we would all be a lot healthier if we followed the dietary laws, and considering some of the nasty things the "unclean" animals eat, I somewhat agree with them (although I love sausage, pepperoni, bacon, catfish, and probably some other "unclean" foods; not so big on shellfish, although I have eaten it on occasion -- it's just not that common in my area).
(And I have read that the "mother's milk" is a mistranslation, and originally referred to an unborn animal cooked in its amniotic fluid -- by roasting a pregnant sow, for instance.)
Never heard that before, but all I can say is "ewww." However, I looked up the verse (Exodus 23:19) and looked at the Strong's Concordance of it, and it's routinely translated as "milk" in numerous places, including "a land flowing with milk and honey," so I'm not so sure about a mistranslation.
Re: sex -- I know some people who claim to base their belief on sex on the Bible who take it even further, and say that unless the woman is fertile, it's wrong to have sex. I don't know how in the world they can possibly square that with 1 Cor. 7:5 which declares that the only reason to abstain from sex (in a married relationship, of course!) is to devote oneself to prayer. But people get all sorts of crazy ideas about what the Bible teaches by reading only parts of it.
Maybe "mistranslation" the wrong word -- meant "misinterpretation," going back thousands of years (though in light of Levitical rules on milk consumption, who knows what was originally intended).
Even people who study the entire Bible can get crazy ideas. Even if one believes it is the revealed word of God, it's still open to interpretation by fallible humans, who use it to justify all kinds of things....
If I may, " don't boil a baby animal in its mother's milk" is a metaphor for not mixing meat and milk. We have no explanation for it - its one of these things you have to do cause God said so and practicing jews today don't eat meat and milk together ie no cheeseburgers!
Also, we don't eat shellfish cause they are scroungers and eat all the detritus. We only eat fish with fins and scales. Also only animals with cloven hooves and chew cud.
Yes Jesus was ajew and I am sure many jews did become Christians but the Romans also did too. I think the temple was destroyed before Jesus - but I'm not sure?
Contraception for women is ok but not for men due to the spilling of seed thing.
Yes Jesus was ajew and I am sure many jews did become Christians but the Romans also did too.
Certainly, Christianity is open to anyone, whether Jew or Gentile. At first, despite the command to take the gospel "to all the world," the early Christians remained in Jerusalem, numbering in the thousands (3,000 added at one time on the first Pentecost after Jesus' death, with many others believing as well in the years that followed), and it wasn't until a persecution arose that the Christian Jews started leaving Jerusalem, and taking the gospel with them. Yet they were hesitant to share with the Gentiles at first; Peter needed a heavenly vision to realize that "what God has cleansed, do not call unclean"; and Paul, who called himself "the apostle to the uncircumcision," always went first to the Jewish synagogues (because they had the Scriptures and prophecies), and then to the Gentiles of the cities.
I think the temple was destroyed before Jesus - but I'm not sure?
No, it was destroyed in A.D. 70, about 40 years after Jesus' death. Herod was in the process of a major renovation and/or building of the Temple during Jesus' life, because once they were in Jerusalem and the disciples were pointing out the beautiful stones and handiwork of the Temple, and Jesus prophesied that there would come a day when "not one stone will be left upon another." That was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, with the Jewish historian Josephus (I believe it was) recording that there was a rumor among the Roman soldiers that the Jews had hidden gold in the mortar between the stones of the Temple, so they took the Temple completely apart, looking for the gold that wasn't actually there -- and in so doing, ignorantly fulfilling the prophecy of Jesus.
I happened to see this web-page today, and thought that some of you might be interested in it.
They say a few things that I would like to highlight, including that the earliest-written manuscripts that we still have were written in the 2nd century (but these are copies of the originals, written decades before -- the originals were probably read until they were disintegrated, as were many of the earliest copies); and that "since Christians were strongly persecuted by both the Jews and the Roman government... these two groups would have produce a great deal of evidence to stop the growth of this sect."
No evidence meeting the criteria to support your assertions against gays being born that way and the failure of gay conversion therapy Kathy?
Haven't been looking for it. Your "evidence" supporting the assertion that homosexuals are born that way and that they can't be changed is so laughably weak and flimsy that I'm surprised you or anybody else takes it so seriously. Your links (other than the one I discussed above) were more or less policy statements, with no evidence cited to back up those statements.
But I've already linked to Michael Glatze's blog, and if you'd read that you'll see that when he was a teenager he was attracted to guys, and as a very vocal pro-homosexual advocate for many years, starting at age 20, he regularly regurgitated the homosexual propaganda that homosexuals are born that way. Yet he gives clear and convincing testimony (looking back on his life from his new heterosexual perspective), that his homosexual urgings that seemed so natural to him, were really not.
His case was in some ways typical -- an overbearing, overprotective mother, and a distant or absent father. His father was there physically for many years, but died when Michael was young. When his father was alive, he was abusive to Michael's mother, and Michael now says that that gave him a warped perspective of what manhood and masculinity was about -- if being a man was being like his dad, he didn't want to be a man! Yet you can't stop biology, so puberty happened, and he started becoming a man. The warped perspective cast a mystique over masculinity, a fear of masculinity within himself yet a strange craving for masculinity in others. You'd really need to read his story because he tells it so much better than I could.
For years he vigorously lived the homosexual lifestyle, marching in gay pride parades, thinking that people who stand against homosexual actions were just being hateful, even starting a well-respected magazine targeted at young homosexuals, "Young Gay America." Yet his life was empty, and getting emptier. The more he pursued fulfillment, the less he got.
Ultimately, he came to the conclusion, "Homosexuality is death, and I choose life," and left the homosexual lifestyle (including a steady boyfriend). He alludes to the fact that he continued for some time to lust after men, and even occasionally "slipped up" and had sex with men; but he had fundamentally changed within, and eventually has come to the place where he no longer desires men and is comfortable within himself.
I think you don't quite understand how getting research published works. While it is supposedly an open, honest, and unbiased scientific process, the reality is that often good topics go unstudied (often due to lack of funds, lack of interest by those with the means to pay for research, or lack of interest by those with the "credentials" to do it), and good research often goes unpublished due to it not conforming to group-think. Plus, for the past 20 years at least, and perhaps the past 40 years, the reigning group-think on homosexuality is that it can't be changed -- that's what is and has been drummed into the heads of any would-be researchers, doctors, and scientists as they are pursuing their education, making them extremely unlikely to buck that trend. My question is, if the evidence is "so strong" that homosexuals are born that way, why is it so paltry? One example specifically: if it's genetic, in cases of identical twins, why aren't 100% either gay or straight?
What an absolutely abysmal and pathetic response! So the pre-eminent psychiatric organizations and institutions and leading medical journals publishing peer-reviewed studies are not relevant but the bible, personal assertions and anecdotes are? Talk about closing your eyes to reality!
The evidence is not 'paltry', it is your assertions which lack any credible independent scientific support.
'...he continued for some time to lust after men, and even occasionally "slipped up" and had sex with men...' - and he will either 'revert' once he feels free enough or he is already leading a double life. It happens over and over and over again. Just ask George Rekers, one of the leading exponents of 'gay conversion therapy.
You can't make baseless claims, treat empirical evidence with disdain and then respond with tainted, opinionated and disproven information with no scientific validity Kathy. It doesn't work.
I've been reading the twin studies with interest (since I happen to know a pair of gay identical twins). The sampling groups have been small. Some found very high likelihood that identical twins would both be gay, but not all.
They ran into the same problem stated above -- how to conclude that a person is gay or not? We can only take their word for it. Are they a truly gay person, or are they truly straight person afflicted with a same-sex attraction that they can successfully shed?
Same-sex research will always come up against what Kathy calls above the "heads I win, tails you lose" syndrome, about Michael Glatze leaving the "homosexual lifestyle," so some people question whether he was really gay.
---> "All people who live as homosexuals "can't change because they were born that way," and anybody who *does* change "wasn't really gay to start with." Very neat and tidy, eh?
But the opposite is just as neat and tidy, to say, "Homosexuals were NOT born that way, and the people who who change really WERE gay, and changed, and therefore proved it can be done."
If one twin self-identifies as gay and the other does not, maybe one is simply rebelling by pretending to be gay to shock their parents? Or maybe both are gay, but one is pretending to be straight to please their parents? There are too many variables.
And it all gets down to the question of how you identify whether someone is "truly" gay. We have to take their word for it.
Kathy, if your assertion that an overbearing mother and an absent father is the reason for homosexuality why aren't there more gays amongst the african american single mom raising sons. I know its pretty stereotypical but black women can be very strong mommas who raise boys that respect them without fathers - but I haven't really seen many gay gangstas - if you get my drift?
So the pre-eminent psychiatric organizations and institutions and leading medical journals publishing peer-reviewed studies are not relevant...
When their "evidence" consists of what you linked to above, it's not that it's not relevant... just paltry. Only people who already believe homosexuality is genetic or in-born would accept it.
L., you bring up a lot of valid points -- how to identify those who are "really" gay vs those who aren't?
And what about so-called "bromances"? According to this article, There's growing evidence that many men who have sex with men aren't all gay or bisexual. According to the CDC, more than 3 million men who self-identify as straight...."
I have no idea what survey or study they're talking about, and don't feel like looking to see if there are any flaws in it, but just accepting it for as absolutely true, what does it make these men? Repressed homosexuals? Heterosexuals with homosexual tendencies? Bisexual? They call themselves "straight" yet they have homosexual sex.
Are homosexuals *only* men who have sex *only* with other men? If they have sex with a woman even one time, does that disqualify them from the label of homosexual? Is it only in sexual desire that the label comes?
You asked me before if I had any friends who were lesbians (I actually forgot my cousin whom I never see; oops), and I mentioned one of my f/b friends. She was married for years and had 3-4 children by her husband; they split and she became a lesbian (or she became a lesbian and they split?) probably some 20 years ago. She is a proud lesbian, but doesn't really talk about why she "switched," nor what her life was like as a heterosexual, as compared to her life as a homosexual. [She's a midwife so talks mostly about birth, which is why I'm friends with her on f/b.] Something I read recently remarked that many lesbians become lesbians after a rancorous marriage and divorce. That would certainly fit her profile. My cousin was perhaps sexually abused as a child [we are around the same age, and she was ***much*** more sexually knowledgeable than I was, and made some comment when we were about 9-10 years old that always made me wonder if her step-brother or one of his friends molested her]; although I only saw her once or twice after she turned 11, she was a masculine teenager the times I did see her.
Are they "real* homosexuals? Again, as you pointed out, it can be difficult to define that, except to take someone's word for it. But then, that's very subjective, isn't it? To take Michael Glatze's word for it, he was a "real" homosexual for some ten years of his life (perhaps more -- he doesn't give a blow-by-blow timeline of his life), and is now no longer a "real" homosexual but is heterosexual. If you take Rupert's word for it, he is still a "real" homosexual masquerading as a hetero, and will switch back at some time (although if you read his blog, that doesn't sound very likely). Or else, perhaps he wasn't a "real" homosexual all that time he was having sex with men and attracted to men and not attracted to women. See the confusion?
But the opposite is just as neat and tidy, to say, "Homosexuals were NOT born that way, and the people who who change really WERE gay, and changed, and therefore proved it can be done."
Yep. Very neat and tidy. Both statements can't be true -- which one is true? We have people who have self-identified as homosexuals (your definition of a "real" homosexual) who have changed to become self-identified heterosexuals. So by your definition, we have to accept that some people can change from homosexual to heterosexual.
Re: gay gangstas... Yes, I understand what you're saying; however, "strong" is not identical to "overbearing." When I think of "an overbearing mother," I think of a woman who is domineering, authoritarian, dictatorial, and mostly oppressive -- perhaps smothering a child with attention while not letting him do things for himself. A mother can be strong without emasculating her sons. I consider myself "strong": I expect my children to obey me, and to respect me; but I also let them be boys and boyish, and I encourage their independence.
It's also important to understand that even without a father there, there can be "father figures" for boys to look up to -- perhaps grandfathers, uncles, older brothers, or (sadly, in many cases) gang leaders.
Several years ago, I heard a radio program on homosexuals, and it featured an "ex-gay," who looked back over his childhood, and said that his mother was overbearing and his father wasn't effectively there (perhaps dead, divorced, away on his job all the time, or holed up in his office when he was home). Essentially, he said, he was extremely familiar with women, females, what it was to be a woman, how women "ticked," that there was no "mystery" to females because of his relationship with his mother; but there was an element of "mystery" with men, because his father was more or less gone. As he grew up, his curiosity about men and masculinity wasn't satisfied, and instead grew into lust and desire -- the way most men normally grow up to desire women -- which led him into homosexual relationships.
Rupert, Lilliput, & L.,
If one of your male friends came to you and told you that they were planning on, thinking about, and/or fantasizing about one of the following, what would you do?
1) cheat on his wife or significant other
2) have sex with an underage teenager?
3) have sex with a young child (either male or female)?
4) rape someone?
Would you pat him on the back and say, "I think that's a great idea!"? Would you counsel him that #1 was breaking trust and #2-4 were breaking the law, and all were bad ideas and/or wrong? Would you say that that was just his sexuality and he had no control over it, and he was just born that way? Would you encourage him to enter therapy to get over these urges? or what? Why?
Funny how almost everything I mentioned has not been addressed after in a thread with 125 posts. ^_^
'When their "evidence" consists of what you linked to above, it's not that it's not relevant... just paltry. Only people who already believe homosexuality is genetic or in-born would accept it.' - yes, of course. You cannot accept real evidence which contradicts your biased and subjective position based on scripture. The world of science versus the 'bible'. You still refuse to provide any evidence, any at all, which meets the criteria and supports your position. If what I have provided, and the more which is available, does not meet your requirements, show me something which supports your stance.
'1) cheat on his wife or significant other
2) have sex with an underage teenager?
3) have sex with a young child (either male or female)?
4) rape someone?'
Yet another example of you attempting to obfuscate the debate with non-comparative factors. But anyway - 1) not a good idea but their choice. 2) Illegal, I would inform tham that I would report them. 3) Again, illegal. 4) And again, illegal. - Now tell me, what have any of these got to do with homosexuality??? Adultery and homosexuality are not illegal, the others are. Homosexuality is not wrong so why compare it with these other items?
Just goes to show how you construct your 'arguments'. Apples and oranges remember?
"So by your definition, we have to accept that some people can change from homosexual to heterosexual."
This depends on your defintion of "change," and on what is in every individual's heart and mind. I accept that people can suppress their sexual urges for all sorts of reasons -- a cleric can take a vow of celibacy as part of his gift to God, a person can abstain from masturbating because he/she believes it is a grave sin, and someone attracted to the same gender can certainly decide not to act on that attraction, etc.
I would try to convince a friend not to do any illegal sexual activity, and I would advise them to seek professional help. And while infidelity isn't illgeal, I am no fan of dishonesty and deception: I once ended a 25-year friendship with one of my best friends, and one of the main reasons was that she wouldn't stop cheating on her husband and expected my approval for it.
If a friend confessed a same-sex attraction, I might also advise professional help if he/she seemed troubled by it.
If one of my teenagers came to me and confessed a same-sex attraction, I would tell them it was perfectly normal for some people. But they already know that, because we have gay family friends.
Again -- I just don't see what's wrong with consenting adults expressing their sexuality in an honest relationship. I am even in favor of infidelity if the partners agree to an open marriage (though I personally know very few situations in which this has worked).
However, I know that some people do take their sexual directions from their religions. I know Catholics who think I am gravely sinning by using contraception, and I know other Christians who believe that homosexuals -- even those in loving, committed relationships -- are sinning. These people have a right to their opinions, and to live according to their beliefs, but I don't think they should be able to decide the moral standards and make the laws for the rest of us.
Just a few generations ago, both contraception (even for married couples) and homosexuality was illegal. I, for one, have no desire to return to that time.
Rupert & L., you both admit that you would report illegal activity [btw, homosexual acts used to be illegal activities in many countries, and are still illegal in others -- hypothetically, if you lived there, would you report someone you knew had committed homosexual sex illegally?], and both say or imply that you would try to get the person to repress their sexual urges (I presume that that's what the "therapy" would be for). What? Deny their sexuality? Oh, dear me! Say it ain't so! Perhaps they were just born that way. Wouldn't it be unhealthy to get them to repress their sexual desire for young kids?
L., speaking specifically of what you brought up, about open marriages and "homosexuals in a committed relationship"... Do you think that a "committed relationship" and an "open relationship" are mutually exclusive terms? Or can someone be in a "committed relationship" with one other person, and still have sex with many other people?
Tangentially, I spoke to someone recently who had been addicted to pot during his teenage years. He said that although he hasn't so much as touched pot in over 20 years, he still doesn't consider that he's "conquered" it; he still feels that he could be tempted by it in the future, even though he is not addicted to it, and regrets what he did. Does that mean he's a dope-head pretending to be clean, or does that mean he's someone who is clean who knows his human weakness?
Kathy, if my friend were in Uganda, where homosexuality seems to be punishable by death, I would tell them to be very, VERY careful if they chose to act on their sexuality.
I think rape, pedophelia, etc. SHOULD be against the law -- they involve sex with someone who doesn't consent, or is not legally able to consent. Homosxuality does not. Again -- I just don't see what's wrong with consenting adults expressing their sexuality in an honest relationship. I personally don't think homosexuality is unhealthy.
If I lived in a place where homosexuality was illegal, and one of my kids admitted a same-sex attraction, I would encourage them to break the law (depending on penalties -- if we lived in Uganda, we would have to leave!).
I think adultery is a good example. I don't believe in it, but not on sexual grounds -- I object to the dishonesty and deception. And I still don't think it should be against the law (and I can even think of one case in which I approved of it).
I personally think that a "committed relationship" and an "open relationship" are mutually exclusive terms.
And I think your friend is neither a "dope head pretending to be clean," nor "someone who is clean who knows his human weakness." I would call him someone with a drug addiction problem, not "a dope head." And I think he's clean, but he's still someone with a drug addiction problem who needs to modify his behavior for the rest of his life.
Kathy, you persist, over and over again, in trying to match behaviors which cause no harm to others when taking place between consenting adults, with all sorts of actions which do not meet that criteria.
The vast majority of people do not consider homosexuality immoral. The vast majority of people do consider the other behaviors you attempt to compare it with to be immoral.
Your position on abortion, homosexuality, contraception and sex in general are predicated on your belief in a god (whose god? which god? every religion considers theirs to be the one true god) and an unsubstantiated, unsolicited, ghost-written by innumerable authors, fictional historical/biography you call bible.
The rest of us form our positions based on knowledge, experience, social history and science.
Kathy, do you think adultery should be against the law? Why or why not?
(And Rupert, for the record, Kathy said above she has no objections to contraception.)
Hm, apologies if this is so. Does Kathy believe in contraception outside of monogamous marital scenarios?
Kathy said,
"There may be sinful attitudes and thoughts that cause a person to want to use contraception, but I don't believe that it is a sin to use contraception. [I make a distinction between methods and medications that prevent fertilization of the egg, and medications that allow fertilization of the egg but prevent implantation.]"
And if she believes in the use of contraception outside monogamous marital scenarios.....I'll eat my hat. (Or my diaphragm, whichever is tastier!)
I just don't see what's wrong with consenting adults expressing their sexuality in an honest relationship.
Just remembered another one -- what about incest? Not forced in any way; but sort of like Lord Byron with his half-sister whom he met when they were both adults. It scandalized England at the time, but they were consenting adults...
I personally don't think homosexuality is unhealthy.
I've been busy lately, and trying not to be on the computer so much, but I did do a short Google Scholar search on "homosexual" like Rupert suggested. After 22 pages of studies primarily of diseases and conditions that predominantly affect homosexuals or occur in a much higher degree among MSM, I don't know how anyone can say that homosexual sex (or at least, MSM) is *not* unhealthy, especially compared to heterosexual sex (particularly, heterosexual monogamous sex).
[Oh, and Rupert, I found the Spitzer study which indicated that some homosexuals can change, and a few responses to it, among all the discussions of HIV/AIDS and "gay bowel disease," etc. Also, I found a "Queer By Choice" website which had pretty much the same responses as I did to all the "proofs" that homosexuals are born that way. While they say that some homosexuals may be born that way, they object to the blanket statement that *all* homosexuals are born that way, because they themselves attest that they have made the choice to be homosexual.]
I personally think that a "committed relationship" and an "open relationship" are mutually exclusive terms.
So do I, which is why I was surprised to read this article in Psychology Today, in which a psychotherapist discovered that some people define a committed and/or monogamous relationship in very different ways from... well, the dictionary definition. One gay couple defined monogamy as "only having 3-ways together; never sexual with others apart from each other." Some say that they can have sex with whomever and however often they choose, but as long as they tell their partner about it, it still fits their definition of "committed"; another definition was that sex outside the relationship was fine, as long as the people were not emotionally involved.
Kathy, you persist, over and over again, in trying to match behaviors which cause no harm to others when taking place between consenting adults, with all sorts of actions which do not meet that criteria.
They are all sexual actions. And I wouldn't exactly consider passing multiple diseases around a population as "causing no harm to others" -- particularly when innocent people may end up catching a deadly disease from a cheating partner whom they assumed to be faithful.
Your position on abortion, homosexuality, contraception and sex in general are predicated on your belief in a god... The rest of us form our positions based on knowledge, experience, social history and science.
My position is partly based in the teaching of the Bible; yet my knowledge, my experience, my study of history and science has also shown these teachings to be accurate. It would drastically reduce the number and rate of STDs, if people were virgins when they marry, and to have sexual relations only with each other; it would drastically reduce the rate of HIV/AIDS particularly in non-African countries if men would stop having sex with other men, and also if all people stopped having sex so indiscriminately. If people didn't have sex out of wedlock, there would also be a reduction in the "need" for abortion (here in America, some 60% of women seeking abortions have never been married, and only 20% of aborting women are married at the time of the abortion). It's just common sense that being abstinent keeps a lot of things from becoming problems.
The Spitzer Study is very inconclusive. Some gays experienced some changes for some time when interviewed over the phone. We don't know who they were or what their situations were (they may have been people of faith who wanted to change if they could). We have no information regarding regression nor determinants as to 'how heterosexual' they became. Wow! Not exactly what you would call convincing when measured against all the other psychological and biological studies.
I also think "committed relationship' and 'open relationship' are incompatable.
'They are all sexual actions...' - but that's all they have in common. Your comparison is still invalid.
'My position is partly based in the teaching of the Bible' - this is the decider. Everything else is subsumed by this factor.
Your 'wishes' for the sexual behavior of societies are, perhaps, commendable; but they are unrealistic and unachievable. Faith will never be the base on which the world revolves so your wishes will not come true.
Kathy, do you think adultery should be against the law? Why or why not?
Adultery is the breaking of marital vows and therefore a legal (not to mention moral) contract. I think that the laws should reflect that, and give the innocent spouse a lot of leeway in what happens in the divorce. Adultery generates confusion, potentially spreads disease, and, as you said, is dishonest and deceptive. There's not a good thing to be said about it.
Does Kathy believe in contraception outside of monogamous marital scenarios?
L. said...
Kathy said,
"There may be sinful attitudes and thoughts that cause a person to want to use contraception, but I don't believe that it is a sin to use contraception. [I make a distinction between methods and medications that prevent fertilization of the egg, and medications that allow fertilization of the egg but prevent implantation.]"
And if she believes in the use of contraception outside monogamous marital scenarios.....I'll eat my hat. (Or my diaphragm, whichever is tastier!)
Do you have some salt to go with your hat or diaphragm? :-)
As you well know, I object to people having sex outside of marriage; but if they're going to do it, they should at least try to minimize the potential for pregnancy and transmission of disease. The main problem with contraception is that it sometimes fails; and when it fails and a baby is conceived, it makes the parents feel more justified in taking his or her life because they "did the right thing" in trying to avoid pregnancy, and "it wasn't our fault" that the contraception failed and the woman got pregnant. So, they can take the stance of being the victim and therefore "needing" an abortion because of their bad luck.
I'm boiling the hat with soy sauce and a pinch of curry now -- it's straw, so it should go fine with rice.
And as for adultury, I'm not talking leeway in a divorce -- I mean criminal penalties. Should it be against the law? We agree it's wrong. Should it be illegal?
Incest is fine with me. Well, not with me PERSONALLY (ewwwwww), but between consenting adults, yuck, but okay.
And I wonder who has the higher disease rate: monogamous gay couples (I know many of these) or promiscuous straight people (alas, I know even more of these)?
'They are all sexual actions...' - but that's all they have in common. Your comparison is still invalid.
They are all also choices, as are all actions.
'My position is partly based in the teaching of the Bible' - this is the decider. Everything else is subsumed by this factor.
And your position is based partly or perhaps even primarily on your atheism -- that is the decider. Your faith against my faith -- sounds equal. If you can declare my positions invalid simply because it's partly based on my faith, then I can declare your positions invalid simply because it's partly based on your faith.
I'm boiling the hat with soy sauce and a pinch of curry now -- it's straw, so it should go fine with rice.
Sounds yummy. ;-)
And as for adultury, I'm not talking leeway in a divorce -- I mean criminal penalties.
I wouldn't object to such a law.
Incest is fine with me.
At least you're consistent.
And I wonder who has the higher disease rate: monogamous gay couples or promiscuous straight people?
It would be difficult to tell, particularly if the homosexuals were previously promiscuous, even if they were currently monogamous (meaning, they have sex only with each other, and neither one goes off and has sex with someone else, nor do they have three-ways with the same person, or any of the other strained definitions of monogamy that were in that previous article I cited). A few days ago I read something that said that if homosexuals are truly monogamous, their rate of STD transmission is not really that high; the problem is that most homosexuals are not monogamous. In that Psychology Today article, the author mentioned a book which cited "numerous studies" showing that "75% of gay male couples are in successful open relationships." Other things I read this past week (sorry, don't remember the source -- or probably, more likely *sources* since it seemed to have come up more than once) is that homosexual males tend to have multiple partners to the extreme - many over 60, some even over 500. In searching, I found this study which estimates the risk as "about 5-30/1000 receptive anal exposures." And then this page which includes multiple references to studies, for instance,
· The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]
· Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]
· In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years:
Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[18]
So, while truly monogamous homosexuals technically might have a lower disease rate than promiscuous heterosexuals, there may be some important caveats, including what STDs a person happened to be exposed to (maybe some people just get lucky?), the number of partners the people have had in total (a currently monogamous homosexual, like a currently monogamous heterosexual may have had multiple partners in the past), the person's definition of "monogamous" (in light of the weight of evidence that demonstrates that most homosexuals who call their relationship "monogamous" don't mean that they have sex only with each other, I'd like for you to ask your numerous homosexual couples who claim to be monogamous how they define it, and if they ever have sex with someone other than their steady boy/girlfriend), and the people's rate of diseases other than classic STDs (for example, anal cancer is seen in much higher rates among people who receive anal sex, and particularly MSM; also "gay bowel disease"; and I recently read that all other things being equal, homosexuals have shorter average lifespans than heterosexuals [I can't remember if this was counting or ignoring HIV/AIDS-related deaths], in part due to disease).
"I'd like for you to ask your numerous homosexual couples who claim to be monogamous how they define it, and if they ever have sex with someone other than their steady boy/girlfriend."
Some of them I don't know well enough to ask such a personal question -- I mean, would you ask a married straight couple that? And the majority of straight married couples I know weren't virgins when they married, either.
The couples I know are proudly monogamous and frown on promiscuity. They have the San Francisco and Massachusetts marriage certificates that mean the same thing as my own marriage certificate.
I think you are equating "the homosexual lifestyle" with promiscuity. I agree promiscuity -- gay or straight -- is extremely problematic from a health standpoint. For that reason, I would caution my children against the very real risks of having many sexual partners. (From a moral point of view, though, I have nothing against promiscuity for the uncommitted, as long as it's among consenting adults. Like incest -- ick, not my cup of tea.)
But gay does not = promiscuous.
Nor does gay = child molestor. It's funny how many people think that, when I tell them there were gay teachers at my kids' school, and they ask, weren't you afraid they would be molested? Sure, always, but just as much by straight people as gay people.
Oh, and for the record, while I have never considered myself promiscuous, I probably am by your definition, Kathy -- before I met my husband, I had multiple sexual partners, some of whom I didn't know very well.
According to your logic Kathy, sex within monogamous, 'virginal prior to matrimony' relationships should be lumped in with all the others because they are 'all sexual actions'.
You have faith, that dictates your position in company with all the other factors. I do not have faith, therefore it does not dictate my position in company with all the other factors.
The old canard 'atheism is a faith' is akin to claiming that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
We are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do - but boy, does that make a difference!
Actually, Rupert, I would say that athiesm requires faith in the concept that there is no God. One needs to be able to say with conviction that there is no God, and this is why I could never be an athiest. Do I know that? No, I don't.
A benevolent supreme being is certainly a nice concept, and a divinely inspired code of not doing harm seems like such a great idea in theory (in practice....not so much).
It takes no faith either way to be an agnostic. "I don't know" is a highly underrated stance.
Hi L.
Nah, atheism isn't about having faith in anything. It's not about a 'concept' of there being no god. It's based on rational, logical, evidential information regarding the sciences. Faith requires believing something to be true without reaching the critical point of evidential proof.
Atheism is no more a faith than not believing in the tooth fairy or santa claus could be considered one.
Every day science advances its already convincing case. And as it does so, any case for god diminishes.
Hmmm, dunno if I agree with that, though of course you are free to define your beliefs any way you want (and I do know others who define it the way you do). I agree with you on the lack of empirical evidence.
A lot of Buddhists I know here in Japan self-identify as athiests, so perhaps that's why I equate it with a system of beliefs, rather than the lack of one.
I've heard it said that the many religions in the world can't all be right -- but they could all be wrong.
Science and god....perhaps not mutually exclusive? I personally find Einstein's agnostic approach very appealing: "I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."
Oh Kathy, and for the record, lesbians have very low rates of disease. So we're back to that again -- how it's too bad my daughter seems to be showing nascent interest in boys.
Some of them I don't know well enough to ask such a personal question -- I mean, would you ask a married straight couple that?
Perhaps, in an oblique way. For example, I might bring up the concept of "open marriages" or "what fidelity in marriage" means or the definition of "a committed relationship." If I were in your shoes, I could imagine bringing up in conversation "some crazy person on the internet [me] who believes homosexual behavior to be wrong, and apparently thinks that all homosexuals are promiscuous -- can you believe that? I told her that I knew several homosexual couples who were in committed relationships, and I could no more imagine them having sex with someone else than I could imagine me cheating on my husband." Or something like that. They may affirm that they are in a sexually monogamous relationship (the way you and I define it); or they may affirm that they are actually in what you would define as an "open relationship"; or they may just let the topic slide and not say for sure one way or another. You can get a lot of information from people if you ask the right question in the right way. :-)
I think you are equating "the homosexual lifestyle" with promiscuity.
Well, when the majority of studies (perhaps even all of them) that look at the topic say that the majority of homosexuals admit to what I would define as promiscuity (as a small example, the previously cited Dutch study which showed that men with a steady partner had an average of 8 sexual partners per year -- how many heterosexual couples do you know of who have "a steady partner" yet still "get some on the side"? with even one outside encounter, much less with 7 others?), and when the "gay & lesbian professor" from Psychology Today quoted that 75% of homosexual couples have sexually "open relationships" without refutation, and that nearly half of all white male homosexuals had sex with 500+ men, I don't know why you seem to think that male homosexuals would not tend to be promiscuous. I can agree that there may be some homosexuals who are not promiscuous, but the studies show that most the majority are.
"You can get a lot of information from people if you ask the right question in the right way." -->
This is true. Do you know what I do for a living? I'm a reporter.
I do know one single gay (our former gardener) who seems quite active, but in that way he's no different from many single straight guys I know.
Once again -- the gay couples I know are proudly monogamous and frown on promiscuity.
You're basing your views on homosexuals entirely on what "studies show." I am basing mine on my personal experience, with many close friends going back to elementary school.
Every day science advances its already convincing case.
Actually, every day that scientists are able to perform a repeatable experiment, they demonstrate that the universe is founded on natural laws that do not change. Science was founded by Christians based on their belief in the God of the Bible who is said not to change.
Islam has a changeable, capricious god; most other religions have multiple gods who also change; "evolution" demands no god and insists that the universe and all its orderly laws emerged out of chaos. By what logic should anyone expect to find order in this world, based on any of the other religions, or on the belief that there is no god? It is only Christianity and Judaism that attest to what science truly is, and it was only with Christianity as a basis that allowed science to begin, grow, and flourish.
Waaaaaaait.....evolution insists that the universe emerged out of chaos? Are we talking about the same "evolution" here? The one that's taught in Catholic schools?
"It is only Christianity and Judaism that attest to what science truly is." ---> Are we talking about the same definition of "science" here? Sounds like "intelligent design" to me!
A self-serving little diatribe of untruths, preconceptions, distortions and god-smitten denial.
Science was not founded by christians, what a load of rubbish!
And every other faith would say the same thing about your god.
You really are clutching at straws in desperation at the distinct lack of evidence for everything you believe.
evolution insists that the universe emerged out of chaos? Are we talking about the same "evolution" here? The one that's taught in Catholic schools?
Never having been in Catholic school, I wouldn't know; however I do have many problems with Catholic teachings as they contradict the Bible (one reason I'm not a Catholic).
Perhaps "chaos" wasn't the best term to be used, but the same basic idea still holds. People who believe that the earth, all creatures, and the universe came about without any god or intelligent designer have to explain how everything came about. The current reigning theory is The Big Bang, although there are significant problems with it; so many that many evolutionists are abandoning it and trying out other theories. Basically, it says that in the beginning, there was nothing, and then that nothing exploded and became everything. And somehow out of the chaos of an explosion (how did the nothing become something? if matter came from energy, where did the energy come from? what started the explosion? if the "Big Bang" happened, how did the stars form from such a chaotic explosion that sent matter streaming out at such a rapid place? why are stars grouped together in galaxies, instead of just being randomly and/or evenly distributed away from the point of the Big Bang?]) everything became orderly and proceeded in an orderly fashion (why should there be natural laws, without an orderly God who established such laws, that govern the universe?), so that eventually the sun, earth and rest of the solar system appeared, and eventually (from the primordial soup?) life came from non-life; and then that life somehow grew and diversified to become all the creatures that exist today. This is accepted as fact among evolutionists despite the multiple problems with it, from beginning to end, because they all eventually must throw up their hands and say, "We don't know how it happened, but we're here, so it must have happened... we'll keep trying to figure it out. (I call it "the 'non-god' of the gaps" theory.) Evolutionist Paul Davies says, "We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware. … How... did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows …"
Science was not founded by christians, what a load of rubbish!
Wow, I don't know if I can deal with all the facts you've presented in your response [sarcasm :-)].
But here you go a list of scientists from the past and present who believe(d) in creation. These include such no-name people of inferior intellect as Sir Francis Bacon, who established the scientific method, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, that idiot Sir Isaac Newton (you probably never heard of him), Linnaeus, Herschel, Pasteur, Lister, Fleming, and others.
It's not really your fault that you don't know these things. Evolutionists aren't exactly falling over themselves to acknowledge the truth, and your average science/history textbooks probably don't point out the Christian beliefs these great minds of the past held. In fact, a professor and retired physicist claimed that "creationists have made no contribution to the progress of biology or any other of the historical sciences," although he praises young-earth creationists such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton for their contribution to astronomy. However, many honest historians (including evolutionists) agree that, "the basis of modern science depends on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational Creator. An orderly universe makes perfect sense only if it were made by an orderly Creator. But if atheism or polytheism were true, then there is no way to deduce from these belief systems that the universe is (or should be) orderly." Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies said, "If you look back at how science originated, it rests upon twin pillars. The first is Greek philosophy, with its emphasis on the ability of human beings to understand their world through the use of rational reasoning. The second is monotheistic religion—Judaism, Christianity and Islam—with its emphasis on a created world that is ordered by a Designer in a rational and intelligible way. Those were the dominant influences that gave rise to science in seventeenth-century Europe." [Actually, the Islamic view of Allah does not require him to act in a rational and intelligible way, viewing that as a limitation/denial of his sovereignty and power; the Bible however says that God cannot lie, as that would be inconsistent with His essential nature.]
Did you know that Kepler described his study of the universe as "thinking God's thoughts after Him"? And that Sir Isaac Newton actually studied the Bible more than he did science? And that he said, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily"? Yeah, they sound like raving atheists to me! :-)
Kathy, you said 'Science was founded by Christians based on their belief in the God of the Bible who is said not to change.' and that is simply not true.
You can provide as many names as you want about whatever you want, not relevant. To claim that science was founded by christians is simply absurd.
What about the ancients Greeks? Egyptians? Earlier societies? Or do these not count because they aren't christians?
You made the assertion, you provide the evidence.
Hey, to resurect a dead thread here (beat a dead horse?), Kathy and Rupert (and SegaMon, if you're not too busy fondling your rosaries), check out the link I just pasted in my comment on what is now the top post, the one about methods of contraception. The subject raises some issues that we have debated here.
Give me "evil-ution" over pseudo-science any day.
And Catholic beliefs "contradict" the Bible?
Give me "evil-ution" over pseudo-science any day.
On the contrary, those who believe in evolution are engaged in pseudo-science, by falsely eliminating one of the possibilities at the outset.
And Catholic beliefs "contradict" the Bible?
Sure. Calling the Pope & priests "father"; the existence of a special set of people called "priests"; priests, saints, Mary, or any other mediator between God and man besides Jesus Christ; saying that Mary had no sin, whereas she affirmed in her "Magnificat" that God was her Savior (why does a sinless person need a Savior?); forbidding people to marry and/or to eat certain foods (do celibate priests, and avoiding meat on Fridays & during Lent sound familiar?); speaking more specifically on celibate priests, Paul actually lists "being the husband of but one wife" as a qualification in two different places for being a minister, elder, bishop; having a special class of dead people delineated as saints, when every time the term is used in the Bible, it is referring to all Christians. I'm sure there are more, but these are the ones that spring most to mind.
Post a Comment