Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on August 05, 2009, 10:08:43 PM
-
Wow, you mean can't get people to do stuff that disgusts and repulses them? Who da thunk it?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/05/gay.to.straight/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/05/gay.to.straight/index.html)
(CNN) -- The American Psychological Association concluded Wednesday that there is little evidence that efforts to change a person's sexual orientation from gay or lesbian to heterosexual are effective.
The report looks at 87 studies conducted between 1960 and 2007.
In addition, the 138-page report -- covering 87 peer-reviewed studies -- said that such efforts may cause harm.
"Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation," said Judith M. Glassgold, chairwoman of the task force that presented the report at the group's annual meeting in Toronto, Canada. The Washington-based association represents more than 150,000 members.
"At most, certain studies suggested that some individuals learned how to ignore or not act on their homosexual attractions. Yet, these studies did not indicate for whom this was possible, how long it lasted or its long-term mental health effects. Also, this result was much less likely to be true for people who started out only attracted to people of the same sex."
In response, the group's governing Council of Representatives passed a resolution Wednesday urging mental health professionals not to recommend to their clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or any other methods.
The group's Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation reached its conclusion after its review of 87 studies conducted between 1960 and 2007 and finding "serious methodological problems" in the vast majority of them.
Those few studies that did have "high-quality" evidence "show that enduring change to an individual's sexual orientation is uncommon," it said.
In addition, the report cited evidence that efforts to switch a person's sexual orientation through aversive treatments might cause harm, including loss of sexual feeling, suicidality, depression and anxiety.
Many who tried to change and failed "described their experiences as a significant cause of emotional and spiritual distress and negative self-image," it said.
The six-member task force was appointed two years ago to address concerns about "efforts to promote the notion that sexual orientation can be changed through psychotherapy or approaches that mischaracterize homosexuality as a mental disorder."
The American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1975.
The task force noted that some people attempt to change their sexual orientation because it conflicts with their religious beliefs, and recommended that their mental health care providers help them "explore possible life paths that address the reality of their sexual orientation, reduce the stigma associated with homosexuality, respect the client's religious beliefs, and consider possibilities for a religiously and spiritually meaningful and rewarding life."
"In other words," said Glassgold, "we recommend that psychologists be completely honest about the likelihood of sexual orientation change, and that they help clients explore their assumptions and goals with respect to both religion and sexuality."
Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, a network of more than 250 ministries that he said "reach out to men and women and families that are affected by what we call 'unwanted same-sex attraction' " disagrees.
He offered himself as proof that such efforts can work. "The fact is that there are tens of thousands of men and women just like me who once identified as gay," Chambers said in a telephone interview. "For me and for these people, the truth is change is possible."
Chambers said his transformation from gay man began more than 18 years ago, when he attended a support group at the organization he now leads. Chambers, who said he married a woman nearly 12 years ago, has written a book, "Leaving Homosexuality," which was published last month.
"You can't refute a personal story," he said, adding that about a third of those who try to switch their sexual orientation through the group's ministries wind up doing so.
"We're not talking a light switch that you turn on and off, we're talking about very deep and complex issues that, I think, take years to resolve."
Though all mainstream health and mental health organizations concluded years ago that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, the American Psychological Association formed the task force to work on the report two years ago after noting a resurgence of groups that identified homosexuality as a defect or spiritual or moral failing
-
Yeah, I think the same can be said about criminals.
-
I betcha Ted Haggard's wife is not quite sure what to think at this point. ;D
-
Most (if not all) of these reports make the erroneous assumption that this behavior is normal. As if murder, porn addiction, or thievery are normal forms of behavior
-
This just in- Dogs can't breathe under water and eating raw chicken causes food poisoning in humans.
-
Most (if not all) of these reports make the erroneous assumption that this behavior is normal. As if murder, porn addiction, or thievery are normal forms of behavior
So? Was does porn addiction, thievery or murder have to do with homosexuality?
This report is based on a series of studies that show trying to change gays to straight doesn't work. It's not about murder, porn addiction, or thievery.
-
People are born gay or are forced into being gay because they're in prison. Nuff said.
I dont think anyone chooses to be abnormal-- And by abnormal I mean not in line with what our species is meant to be and out of sync with what most human beings have hardwired into their biology.
Nothing wrong with it and its uncurable anyway.
-
So? Was does porn addiction, thievery or murder have to do with homosexuality?
This report is based on a series of studies that show trying to change gays to straight doesn't work. It's not about murder, porn addiction, or thievery.
actually it does as you know these things all have a genetic predisposition as does homosexuality but b/c society deems these things bad you are supposed to suppress them. In fact not but a few decades ago homosexuality was considered a mental disorder its generally b/c of the acceptance of society that they now say let them be gay.
-
actually it does as you know these things all have a genetic predisposition as does homosexuality but b/c society deems these things bad you are supposed to suppress them. In fact not but a few decades ago homosexuality was considered a mental disorder its generally b/c of the acceptance of society that they now say let them be gay.
Yep.
gayness, like a lot of things, is now OK because the pushers got enough people to accept it.
pedophilia is next on the liberal social agenda...
-
Yep.
gayness, like a lot of things, is now OK because the pushers got enough people to accept it.
pedophilia is next on the liberal social agenda...
what does pedophilia have to do with being gay
-
actually it does as you know these things all have a genetic predisposition as does homosexuality but b/c society deems these things bad you are supposed to suppress them. In fact not but a few decades ago homosexuality was considered a mental disorder its generally b/c of the acceptance of society that they now say let them be gay.
Theft and murder are bad because you are harming people when you commit them, not because society arbitrarily deems them bad.
Homosexuality doesn't cause anyone harm who isn't involved in that relationshipl.
-
what does pedophilia have to do with being gay
It's a social and behavioral deviation. A big reason the liberals are behind (heh) the gay movement is because if they can make it ok to do things that people have held to be deviant they can create precedence to do just about anything.
The left NEEDS movements like this to promote the continued moral decay of society so that it can push its' other agendas.
-
Theft and murder are bad because you are harming people when you commit them, not because society arbitrarily deems them bad.
Homosexuality doesn't cause anyone harm who isn't involved in that relationshipl.
LOL doggity harming ppl is bad b/c society says its bad...LOL its always amazing to me how engrained ppl are in there way of thinking you miss the forest for the trees brother.
If we lived in small tribes then pillaging and plundering another tribe would be considered good by our tribe(society)
I see your point about the harm it does but lets not pretend that one issue is ok and one issue is not doesnt have anything to do with society...
-
LOL doggity harming ppl is bad b/c society says its bad...LOL its always amazing to me how engrained ppl are in there way of thinking you miss the forest for the trees brother.
If we lived in small tribes then pillaging and plundering another tribe would be considered good by our tribe(society)
Yes, but if we did the same thing to our own tribes, it would still be considered harm. No matter how you try to frame the issue, it non-debatable.
I see your point about the harm it does but lets not pretend that one issue is ok and one issue is not doesnt have anything to do with society...
Where is any pretending going on? If you kill someone, they die. If someone is involved in a homosexual relationship, no one outside of that relationship is effected.
-
Yes, but if we did the same thing to our own tribes, it would still be considered harm. No matter how you try to frame the issue, it non-debatable.
Where is any pretending going on? If you kill someone, they die. If someone is involved in a homosexual relationship, no one outside of that relationship is effected.
LOL again your missing the forest for the trees bro...if the only reason murder and theft are bad is b/c they cause harm it would be universal but its not again if we lived in tribes it would be ok so its not that it simply causes harm its b/c society says you cant harm these specific ppl in our group...ITS SOCIETY that deems it wrong not the fact you are causing harm. get it?
I dont even know what your talking about in the second comment Im not argueing that homosexuality harms ppl. I can see how herefords points on how it will lead to other actions by society could lead to harm but homosexuality itself doesnt.
-
LOL again your missing the forest for the trees bro...if the only reason murder and theft are b/c the cause harm it would be universal but its not again if we lived in tribes it would be ok so its not that it simply causes harm its b/c society says you cant harm these specific ppl in our group...ITS SOCIETY that deems it wrong not the fact you are causing harm. get it?
Even if we lived in tribes, we would still recognize that killing a member of another tribe would cause that tribe harm and that it was wrong.
I dont even know what your talking about in the second comment Im not argueing that homosexuality harms ppl. I can see how herefords points on how it will lead to other actions by society could lead to harm but homosexuality itself doesnt.
You said "let's not pretend one issue is okay while one issue is not". The difference between the two is perfectly clear.
-
It's a social and behavioral deviation. A big reason the liberals are behind (heh) the gay movement is because if they can make it ok to do things that people have held to be deviant they can create precedence to do just about anything.
The left NEEDS movements like this to promote the continued moral decay of society so that it can push its' other agendas.
Judging from all the guys caught trying to seduce underage pages, getting massages, or having wide stances in bathroom stalls, ...I think it's the RIGHT that NEEDS the gay movement more than anyone. It allows them to indulge themselves physically, ...while spewing the kind of vile hatred, intolerance, and hypocrisy they and their followers are so famous for.
-
^^
right but it would still be ok im not argueing that murder and theft dont cause harm only that they arent ok b/c society says so...trust AL you are wrong on this...calm down and think about it and read my statments...society comes first in this logical equation
its not b/c it causes harm that its not accepted(wrong was a bad term) if it was then society would not accept anything that causes harm...but we do dont we? Logically if something is not accepted b/c it causes harm then all things that cause harm are not accepted.
slaves where ok with society even though it caused harm to ppl it was only when societies view of slaves changed that they decided to stop causing harm. Its not b/c it causes harm its b/c society deems it acceptable or not acceptable.
-
^^
right but it would still be ok im not argueing that murder and theft dont cause harm only that they arent ok b/c society says so...trust AL you are wrong on this...calm down and think about it and read my statments...society comes first in this logical equation
You keep specifically using a murder of another tribe as an example because you know it's a weak argument. Of course, people would care less if someone from another tribe was murdered. They might even be happy about it if it somehow benefited them. However, if a member of their own tribe killed another tribe member, it would, without exception, be considered wrong. If a member of another tribe killed someone within their own tribe, it would be considered an affront and wrong. Likewise, if someone was involved in a murder of someone from another tribe, the murderer would attempt to conceal it or expect retaliation. Whether or not they felt bad about it, they would know that associates of the victim would respond in a similar way, and to some extent, be justified. There would be no question that someone was wronged.
its not b/c it causes harm that its not accepted(wrong was a bad term) if it was then society would not accept anything that causes harm...but we do dont we? Logically if something is not accepted b/c it causes harm then all things that cause harm are not accepted.
Not really, but what harmful actions can a person perform that are accepted by society?
slaves where ok with society even though it caused harm to ppl it was only when societies view of slaves changed that they decided to stop causing harm. Its not b/c it causes harm its b/c society deems it acceptable or not acceptable.
This whole statement is a little wrong, but I'll take it at face value for now. When societies view of slaves changed, why did slavery fall out of favor? Answer: Because the treatment of slaves was considered unfair, i.e. harmful.
This is slowly veering away from the topic, though.
You compared a genetic predisposition for homosexuality to a genetic predisposition for murder. Murder has an definitive negative impact on others who do not wish to be impacted. That is why society views it as wrong.
-
Comparing murder to being a queer is like comparing apples to bowling balls. I would think sexuality is more like eye color or facial structure- Hereditary and unchangable.
-
You keep specifically using a murder of another tribe as an example because you know it's a weak argument. Of course, people would care less if someone from another tribe was murdered. They might even be happy about it if it somehow benefited them. However, if a member of their own tribe killed another tribe member, it would, without exception, be considered wrong. If a member of another tribe killed someone within their own tribe, it would be considered an affront and wrong. Likewise, if someone was involved in a murder of someone from another tribe, the murderer would attempt to conceal it or expect retaliation. Whether or not they felt bad about it, they would know that associates of the victim would respond in a similar way, and to some extent, be justified. There would be no question that someone was wronged.
Not really, but what harmful actions can a person perform that are accepted by society?
This whole statement is a little wrong, but I'll take it at face value for now. When societies view of slaves changed, why did slavery fall out of favor? Answer: Because the treatment of slaves was considered unfair, i.e. harmful.
This is slowly veering away from the topic, though.
You compared a genetic predisposition for homosexuality to a genetic predisposition for murder. Murder has an definitive negative impact on others who do not wish to be impacted. That is why society views it as wrong.
FACE PALM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG slavery caused harm before society changed its view on it didnt it? nobody got hurt during slavery before they changed their minds? It was societies view that changed not the fact it caused harm that changed. Yes they changed their view b/c it caused harm but thats not why it was accepted or not accepted it was accepted b/c society deemed it ok and then deemed it not ok if it was simply b/c it caused harm it would have NEVER BEEN OK...
LOL go back and read Al youre trying to argue a point i never made...Oz asked what murder and theft have to do in a conversation about homosexuality. They all have a genetic predisposition to them I never said homosexuality was bad in this thread pls find it. Simply pointed out that they all had a genetic predisposition to them and it was society that deemed one ok and the other not ok...
-
Comparing murder to being a queer is like comparing apples to bowling balls. I would think sexuality is more like eye color or facial structure- Hereditary and unchangable.
hmmm not at all, see it is expressed in the form of a behavior and we have control over what we do. Eye color or facial structure is completely out of our hands while we may be more attracted to one over another it is still a choice to indulge that desire.
-
FACE PALM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG slavery caused harm before society changed its view on it didnt it? nobody got hurt during slavery before they changed their minds? It was societies view that changed not the fact it caused harm that changed. Yes they changed their view b/c it caused harm but thats not why it was accepted or not accepted it was accepted b/c society deemed it ok and then deemed it not ok if it was simply b/c it caused harm it would have NEVER BEEN OK...
LOL go back and read Al youre trying to argue a point i never made...Oz asked what murder and theft have to do in a conversation about homosexuality. They all have a genetic predisposition to them I never said homosexuality was bad in this thread pls find it. Simply pointed out that they all had a genetic predisposition to them and it was society that deemed one ok and the other not ok...
I think you are misunderstanding my argument. I'm not saying that throughout the course of history, society hasn't changed what it finds acceptable. I'm saying that using murder and theft as examples of this is a poor argument. You made the statement that murder and homosexuality were comparable, and both were seen as bad because society said so. Not true. Murder and theft are undeniably, indisputably harmful, both to others and society as a whole. There's no getting around that. If someone has a homosexual relationship, it has no effect on someone outside of that relationship. Slavery and the way some parts of society feel about homosexuals are perfect examples of arbitrarily applying a false morality to behavior one doesn't agree with. Murder and theft are poor examples of that. If you were determined to make a genetic predisposition comparison, you might give overeating or being a neat freak a try, but when you use murder and compare how the two behaviors are viewed by society, you are attaching a morality to it, whether you admit it or not. The reasons murder and theft aren't accepted by society are very clear.
-
I think you are misunderstanding my argument. I'm not saying that throughout the course of history, society hasn't changed what it finds acceptable. I'm saying that using murder and theft as examples of this is a poor argument. You made the statement that murder and homosexuality were comparable, and both were seen as bad because society said so. Not true. Murder and theft are undeniably, indisputably harmful, both to others and society as a whole. There's no getting around that. If someone has a homosexual relationship, it has no effect on someone outside of that relationship. Slavery and the way some parts of society feel about homosexuals are perfect examples of arbitrarily applying a false morality to behavior one doesn't agree with. Murder and theft are poor examples of that. If you were determined to make a genetic predisposition comparison, you might give overeating or being a neat freak a try, but when you use murder and compare how the two behaviors are viewed by society, you are attaching a morality to it, whether you admit it or not. The reasons murder and theft aren't accepted by society are very clear.
I made a statement that they are comparable b/c of their genetic predisposition and yes we do harm as a society that is acceptable. Death penalty ring a bell? wait you will say its in response to something but its still harm and its accepted by society...I understand your point im not making a moral equivilancy of homosexuality to murder which is i believe what you feel im doing. Simply stating they both do share a genetic component. I didnt comment on WHY society accepts one or the other you jumped to that only that society accepts one and not the other.
Now for the love of shit lets drop it
-
I made a statement that they are comparable b/c of their genetic predisposition and yes we do harm as a society that is acceptable. Death penalty ring a bell? wait you will say its in response to something but its still harm and its accepted by society...I understand your point im not making a moral equivilancy of homosexuality to murder which is i believe what you feel im doing. Simply stating they both do share a genetic component. I didnt comment on WHY society accepts one or the other you jumped to that only that society accepts one and not the other.
Now for the love of shit lets drop it
Death penalty is not accepted by society as a whole. Many people consider it immoral and barbaric. And as much as you may attempt to gloss over it, the fact that the death penalty is a response to a crime iIS significant. That's not just a minor detail.It's a penalty for criminal actions.
If you want to drop it, you don't have to respond, but the highlighted text is completely disingenuous. It's like if I were to say, "Yeah, George Bush and Hitler had a lot of things in common. They both breathed oxygen and they both had e's in their names." Or even, "Mothers and Pedophiles are similar in that they both love children." The comparison itself is loaded, no matter how abstractedly you try to frame it. And it's simply a poor comparison, the reasons for which I"ve already stated multiple times.
-
Death penalty is not accepted by society as a whole. Many people consider it immoral and barbaric. And as much as you may attempt to gloss over it, the fact that the death penalty is a response to a crime iIS significant. That's not just a minor detail.It's a penalty for criminal actions.
If you want to drop it, you don't have to respond, but the highlighted text is completely disingenuous. It's like if I were to say, "Yeah, George Bush and Hitler had a lot of things in common. They both breathed oxygen and they both had e's in their names." Or even, "Mothers and Pedophiles are similar in that they both love children." The comparison itself is loaded, no matter how abstractedly you try to frame it. And it's simply a poor comparison, the reasons for which I"ve already stated multiple times.
Im not going to even respond to the first paragraph with the exception of this, you need to go take a freshman level logic class Al you are wrong about this i dont know if you think im putting down homosexuality and thats why you are so adament about it or what but trust you are wrong.
I was not being disingenuous I first off was not the person to bring up murder and theft. I was simply responding to Oz's post as to their connection. Whether you want to accept it or not there is a comparison there on the level of genetic predisposition which is as far as I went with it YOU where the one that decided to make it into some moral equivalency with argueing with me.
-
actually it does as you know these things all have a genetic predisposition as does homosexuality but b/c society deems these things bad you are supposed to suppress them. In fact not but a few decades ago homosexuality was considered a mental disorder its generally b/c of the acceptance of society that they now say let them be gay.
In that sense, sure. But they are 2 very different things that are not really comparable in the same context for practical purposes.
It's not practical to allow a person who has a genetic disposition to murder people to be free to do what they want.
But it is practical to let 2 adults do what ever they want (save murder and other stupid obvious things) to each other based on mutual consent.
Also I'm sure there are many other things less impacting and more trivial that we are genetically predisposed to do as well as harder stuff like gambling/intermittent reward
-
In that sense, sure. But they are 2 very different things that are not really comparable in the same context for practical purposes.
It's not practical to allow a person who has a genetic disposition to murder people to be free to do what they want.
But it is practical to let 2 adults do what ever they want (save murder and other stupid obvious things) to each other based on mutual consent.
Also I'm sure there are many other things less impacting and more trivial that we are genetically predisposed to do as well as harder stuff like gambling/intermittent reward
agreed and I BLAME YOU FOR THE 30 MINS I HAD TO DEBATE WITH AL I WANT MY 30 MINS BACK YOU ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D
addiction to gambling, drugs etc... are frowned upon by society even if they dont impact anybody else but the person addicted to them, why not homosexuality(al i know youre going to read this and get pissed im not saying being gay is bad simply asking a question)?
-
agreed and I BLAME YOU FOR THE 30 MINS I HAD TO DEBATE WITH AL I WANT MY 30 MINS BACK YOU ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D
;D
addiction to gambling, drugs etc... are frowned upon by society even if they dont impact anybody else but the person addicted to them, why not homosexuality(al i know youre going to read this and get pissed im not saying being gay is bad simply asking a question)?
Because there are tangible negative consequences with gambling and drug abuse along with social and moral issues that are associated with it. With homosexuality its generally not as tangible or impacting but still has moral issues from a society rooted in religion.
One thing this study does support is the idea that being attracted to the same sex is less of a choice while acting on it is.
-
Im not going to even respond to the first paragraph with the exception of this, you need to go take a freshman level logic class Al you are wrong about this i dont know if you think im putting down homosexuality and thats why you are so adament about it or what but trust you are wrong.
I was not being disingenuous I first off was not the person to bring up murder and theft. I was simply responding to Oz's post as to their connection. Whether you want to accept it or not there is a comparison there on the level of genetic predisposition which is as far as I went with it YOU where the one that decided to make it into some moral equivalency with argueing with me.
My first paragraph was an apt response to what you wrote. Also, I don't know if you're trying to imply that I'm gay (which I'm not), but the reason I am so "adamant" ::) is that I've seen you trot out these same bullshit memes before.
I remember a debate between the two of us from not too long ago that featured pretty much the same conversational components. So whether or not your comparisons were limited to genetic predisposition in this thread , in the thread linked below, you use the same murder/violence/homosexuality comparisons and you seem to be much more definitive about where you stand on the issue, in regards to morality. My response was in reference to what you wrote in this thread, along with the poorly reasoned arguments you've laid down in past threads.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=256681.msg3619791#msg3619791
-
agreed and I BLAME YOU FOR THE 30 MINS I HAD TO DEBATE WITH AL I WANT MY 30 MINS BACK YOU ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D
How is what Ozmo said any different than what I said? The actual words may be different, but the general idea is the same.
addiction to gambling, drugs etc... are frowned upon by society even if they dont impact anybody else but the person addicted to them, why not homosexuality(al i know youre going to read this and get pissed im not saying being gay is bad simply asking a question)?
Drug and gambling addiction will likely have an negative impact on the user's/sufferer's family and will almost certainly have a negative impact on the user/sufferer.
-
So? Was does porn addiction, thievery or murder have to do with homosexuality?
This report is based on a series of studies that show trying to change gays to straight doesn't work. It's not about murder, porn addiction, or thievery.
As Paul Harvey used to say, "And now....Here's the rest of the story!!"
Has APA given nod to gay change therapy?
TORONTO (BP)--In a report that has resulted in widely differing interpretations, a 130-page paper from an American Psychological Association task force Wednesday concluded there is little evidence that "gay-to-straight" therapies work, but -- in a nod to Christian conservatives -- said religious individuals who desire to leave homosexuality should be assisted in doing so.
The report from the APA's Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Homosexuality was much-anticipated and was presented to the body's annual convention following a two-year study in which the task force examined 83 studies on the issue, most of them conducted before 1978.
Many conservatives were left wondering exactly what the paper said, and they weren't alone. The Associated Press and CNN.com ran stories largely focusing on the paper's critique of reparative therapies -- "Programs to change gays to straights don't work," CNN's headline read -- while the Wall Street Journal focused on what it saw as the APA's "striking departure" from its past liberal positions on homosexuality.
In truth, the report had something for both sides of the issue……
Bob Stith, the Southern Baptist national strategist for gender issues and the representative of the denomination's Task Force on Ministry to Homosexuals, said "the report was much better than I had expected" and that it had "enough to give anyone who read it some support." But he, like other conservatives, was frustrated with much of the report.
"There are thousands of people who can say with the man born blind in John 9, 'I once was blind but now I can see,'" Stith told Baptist Press, pointing to passages such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 where Scripture declares that homosexuals can change.
Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, is one such former homosexual. Exodus is a Christian ministry that assists homosexuals who want to change.
"Optimistically, I think that this is gradual change [at APA], and we believe that gradual change is better than no change at all," Chambers told BP. "So, for the APA to come out with some nod toward religious folks who are conflicted about these issues, it's a good sign. What's not good is that they deny the truth of my story and the truth of the story of tens of thousands of other people like me that have experienced not only significant but real and lasting change.
"The APA has said that their psychologists and counselors need to respect a client's religious beliefs," Chambers added. "... That's the first time they've ever acknowledged anything of that nature."
Part of the divide between the APA and the Christian community, Chambers said, could be attributed to what is and is not considered change. For instance, the report criticized recent studies that conservatives have touted as supporting their position. APA brushed off those conclusions by noting the study's subjects "became skilled in ignoring or tolerating their same-sex attractions." The APA considers such a person a homosexual. But Chambers and others like him believe that, biblically speaking, the APA is simply describing former homosexuals who are resisting temptation. In other words, those former homosexuals -- according to Christian theology -- are winning their battle with sin.
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=31038 (http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=31038)
-
Drug and gambling addiction will likely have an negative impact on the user's/sufferer's family and will almost certainly have a negative impact on the user/sufferer.
well your arguement for homosexuality was that it would only harm the person within the relationship, so drug addiction and gambling addiction are ok if they only hurt the person doing them? Homosexuality can also have an adverse effect on family members dont you know?
-
As Paul Harvey used to say, "And now....Here's the rest of the story!!"
Has APA given nod to gay change therapy?
TORONTO (BP)--In a report that has resulted in widely differing interpretations, a 130-page paper from an American Psychological Association task force Wednesday concluded there is little evidence that "gay-to-straight" therapies work, but -- in a nod to Christian conservatives -- said religious individuals who desire to leave homosexuality should be assisted in doing so.
The report from the APA's Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Homosexuality was much-anticipated and was presented to the body's annual convention following a two-year study in which the task force examined 83 studies on the issue, most of them conducted before 1978.
Many conservatives were left wondering exactly what the paper said, and they weren't alone. The Associated Press and CNN.com ran stories largely focusing on the paper's critique of reparative therapies -- "Programs to change gays to straights don't work," CNN's headline read -- while the Wall Street Journal focused on what it saw as the APA's "striking departure" from its past liberal positions on homosexuality.
In truth, the report had something for both sides of the issue……
Bob Stith, the Southern Baptist national strategist for gender issues and the representative of the denomination's Task Force on Ministry to Homosexuals, said "the report was much better than I had expected" and that it had "enough to give anyone who read it some support." But he, like other conservatives, was frustrated with much of the report.
"There are thousands of people who can say with the man born blind in John 9, 'I once was blind but now I can see,'" Stith told Baptist Press, pointing to passages such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 where Scripture declares that homosexuals can change.
Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, is one such former homosexual. Exodus is a Christian ministry that assists homosexuals who want to change.
"Optimistically, I think that this is gradual change [at APA], and we believe that gradual change is better than no change at all," Chambers told BP. "So, for the APA to come out with some nod toward religious folks who are conflicted about these issues, it's a good sign. What's not good is that they deny the truth of my story and the truth of the story of tens of thousands of other people like me that have experienced not only significant but real and lasting change.
"The APA has said that their psychologists and counselors need to respect a client's religious beliefs," Chambers added. "... That's the first time they've ever acknowledged anything of that nature."
Part of the divide between the APA and the Christian community, Chambers said, could be attributed to what is and is not considered change. For instance, the report criticized recent studies that conservatives have touted as supporting their position. APA brushed off those conclusions by noting the study's subjects "became skilled in ignoring or tolerating their same-sex attractions." The APA considers such a person a homosexual. But Chambers and others like him believe that, biblically speaking, the APA is simply describing former homosexuals who are resisting temptation. In other words, those former homosexuals -- according to Christian theology -- are winning their battle with sin.
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=31038 (http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=31038)
Let's see.....
We have an article from the "Baptists Press" that even quotes bible versus, eludes to "liberal positions on homosexuality", and pretty much doesn't say much other than if a person "wants" to change for religious they should be assisted. In addition, the article appeals to people who think someone like Chambers or Stith are qualified to challenge APA findings.
The article isn't about whether we should help those that want to change especially when the desire to change is tied to religious beliefs which for obvious can cause undue strife and stress. The article is about that it doesn't usually work and can have damaging effects.
So the "rest of the story" is moot.
-
well your arguement for homosexuality was that it would only harm the person within the relationship, so drug addiction and gambling addiction are ok if they only hurt the person doing them? Homosexuality can also have an adverse effect on family members dont you know?
No, my point was that there is nothing inherently harmful about homosexuality. Any damage that can occur within/because of a homosexual relationship can occur as a result of a heterosexual relationship, too. It has nothing to do with sexual preference.
Drug addiction and gambling addictions are inherently destructive.
-
No, my point was that there is nothing inherently harmful about homosexuality. Any damage that can occur within/because of a homosexual relationship can occur as a result of a heterosexual relationship, too. It has nothing to do with sexual preference.
Drug addiction and gambling addictions are inherently destructive.
whether it could happen in a heterosexual relationship or not had nothing to do with your point that it only harms the person involved. Yes drug addiction and gambling addiction are for the most part destructive extremely destructive but if the only person getting hurt is the person commiting them why should it matter?
-
I support legalizing Gambling, All Drugs and Prostitution.
-
whether it could happen in a heterosexual relationship or not had nothing to do with your point that it only harms the person involved.
It had everything to do with my point.
My point was that neither homosexual or heterosexual relationships are inherently harmful to anyone, including the participants of the relationship. The harm I'm referring to is stuff like breaking up or potential for stds, none of which is limited by sexual preference and is just a natural result of any relationship. That is of concern to no one outside of the relationship.
Sure there are probably homosexuals who get beaten by their boyfriends and lesbians who go on cross-country crime sprees, but that was not dictated by the fact that the couples were homosexual or lesbian. Homosexual relationships don't have anymore of an inherently negative impact on society than heterosexual relationships.
Yes drug addiction and gambling addiction are for the most part destructive extremely destructive but if the only person getting hurt is the person commiting them why should it matter?
Of course, whether or not an individual harms him or herself matters.I never made the claim that it didn't. Additionally, these addictions often lead to illegal behaviors in other areas. And they often lead to extreme harm of others.
-
TORONTO (BP)--In a report that has resulted in widely differing interpretations, a 130-page paper from an American Psychological Association task force Wednesday concluded there is little evidence that "gay-to-straight" therapies work, but -- in a nod to Christian conservatives -- said religious individuals who desire to leave homosexuality should be assisted in doing so.
and why did this article leave off the last part of that sentence? "..by being celibate." There is a big difference between accepting who you are but choosing not to act on it, vs forcing yourself to act in ways counter to your biology.
-
It had everything to do with my point.
My point was that neither homosexual or heterosexual relationships are inherently harmful to anyone, including the participants of the relationship. The harm I'm referring to is stuff like breaking up or potential for stds, none of which is limited by sexual preference and is just a natural result of any relationship. That is of concern to no one outside of the relationship.
Sure there are probably homosexuals who get beaten by their boyfriends and lesbians who go on cross-country crime sprees, but that was not dictated by the fact that the couples were homosexual or lesbian. Homosexual relationships don't have anymore of an inherently negative impact on society than heterosexual relationships.
Of course, whether or not an individual harms him or herself matters.I never made the claim that it didn't. Additionally, these addictions often lead to illegal behaviors in other areas. And they often lead to extreme harm of others.
sigh youre missing my point but that seems to be the entire theme of this thread with me and you, so im going to let it go....
-
sigh youre missing my point but that seems to be the entire theme of this thread with me and you, so im going to let it go....
No. You're missing the point. You keep looking at portions of my posts myopically for the sole purpose of debating and completely ignoring the point of them.
I can only make an answer so clunky, before I think it contains enough caveats to cover every irrelevant "What if...?" you can throw back at me.
My initial point, stripped to it's core, is that most of society's laws are common sense. There are practical, justifiable reasons for outlawing things like murder and theft that are beyond debate.
This is the post that led you to claim there was a justifiable comparison between the two:
Most (if not all) of these reports make the erroneous assumption that this behavior is normal. As if murder, porn addiction, or thievery are normal forms of behavior
Yes, relationships can cause harm, but there is no inherent harm caused by them, gay or straight. That was my point. A drug addiction almost inevitably leads to self-destruction, and it unfavorably leans towards harm to society (i.e. potential murders, thefts, car crashes, you name it).
-
No. You're missing the point. You keep looking at portions of my posts myopically for the sole purpose of debating and completely ignoring the point of them.
I can only make an answer so clunky, before I think it contains enough caveats to cover every irrelevant "What if...?" you can throw back at me.
I could say the exact same thing remember my first response to your first post I said your missing the forest for the trees...
-
I could say the exact same thing remember my first response to your first post I said your missing the forest for the trees...
Dude, you compared murder to homosexuality and tried to make a claim that the only thing you were comparing was the belief that there was genetic predisposition involved with both. I'm missing the forest for the trees? ::) C'mon.
-
Dude, you compared murder to homosexuality and tried to make a claim that the only thing you were comparing was the belief that there was genetic predisposition involved with both. I'm missing the forest for the trees? ::) C'mon.
no again go back and read I didnt compare somebody else did oz asked what the relation was and I specified they all have a genetic component...
-
I went back and read. This is the post Ozmo questioned:
Most (if not all) of these reports make the erroneous assumption that this behavior is normal. As if murder, porn addiction, or thievery are normal forms of behavior
In regards to missing the forest for the trees, how can you read that post and seriously expect anyone to believe that what he meant was that there is a genetic component to all four behaviors. You know perfectly well that is not the case.
-
I went back and read. This is the post Ozmo questioned:
In regards to missing the forest for the trees, how can you read that post and seriously expect anyone to believe that what he meant was that there is a genetic component to all four behaviors. You know perfectly well that is not the case.
I wasnt addressing his post I was addressing Oz's post and he asked
So? Was does porn addiction, thievery or murder have to do with homosexuality?
This report is based on a series of studies that show trying to change gays to straight doesn't work. It's not about murder, porn addiction, or thievery.
Youre trying to say that I was trying to take a shot at homosexuality which I wasnt facts are facts and all I did was state a fact. Then we went off into that discussion about society and its views and now this Im done think what you want im tired of argueing this shit with you
DAMN YOU OZMO!!!!!!!!!! ;)
-
I wasnt addressing his post I was addressing Oz's post and he asked
Youre trying to say that I was trying to take a shot at homosexuality which I wasnt facts are facts and all I did was state a fact. Then we went off into that discussion about society and its views and now this Im done think what you want im tired of argueing this shit with you
DAMN YOU OZMO!!!!!!!!!! ;)
Oz's post was a question of Colossus' post. You were attempting to "clarify" Colossus' post. There is no way you couldn't have been addressing his post.
I also posted a link in which you stated much more decisively that you felt homosexuality was comparable to murder in terms of morality. Considering you used the exact same comparison, it is reasonable that I would factor that in to how I responded to your post.
-
Oz's post was a question of Colossus' post. You were attempting to "clarify" Colossus' post. There is no way you couldn't have been addressing his post.
I also posted a link in which you stated much more decisively that you felt homosexuality was comparable to murder in terms of morality. Considering you used the exact same comparison, it is reasonable that I would factor that in to how I responded to your post.
Did I not answer Oz's post?
that was another thread and if you want to bump that Ill go there and argue with you about that. Fact is everything ive said in this thread is correct, your logic is bad and as ive stated you need to take a freshmen level college logic class. I never eluded to that thread you did I simply addressed first oz's post and then yours, YOU are the one that brought that shit into this thread.
-
Did I not answer Oz's post?
that was another thread and if you want to bump that Ill go there and argue with you about that. Fact is everything ive said in this thread is correct, your logic is bad and as ive stated you need to take a freshmen level college logic class. I never eluded to that thread you did I simply addressed first oz's post and then yours, YOU are the one that brought that shit into this thread.
My reasoning and debating skills are excellent. Your's could use work.
Whether or not you alluded to that thread, you used the exact same argument and the exact same example FROM that thread. On top of that, you explicitly posted an opinion there that you claimed you had not issued forth in this thread and you implied that it may not have been an opinion you held. That is why that thread is relevant. Your posts don't exist in a vacuum. Funny how you seem to follow 240 and True Adonis from thread to thread bringing up past arguments, yet somehow you believe anything you've posted disappears into the ether and should be completely disregarded. Even when it is, literally, exactly what you've said in a previous thread.
Colossus' post made a direct moral comparison between murder, porn addiction and homosexuality. That is what Ozmo questioned. That is the post you tried to justify. The claim that murder and homosexuality are comparable because they involve genetic components is already weak enough, but when you factor in the post that triggered the line of reasoning, it's complete bullshit.
-
My reasoning and debating skills are excellent. Your's could use work.
Whether or not you alluded to that thread, you used the exact same argument and the exact same example FROM that thread. On top of that, you explicitly posted an opinion there that you claimed you had not issued forth in this thread and you implied that it may not have been an opinion you held. That is why that thread is relevant. Your posts don't exist in a vacuum. Funny how you seem to follow 240 and True Adonis from thread to thread bringing up past arguments, yet somehow you believe anything you've posted disappears into the ether and should be completely disregarded. Even when it is, literally, exactly what you've said in a previous thread.
Colossus' post made a direct moral comparison between murder, porn addiction and homosexuality. That is what Ozmo questioned. That is the post you tried to justify. The claim that murder and homosexuality are comparable because they involve genetic components is already weak enough, but when you factor in the post that triggered the line of reasoning, it's complete bullshit.
omg I cant even read your entire post anymore, i do remember that thread and again if youd like you can bump that and ill move over there and prove you wrong there as well. My point in that thread was not that murder and homosexuality etc...where on the same level morally, my point was that society deems them either wrong or right which is my point in this thread and if a person thought of homosexuality as wrong for whatever reason why would they be ok with it seeing as it is a choice believe it or not to be homosexual or to indulge their homosexual tendencies?
-
Let's see.....
We have an article from the "Baptists Press" that even quotes bible versus, eludes to "liberal positions on homosexuality", and pretty much doesn't say much other than if a person "wants" to change for religious they should be assisted. In addition, the article appeals to people who think someone like Chambers or Stith are qualified to challenge APA findings.
The article isn't about whether we should help those that want to change especially when the desire to change is tied to religious beliefs which for obvious can cause undue strife and stress. The article is about that it doesn't usually work and can have damaging effects.
So the "rest of the story" is moot.
Unfortunately for that article, as Alan Chambers pointed out, the APA paper can't whitewash the fact that Chambers and numerous others have indeed left the homosexual lifestyle, many of them via the help that groups like Exodus International.
and why did this article leave off the last part of that sentence? "..by being celibate." There is a big difference between accepting who you are but choosing not to act on it, vs forcing yourself to act in ways counter to your biology.
How is being heterosexual counter to one's biology? Man is designed to procreate with woman, period. The machinery, as it were, points to that. Plus, biology doesn't play into the factors that often lead to homosexuality. Case in point, how many people ended up engaging in homosexuality, after being abused/molested as a child?
Some time ago, I posted an article about a young woman who ended up being a lesbian, after watching her mother get beat up by her father, along with her being molested by a male cousin after her parents divorced. Through a mutual friend on her church softball team, she met a group of Christian women who helped her through her emotional issues. Per her words, as she learned how to form healthy friendships with women, her lesbian desires decreased.
One Sunday night in October, 1989, Kelly led me in the prayer of salvation as I knelt beside my bed in my dorm room.
When I stood up, I knew that deep down something had changed. I knew that I wanted God more than my homosexuality. But becoming a Christian was only the beginning of my journey. It didn't instantly resolve my homosexual feelings. I broke up with my partner, but I continued to struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions.
Thankfully, I found out about a ministry that helps people overcome their homosexuality, and I began to attend a local support group. There, I discovered the root causes of my homosexual desires, including sexual abuse, gender confusion, a breakdown in the relationship with my same-sex parent, an abusive father and peer rejection.
I met strong, godly women in church who helped me to see that being feminine didn't mean being weak. I met men who treated me with dignity and respect. This freed me to embrace my gender and to stop rejecting God's design. I even started using my full name, Christine, because I no longer wanted to hide being a girl.
My ideas about men and women were changed. I learned that being female is not a liability. And I began to identify outwardly with women, experimenting with wearing makeup and different clothes and using purses. I became different from the inside out.
Others noticed my progress and encouraged me. I'll never forget when Robert approached me in church and said, smiling, "Christine, this is the first time you don't look like a boy in a dress." Though his statement hadn't come out right, I knew that he had meant well, and it let me know I was making progress.
The key to my healing was developing healthy same-sex friendships. As I did this, my sexual attractions for women naturally diminished because I found what I was looking for all along -- real love and connections with others.
With God's help and the support of caring people, I now walk in freedom from lesbianism. I know that a changed life is possible because I am a changed person.
http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=28789 (http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=28789)
As for the celibate stuff, I believe Mr. Chambers is married, with children. So, I'll go out on a limb and state that he ain't being "celibate". He's being fruitful and multiplying, as it were. ;D
-
I don't know what Al is talking about when he claims religion is against homosexuals & homosexuality.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The church has been supporting gays for years, ...given them safe harbour & pretty much carte blanche to do what comes naturally. How do you think the Catholic church got so big? Some men's genetic predisposition towards homosexuality was the best thing that could have happened to the Catholic church. Where else could a man spend his life on his knees, gazing adoring up at a statue of another naked man, while sequestered behind closed doors night & day, with a bunch of other men... and not have it the least bit questioned? You don't actually think it was those spiffy Friar Tuck hairdos and those ghastly robes that drove recruitment into the priesthood do ya? ::)
-
omg I cant even read your entire post anymore, i do remember that thread and again if youd like you can bump that and ill move over there and prove you wrong there as well. My point in that thread was not that murder and homosexuality etc...where on the same level morally, my point was that society deems them either wrong or right which is my point in this thread and if a person thought of homosexuality as wrong for whatever reason why would they be ok with it seeing as it is a choice believe it or not to be homosexual or to indulge their homosexual tendencies?
Why bother bumping that thread? Arbitrary formality. This thread is about the same thing.
You haven't proven me wrong on anything. You agreed with Ozmo who basically just parroted back what I'd been saying throughout the thread. If you believe homosexuality is a choice, you're entitled to that opinion, but that does not make it fact. Even if it is a choice, that does not change the point I've made throughout this entire thread: there is no inherent harm in homosexuality and there is no justification in attempting to attach morality to it.
-
Unfortunately for that article, as Alan Chambers pointed out, the APA paper can't whitewash the fact that Chambers and numerous others have indeed left the homosexual lifestyle, many of them via the help that groups like Exodus International.
I don't think anyone is saying it 100% doesn't work. I don't think or see where the paper would be saying that. What the article says is this:
"The American Psychological Association concluded Wednesday that there is little evidence that efforts to change a person's sexual orientation from gay or lesbian to heterosexual are effective." Chambers is part of that "little evidence."
Again, the article is moot. It's specifically designed to give someone who is a fundamental christian a counter point to the findings. But the problem is, its not much of one. It's moot.
-
Why bother bumping that thread? Arbitrary formality. This thread is about the same thing.
You haven't proven me wrong on anything. You agreed with Ozmo who basically just parroted back what I'd been saying throughout the thread. If you believe homosexuality is a choice, you're entitled to that opinion, but that does not make it fact. Even if it is a choice, that does not change the point I've made throughout this entire thread: there is no inherent harm in homosexuality and there is no justification in attempting to attach morality to it.
I did not attempt to attach morality to it in this thread my point in this thread is that society deems what is acceptable and whats not and that my friend is a fact if it was simply based on harm which is what you argue then slavery would have never been acceptable since it always caused harm its societies views that changed not the fact that it caused harm. You think those slave owners didnt know they where harming ppl? of course they did it wasnt until societies view of the harm they where doing changed that slavery became bad.
Homosexuality does have a genetic component but since it is expressed in a behavior it is a choice as you have the choice to perform an action or not.
My point in the other thread was that if it is indeed a choice which ive shown it is and you deem it wrong for whatever reason why would you be in favor of gay marriage? answer that...
-
I don't know what Al is talking about when he claims religion is against homosexuals & homosexuality.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The church has been supporting gays for years, ...given them safe harbour & pretty much carte blanche to do what comes naturally. How do you think the Catholic church got so big? Some men's genetic predisposition towards homosexuality was the best thing that could have happened to the Catholic church. Where else could a man spend his life on his knees, gazing adoring up at a statue of another naked man, while sequestered behind closed doors night & day, with a bunch of other men... and not have it the least bit questioned? You don't actually think it was those spiffy Friar Tuck hairdos and those ghastly robes that drove recruitment into the priesthood do ya? ::)
You really are whacked in the head.
-
I don't know what Al is talking about when he claims religion is against homosexuals & homosexuality.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The church has been supporting gays for years, ...given them safe harbour & pretty much carte blanche to do what comes naturally. How do you think the Catholic church got so big? Some men's genetic predisposition towards homosexuality was the best thing that could have happened to the Catholic church. Where else could a man spend his life on his knees, gazing adoring up at a statue of another naked man, while sequestered behind closed doors night & day, with a bunch of other men... and not have it the least bit questioned? You don't actually think it was those spiffy Friar Tuck hairdos and those ghastly robes that drove recruitment into the priesthood do ya? ::)
That has to be one of the most disrespectful things I have ever read. And you preach tolerance (for one group I guess)? Laughable.
-
You really are whacked in the head.
AMEN!!!!
;D
-
I was going to respond to her post as well but i figured id let it slide since what i had to say wasnt very nice.
-
I don't think anyone is saying it 100% doesn't work. I don't think or see where the paper would be saying that. What the article says is this:
"The American Psychological Association concluded Wednesday that there is little evidence that efforts to change a person's sexual orientation from gay or lesbian to heterosexual are effective." Chambers is part of that "little evidence."
Again, the article is moot. It's specifically designed to give someone who is a fundamental christian a counter point to the findings. But the problem is, its not much of one. It's moot.
As the article states, at issue here is what's being defined as effective.
Part of the divide between the APA and the Christian community, Chambers said, could be attributed to what is and is not considered change. For instance, the report criticized recent studies that conservatives have touted as supporting their position. APA brushed off those conclusions by noting the study's subjects "became skilled in ignoring or tolerating their same-sex attractions." The APA considers such a person a homosexual. But Chambers and others like him believe that, biblically speaking, the APA is simply describing former homosexuals who are resisting temptation. In other words, those former homosexuals -- according to Christian theology -- are winning their battle with sin.....
The report was released days before psychologists Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse release their next set of data in a longitudinal study that is following people who are trying to change. In the last set of data from 2007, 38 percent of the subjects followed in the study said they had successfully left homosexuality, while an additional 29 percent said they had had only modest successes but were committed to keep trying. That data was published in a book, "Ex-Gays?" Their newest data is set to be released online this weekend.
-
As the article states, at issue here is what's being defined as effective.
Part of the divide between the APA and the Christian community, Chambers said, could be attributed to what is and is not considered change. For instance, the report criticized recent studies that conservatives have touted as supporting their position. APA brushed off those conclusions by noting the study's subjects "became skilled in ignoring or tolerating their same-sex attractions." The APA considers such a person a homosexual. But Chambers and others like him believe that, biblically speaking, the APA is simply describing former homosexuals who are resisting temptation. In other words, those former homosexuals -- according to Christian theology -- are winning their battle with sin.....
The report was released days before psychologists Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse release their next set of data in a longitudinal study that is following people who are trying to change. In the last set of data from 2007, 38 percent of the subjects followed in the study said they had successfully left homosexuality, while an additional 29 percent said they had had only modest successes but were committed to keep trying. That data was published in a book, "Ex-Gays?" Their newest data is set to be released online this weekend.
I agree on the issue you pointed out and see what you are saying even though IMO real change hasn't occurred if the subjects ends up suppressing their desires. Think about it. Could you ever not be attracted to a women or women? Also, the idea that these people are having to suppress their desires only supports that being attracted to a member of the same sex isn't the "choice" people have made it out to be.
In addition to that, I am not surprised that there are studies that support the possibility of change as they did review some 80+ of them. This latest one is no different.
-
You really are whacked in the head.
I guess you just don't appreciate my sense of humour. ;)
-
I guess you just don't appreciate my sense of humour. ;)
Yeah, the eye roll threw me off. ::)
-
That has to be one of the most disrespectful things I have ever read. And you preach tolerance (for one group I guess)? Laughable.
Yeah, ...but to whom do you feel the disrespect was intended? Yeah, I preach tolerance. Just because I have disdain for some, doesn't mean I'm the one who condones or has condoned stretching them on the rack, ...or burning defenseless widows alive at the stake in order to seize all their property.
-
Yeah, ...but to whom do you feel the disrespect was intended? Yeah, I preach tolerance. Just because I have disdain for some, doesn't mean I'm the one who condones or has condoned stretching them on the rack, ...or burning defenseless widows alive at the stake in order to seize all their property.
yes perhaps we should attribute the horrendous actions done by africans in africa and elsewhere to all africans...idiocy jag
-
Yeah, ...but to whom do you feel the disrespect was intended? Yeah, I preach tolerance. Just because I have disdain for some, doesn't mean I'm the one who condones or has condoned stretching them on the rack, ...or burning defenseless widows alive at the stake in order to seize all their property.
I think your previous post speaks loud enough for everyone here. Let the train wreck continue burning.
-
yes perhaps we should attribute the horrendous actions done by africans in africa and elsewhere to all africans...idiocy jag
Why do you always insist on bringin things back to race?
Your little diversion won't work. The people you are debating with are smarter than that. edit: except maybe Cap
You backed yourself into a stupid, specious, and indefencible position, and you've been called on it.
No point now in trying to divert attention. Back up your argument or concede stupidity. :D
-
Why do you always insist on bringin things back to race?
Your little diversion won't work. The people you are debating with are smarter than that. edit: except maybe Cap
You backed yourself into a stupid, specious, and indefencible position, and you've been called on it.
No point now in trying to divert attention. Back up your argument or concede stupidity. :D
I intentionally used that to show the ignorance of your post jag apparently that went over your head.
-
Why do you always insist on bringin things back to race?
Your little diversion won't work. The people you are debating with are smarter than that. edit: except maybe Cap
You backed yourself into a stupid, specious, and indefencible position, and you've been called on it.
No point now in trying to divert attention. Back up your argument or concede stupidity. :D
Like I said, your posts show your true character.
-
I agree on the issue you pointed out and see what you are saying even though IMO real change hasn't occurred if the subjects ends up suppressing their desires. Think about it. Could you ever not be attracted to a women or women? Also, the idea that these people are having to suppress their desires only supports that being attracted to a member of the same sex isn't the "choice" people have made it out to be.
But, the reason for that "choice" has been addressed. Again, using the example of Christine Sneeringer, she didn't choose to have her dad go Ike Turner or her mom, or to have her cousin molest her. Can you say that she would have been a lesbian, had those things not happened?
Exodus International often deals with people like her, who've had things like this happen to them. As Sneeringer states, as she developed healthy relationship with women, the lesbian stuff diminshed.
In addition to that, I am not surprised that there are studies that support the possibility of change as they did review some 80+ of them. This latest one is no different.
Again, it all goes back to who is defining success and how. APA defines it one way; evangelical Christians (and Exodus International, in particular) define it another.
From a Christian perspective, suppressing desires is nothing new (regardless of what they are). It's often called "dying to one's self" or "crucifying one's flesh". As the referenced text, verse 11 in particular, indicates, .....And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
In other words, the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ helps people deal with homosexuality, just as it does with adultery, fornication, lying, theft, and other sins.
-
But, the reason for that "choice" have been addressed. Again, using the example of Christine Sneeringer, she didn't choose to have her dad go Ike Turner or her mom, or have her cousing molest her. Can you say that she would have been a lesbian, had those things not happened?
Exodus International often deals with people like her, who've had things like this happen to them. As Sneeringer states, as she developed healthy relationship with women, the lesbian stuff diminshed.
If Christine Sneeringer's experiences was representative of all lesbians then there might be something to that. But it isn't. Not even close. Exodus, it seems, wants a person to suppress homosexuality in the name of God. Some people are religious enough to do that even though it may mean a life of misery.
What ever makes them happy. Although they are probably not very happy.
Again, it all goes back to who is defining success and how. APA defines it one way; evangelical Christians (and Exodus International, in particular) define it another.
From a Christian perspective, suppressing desires is nothing new (regardless of what they are). It's often called "dying to one's self" or "crucifying one's flesh". As the referenced text, verse 11 in particular, indicates, .....And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
In other words, the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ helps people deal with homosexuality, just as it does with adultery, fornication, lying, theft, and other sins
.
It's not about success or failure. The point is, homosexuality still exists in the person. They are only suppressing it. And its that suppression that often causes other problems talked about in the report.
Also, Adultery, lying, and or theft have direct victims. What 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their home with in reason doesn't. So the only similarity they share is in the Bible in that they are sins. In society they are like comparing apples to toe jam.
-
"In 1979, two of Exodus International's co-founders (Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper) quit the group and held a life commitment ceremony together. On June 27, 2007 Bussee, along with fellow former Exodus leaders Jeremy Marks and Darlene Bogle, each came out as gay or lesbian and issued a public apology for their roles in Exodus."
-
"In 1979, two of Exodus International's co-founders (Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper) quit the group and held a life commitment ceremony together. On June 27, 2007 Bussee, along with fellow former Exodus leaders Jeremy Marks and Darlene Bogle, each came out as gay or lesbian and issued a public apology for their roles in Exodus."
Wow.
So they pretty much decided to stop living a lie and get on with their lives. Good for them.
-
I did not attempt to attach morality to it in this thread my point in this thread is that society deems what is acceptable and whats not and that my friend is a fact if it was simply based on harm which is what you argue then slavery would have never been acceptable since it always caused harm its societies views that changed not the fact that it caused harm. You think those slave owners didnt know they where harming ppl? of course they did it wasnt until societies view of the harm they where doing changed that slavery became bad.
Once again , you are proving that you don't have the ability to comprehend a multi-faceted argument. You are simply taking bits and pieces of what I say and arguing them out of context.
I already addressed this, IN DEPTH, here:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=292808.msg4170273#msg4170273
Reiterated: Yes, throughout the course of human/American history morality has been inconsistently placed on different actions. Slavery and homosexuality are very good examples of that. Murder and theft are not. The impact an action has on an individual or society as a whole is the overriding factor in the vast majority of things that are accepted by society. It is not the only thing. I never said it was. You have things like slavery, which society managed to justify because there was financial benefit to be had. You have those who find homosexuality objectionable because it is the lifestyle of a minority and they consider it deviant. These are examples in which an arbitrary morality was attached to an action or circumstance to justify almost primal responses. That's not the case with murder. The egg most definitely came before the chicken here. It's glaringly, patently, painfully obvious why murder is not accepted by society. When you say that murder and homosexuality are deemed bad by society JUST BECAUSE it just sounds stupid. It only serves to illustrate how irrational it is to be so invested in someone's relationship that has nothing to do with you.
I'm sure you will find some way to misunderstand this, but I am not sure how much more I can dumb it down.
Homosexuality does have a genetic component but since it is expressed in a behavior it is a choice as you have the choice to perform an action or not.
Not true. There may be a genetic predisposition in murderers, but you are not a murderer until you actually kill someone. If you are sexually attracted to a member of the same sex, you are gay, regardless of whether you act on it or not. A man who marries a woman but still wants to be with men and imagines men so he can get it up with his wife is still gay.A man who never has sex but is sexually aroused by men is still gay. It's not the act, it is the sexual desire.
My point in the other thread was that if it is indeed a choice which ive shown it is and you deem it wrong for whatever reason why would you be in favor of gay marriage? answer that...
You haven't shown that it is a choice. And during that previous thread, you did quite clearly make moral comparisons between a genetic propensity to violence and a genetic propensity towards homosexuality. Right in the post I linked to you did so.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=256681.msg3619791#msg3619791
your second paragraph there implies that homosexuality is ok and incest not simply b/c it has a genetic component. Propensity towards violence has a genetic component as well but that doesnt make it ok. You need more reasoning to ok homosexuality then simply b/c it has a genetic component.
This is the kind of stupidity I had in mind when I responded to your first post. I thought your comparison was monumentally ridiculous in the last thread and it has not aged well. You are using exactly the same argument and justifications, so what you wrote in that previous thread IS RELEVANT.
-
I don't know what Al is talking about when he claims religion is against homosexuals & homosexuality.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The church has been supporting gays for years, ...given them safe harbour & pretty much carte blanche to do what comes naturally. How do you think the Catholic church got so big? Some men's genetic predisposition towards homosexuality was the best thing that could have happened to the Catholic church. Where else could a man spend his life on his knees, gazing adoring up at a statue of another naked man, while sequestered behind closed doors night & day, with a bunch of other men... and not have it the least bit questioned? You don't actually think it was those spiffy Friar Tuck hairdos and those ghastly robes that drove recruitment into the priesthood do ya? ::)
I have to say, even though some of you may have found this disrespectful, there is a certain amount of veracity in this post. As someone who went to 6 different Catholic schools from kindergarten through high school graduation, it was hard to ignore the fact that there appeared to be a high concentration of gays among the vowed faculty at all of them. A lot of people I've met in my adulthood who attended Catholic schools share this observation. At the middle school I attended, almost all of the nuns were pretty obvious closet cases, with the exception of one who had left the habit and gotten married. At both of the high schools I attended, it was a similar story. The majority of priests were so flamboyantly gay that there was no question. There were some who appeared straight and probably were, but even among unworldly high school students, it went pretty much uncontested that a lot of nuns and priests opted for a life of celibacy so they didn't have to deal with their sexuality.
-
If Christine Sneeringer's experiences was representative of all lesbians then there might be something to that. But it isn't. Not even close. Exodus, it seems, wants a person to suppress homosexuality in the name of God. Some people are religious enough to do that even though it may mean a life of misery.
What ever makes them happy. Although they are probably not very happy.
I beg to differ. People who go to Exodus do so on a voluntary basis, meaning that they are NOT happy with homosexuality. In other words, they're not gay with being gay.
A crackhead is happy when he gets a hit. Going through rehab causes misery.
It's not about success or failure. The point is, homosexuality still exists in the person. They are only suppressing it. And its that suppression that often causes other problems talked about in the report.
That's like saying lust or infidelity "still exists". Therefore anyone attempting to curb their straying habits are simply "suppresing" them.
Also, Adultery, lying, and or theft have direct victims. What 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their home with in reason doesn't. So the only similarity they share is in the Bible in that they are sins. In society they are like comparing apples to toe jam.
Hardly!! The direct victims are the people themselves. Harming yourself is just as sinful as harming someone else. And, more often than not, when one harms himself, it's only a matter of time before he harms others.
-
I have to say, even though some of you may have found this disrespectful, there is a certain amount of veracity in this post. As someone who went to 6 different Catholic schools from kindergarten through high school graduation, it was hard to ignore the fact that there appeared to be a high concentration of gays among the vowed faculty at all of them. A lot of people I've met in my adulthood who attended Catholic schools share this observation. At the middle school I attended, almost all of the nuns were pretty obvious closet cases, with the exception of one who had left the habit and gotten married. At both of the high schools I attended, it was a similar story. The majority of priests were so flamboyantly gay that there was no question. There were some who appeared straight and probably were, but even among unworldly high school students, it went pretty much uncontested that a lot of nuns and priests opted for a life of celibacy so they didn't have to deal with their sexuality.
Part of the reason for that is the Catholic church has a nasty habit of touting things that have no basis in Scripture (i.e. celibacy).
You’re right about the dealing with sexuality part. That’s why I brought up the Sneeringer example (which is hardly an exhaustive one). The folks at Exodus have noticed common issues among many of those they help, among them:
- Lack of bonding with a same-sex parent
- Physical/sexual abuse
In her case, she saw being feminine as being weak, thanks to watching her dad beat on her mom. Add some molestation from her male cousin and there you have it.
Gospel Singer and minister, Donnie McClurcken, outlines that in his testimony and book. He struggled with homosexuality, due largely to his being molested by his uncle as a boy.
Yet another example would be Stephen Bennett. While living with his male lover, someone witnessed to him and shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That someone would later become his wife (and the mother of his two children).
-
It is worth noting, however, that Bennett's stance is quite different from that of Chambers.
Stephen Bennett, an ex-gay himself now for 15 years, happily married for 14 years to his wife Irene and the father of their two children, stated, "Frankly, I am shocked that the President of the largest information and referral ministry in the world on homosexual issues, would ever make such irresponsible and false public statements. If Mr. Chambers, a married man and father, who once engaged in homosexuality himself, says he's never met 'a former ex-gay' or one who has 'changed completely', he's personally invited to our home in Connecticut to meet one. I'd also be happy to introduce him to numerous other individuals - all former homosexual men and women."
Bennett once engaged in the homosexual lifestyle for 11 years with over 100 men - losing partners and friends to HIV/AIDS, until everything changed in 1990 - when he was confronted with the gospel of Jesus Christ. He dealt with his root issues and in 1992 completely changed. Stephen no longer struggles whatsoever with homosexual temptation.
"Homosexuality is an outward expression of an inward conflict. When I completely dealt with my inward conflict, my alcoholism, cocaine addiction, bulimia AND homosexual struggle were completely gone," said Bennett…..
Stephen continued, "What we see here is the public divide of the pro-family movement. One camp believes 'dialoguing' with homosexual advocates and activists will bring about a happy middle ground and compromise for all. That, I'm afraid, will NEVER happen. You see, 'compromise' is not in God's dictionary -- and of course homosexual activists are loathe to compromise on their core beliefs. The other pro-family camp biblically believes homosexuality is, was and always be a sinful lifestyle that individuals were not born with, yet a lifestyle they CAN experience COMPLETE freedom from. I am in that camp. I don't believe in encouraging a dysfunctional, dangerous and potentially deadly lifestyle, but COMPLETE liberation from it."
Bennett ended, "Let the chips fall where they may. It's time the world knows where those in the pro-family movement stand. It was Jesus Christ alone who set me free from the sin of homosexuality - not an ex-gay group, not reparative therapy and not any psychologist. I was made whole by the Word of God and the blood of Jesus Christ shed for me on Calvary, and I will proclaim and offer that same hope, freedom, grace, truth and reality to all who seek it until the day that I die. I pray my brother Alan Chambers will grasp that same message.
"For I am NOT ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ [Romans 1:16], for it was Jesus Christ alone who saved me, delivered me and set me COMPLETELY free from my sinful homosexual past."
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/944023451.html (http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/944023451.html)
-
I beg to differ. People who go to Exodus do so on a voluntary basis, meaning that they are NOT happy with homosexuality. In other words, they're not gay with being gay.
Many that go to drug/alcohol rehab go voluntarily too. that's not what I was talking about there. I was pointing out that her experiences that occurred prior to her embracing her lesbianism are not near typical of lesbians. Many probably go to exodus under pressure from their families because they are told they are spiritually sick and guilted into it, they will burn in hell, they are dis pleasing jesus, etc...
A crackhead is happy when he gets a hit. Going through rehap causes misery.
And the study shows the same thing with gays and some cases very very bad.
That's like saying lust or infidelity "still exists". Therefore anyone attempting to curb their straying habits are simply "suppresing" them.
Lust and infidelity are far different than homosexuality in that sense. Lust always exists but does not cause problems unless you act on it if you are married. Infidelity is a choice to break a marriage vow. Homosexuality is how you partner up on a personal/emotional level.
Hardly!! The direct victims are the people themselves. Harming yourself is just as sinful as harming someone else. And, more often than not, when one harms himself, it's only a matter of time before he harms others.
You are not harming yourself if you have a homosexual relationship. So you think Gays are actively harming people?
-
Many that go to drug/alcohol rehab go voluntarily too. that's not what I was talking about there. I was pointing out that her experiences that occurred prior to her embracing her lesbianism are not near typical of lesbians. Many probably go to exodus under pressure from their families because they are told they are spiritually sick and guilted into it, they will burn in hell, they are dis pleasing jesus, etc...
And the study shows the same thing with gays and some cases very very bad.
Lust and infidelity are far different than homosexuality in that sense. Lust always exists but does not cause problems unless you act on it if you are married. Infidelity is a choice to break a marriage vow. Homosexuality is how you partner up on a personal/emotional level.
You are not harming yourself if you have a homosexual relationship. So you think Gays are actively harming people?
Every time you make out with your boyfriend OzmO, Jesus crys. :(
-
It is worth noting, however, that Bennett's stance is quite different from that of Chambers.
Stephen Bennett, an ex-gay himself now for 15 years, happily married for 14 years to his wife Irene and the father of their two children, stated, "Frankly, I am shocked that the President of the largest information and referral ministry in the world on homosexual issues, would ever make such irresponsible and false public statements. If Mr. Chambers, a married man and father, who once engaged in homosexuality himself, says he's never met 'a former ex-gay' or one who has 'changed completely', he's personally invited to our home in Connecticut to meet one. I'd also be happy to introduce him to numerous other individuals - all former homosexual men and women."
Bennett once engaged in the homosexual lifestyle for 11 years with over 100 men - losing partners and friends to HIV/AIDS, until everything changed in 1990 - when he was confronted with the gospel of Jesus Christ. He dealt with his root issues and in 1992 completely changed. Stephen no longer struggles whatsoever with homosexual temptation.
"Homosexuality is an outward expression of an inward conflict. When I completely dealt with my inward conflict, my alcoholism, cocaine addiction, bulimia AND homosexual struggle were completely gone," said Bennett…..
Stephen continued, "What we see here is the public divide of the pro-family movement. One camp believes 'dialoguing' with homosexual advocates and activists will bring about a happy middle ground and compromise for all. That, I'm afraid, will NEVER happen. You see, 'compromise' is not in God's dictionary -- and of course homosexual activists are loathe to compromise on their core beliefs. The other pro-family camp biblically believes homosexuality is, was and always be a sinful lifestyle that individuals were not born with, yet a lifestyle they CAN experience COMPLETE freedom from. I am in that camp. I don't believe in encouraging a dysfunctional, dangerous and potentially deadly lifestyle, but COMPLETE liberation from it."
Bennett ended, "Let the chips fall where they may. It's time the world knows where those in the pro-family movement stand. It was Jesus Christ alone who set me free from the sin of homosexuality - not an ex-gay group, not reparative therapy and not any psychologist. I was made whole by the Word of God and the blood of Jesus Christ shed for me on Calvary, and I will proclaim and offer that same hope, freedom, grace, truth and reality to all who seek it until the day that I die. I pray my brother Alan Chambers will grasp that same message.
"For I am NOT ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ [Romans 1:16], for it was Jesus Christ alone who saved me, delivered me and set me COMPLETELY free from my sinful homosexual past."
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/944023451.html (http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/944023451.html)
"Confronted with the gospel of Jesus Christ." HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA. What a crock of shit.
-
"Confronted with the gospel of Jesus Christ." HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA. What a crock of shit.
Hardly!! As stated earlier, the woman who started witnessing to him (while he was living in homosexuality with his male lover) eventually became his wife of over 15 years, Irene.
-
Many that go to drug/alcohol rehab go voluntarily too. that's not what I was talking about there. I was pointing out that her experiences that occurred prior to her embracing her lesbianism are not near typical of lesbians. Many probably go to exodus under pressure from their families because they are told they are spiritually sick and guilted into it, they will burn in hell, they are dis pleasing jesus, etc...
They are typical enough, as Sneeriger's case is hardly an isolated one. In fact, in many case of male homosexuality, there are also instances of molestation during childhood (i.e. Donnie McClurken).
Guilt doesn't motivate one to stay in such a program for any sustained period of time, at least the amount of time it takes to be successful. And, as stated earlier, those who have left the homosexual lifestyle once thought that they couldn't.
And the study shows the same thing with gays and some cases very very bad.
So you ditch the rehab and go back on the pipe, as it were? That doesn't make sense.
Lust and infidelity are far different than homosexuality in that sense. Lust always exists but does not cause problems unless you act on it if you are married. Infidelity is a choice to break a marriage vow. Homosexuality is how you partner up on a personal/emotional level.
And those personal/emotional levels are often based on environmental factors. Would Christine Sneeringer engaged in lesbianism, had she not been in an environment with domestic/sexual abuse?
You are not harming yourself if you have a homosexual relationship. So you think Gays are actively harming people?
Those who've been in one would beg to differ, namely the likes of Sneeringer, Bennett, Chambers, etc. As for your question, I would say "Yes", based on the life stories of the aforementioned people and others like them.
-
They are typical enough, as Sneeriger's case is hardly an isolated one. In fact, in many case of male homosexuality, there are also instances of molestation during childhood (i.e. Donnie McClurken).
So that's how you think people become gay? Those are some ways but as i said earlier, not typical of how it happens.
Guilt doesn't motivate one to stay in such a program for any sustained period of time, at least the amount of time it takes to be successful. And, as stated earlier, those who have left the homosexual lifestyle once thought that they couldn't.
Guilt gets them in, helps them stay in.
So you ditch the rehab and go back on the pipe, as it were? That doesn't make sense.
That's not what i am saying. I am saying that the process of drug rehab is stressful and can have negative consequences which is what the study here is saying about trying to change gays to straight.
And those personal/emotional levels are often based on environmental factors. Would Christine Sneeringer engaged in lesbianism, had she not been in an environment with domestic/sexual abuse?
Sometimes it takes traumatic events for people to learn who they are. It's impossible to say whether would have or not. A case can be made for both results.
Those who've been in one would beg to differ, namely the likes of Sneeringer, Bennett, Chambers, etc. As for your question, I would say "Yes", based on the life stories of the aforementioned people and others like them.
That's because of religious and social norms. Those people need to get over themselves.
-
Personally, I don't think people are born with a natural aversion to homosexuality. I think it is a taught taboo.
One that developed in ancient times simply for pragmatic reasons. Rulers of kingdoms wanted and needed large populations to maintain and expand their wealth & influence... that meant reproduction ...pure & simple.
Where is BayGBM in this conversation?
-
Personally, I don't think people are born with a natural aversion to homosexuality. I think it is a taught taboo.
One that developed in ancient times simply for pragmatic reasons. Rulers of kingdoms wanted and needed large populations to maintain and expand their wealth & influence... that meant reproduction ...pure & simple.
Where is BayGBM in this conversation?
Personally, I have met both. I have met men who choose to be gay, and men who seem born that way.
Why are we even disussing this?
-
Personally, I have met both. I have met men who choose to be gay, and men who seem born that way.
Why are we even disussing this?
Because parts of the debate on "gay rights" centers around the idea that people chose to be gay or are born gay.
-
Because parts of the debate on "gay rights" centers around the idea that people chose to be gay or are born gay.
Who cares?
As long as they dont want to pick my pocket or shove their agenda down my throat (No pun intended ;D), its none of our business.
-
Who cares?
As long as they dont want to pick my pocket or shove their agenda down my throat (No pun intended ;D), its none of our business.
Enough people to put propositions on ballots, march and protest.
-
Enough people to put propositions on ballots, march and protest.
Case in point: The "People's Veto" in Maine, later this year to reverse the gay "marriage" bill, passed in that state.
Last year's Amendment 102 in Arizona, as well as Florida's Amendment 2
And, of course, who can forget Calfornia's Proposition 8, from last year.
-
Case in point: The "People's Veto" in Maine, later this year to reverse the gay "marriage" bill, passed in that state.
Last year's Amendment 102 in Arizona, as well as Florida's Amendment 2
And, of course, who can forget Calfornia's Proposition 8, from last year.
Case in point at the moment.
The fact that they even made propositions and amendments is significant. It would have never happened even 10 years ago. Mark my words, In your lifetime you'll see these things 100% passed.
-
Case in point at the moment.
The fact that they even made propositions and amendments is significant. It would have never happened even 10 years ago. Mark my words, In your lifetime you'll see these things 100% passed.
The marriage amendments or the gay "marriage" bills?
So far, we have 30 states that have, via amendments, clearly defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Unless the Supreme Court gets involved, I don't see that changing. And, the last time I checked, gay activists are leary of a Supreme Court case happening right now. The rationale is that, even with Sotomayor now in the court, they feel that it's still too "far to the right". That is, they feel there are at least 5 justices against them. And a loss there means another gay "marriage" case make take DECADES.
The last one done was in 1972. And the Supreme Court didn't even rule on that directly. It simply dismissed the appeal of a state court ruling on its merits, which effectively means, "we don't need to look at it, because the lower court ruled almost exactly the way we would have".
-
The marriage amendments or the gay "marriage" bills?
So far, we have 30 states that have, via amendments, clearly defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Unless the Supreme Court gets involved, I don't see that changing. And, the last time I checked, gay activists are leary of a Supreme Court case happening right now. The rationale is that, even with Sotomayor now in the court, they feel that it's still too "far to the right". That is, they feel there are at least 5 justices against them. And a loss there means another gay "marriage" case make take DECADES.
The last one done was in 1972. And the Supreme Court didn't even rule on that directly. It simply dismissed the appeal of a state court ruling on its merits, which effectively means, "we don't need to look at it, because the lower court ruled almost exactly the way we would have".
You'll be living for a few more decades. ;D
-
You'll be living for a few more decades. ;D
I certainly hope so.
But, with regards to the marriage issue, once again it boils down to who's in office and the makeup of the courts.
One group that certainly doesn't think that gay "marriage" nationwide is a lock is the gay activists in California. They've had to pull the plug on their plan to put an amendment on the state ballot to kill Prop. 8. Word is that they don't have nearly enough signatures to put it on the 2010 ballot. So, they're going to wait until 2012, at least.
-
Word is that they don't have nearly enough signatures to put it on the 2010 ballot. So, they're going to wait until 2012, at least.
come on, getting enough signatures to qualify for the ballot is trivial. the issue is voter turnout during a non-presidential election, and how much money will be required to fight this again.
-
come on, getting enough signatures to qualify for the ballot is trivial. the issue is voter turnout during a non-presidential election, and how much money will be required to fight this again.
No, it's not trivial. If the gay "marriage" supporters had the signatures, not only would they have submitted them by now, they would use their gleaning of those signatures in a relatively short period of time as a indicator of support for their cause.
That exactly what happened in Maine, regarding traditional marriage supporters. In just one month, the folks there got over 100,000 signatures (nearly double the require amount) to vote on using the "People's Veto" to reverse Maine's gay "marriage" bill.
Back to California, I believe it took over 2 years for the Prop. 8 guys to get the signatures needed to put the measure on the ballot. So, I found it a bit silly for the gay activists to think that they could match that in just a few months. As for the money, the "No on Prop. 8" contingent spend over $43 million in a losing effort, as opposed to the $40 million spent by their opponents.
You're right about the voter turnout thing, which is why some of the younger gay activists there were banking on 2010. Their rationale is that there won't be as many Latinos and especially Blacks (the demographic credited/blamed for putting Prop. 8 over the top), since Obama isn't on the card. While that may be true to a point, the problem is that they're won't be nearly as many younger voters, the demographic about whom gay activists brag are their biggest supporters on this issue.
-
I just learned that a lesbian girl I know met a man who cured her. :) She is leaving the lesbian lifestyle choice behind and talking marriage with a man. Love, marriage, and baby carriage. :)
-
I just learned that a lesbian girl I know met a man who cured her. :) She is leaving the lesbian lifestyle choice behind and talking marriage with a man. Love, marriage, and baby carriage. :)
He "cured" a lifestyle choice? That's an odd choice of words.
-
He "cured" a lifestyle choice? That's an odd choice of words.
Tongue in cheek. Just another example of someone choosing to become a lesbian and now shunning girls for a man.
-
Tongue in cheek. Just another example of someone choosing to become a lesbian and now shunning girls for a man.
She is most likely bisexual. When this relationship falls apart, she be back to carpetmunching.
-
She is most likely bisexual. When this relationship falls apart, she be back to carpetmunching.
LOL! Another person who isn't smart enough to realize she is bisexual? lol. . . . That's really funny. :)
She's a very smart young lady.
-
LOL! Another person who isn't smart enough to realize she is bisexual? lol. . . . That's really funny. :)
She's a very smart young lady.
Hey, she wasn't smart enough to realize she wasn't a lesbian! I'm just looking at the obvious.
-
Hey, she wasn't smart enough to realize she wasn't a lesbian! I'm just looking at the obvious.
It's much more simple than that. She chose to have sex with women and identified herself as a lesbian. Now she is giving up women and is going to marry a man. Only thing she is worried about is her parents constantly reminding her of her "lesbian phase."
-
It's much more simple than that. She chose to have sex with women and identified herself as a lesbian. Now she is giving up women and is going to marry a man...
....and more than likely, when this relationship falls apart, she'll be on the prowl for chicks again.
-
And they lived happily ever after......
Happens for both gays and straights.
So what?
-
It appears that Exodus International has added a new weapon to the arsenal, so to speak: They've just acquired the "Love Won Out" conferences from Focus on the Family.
Exodus to take over Focus' 'Love Won Out'
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (BP)--Focus on the Family's Love Won Out conferences, which equip the church to reach out to homosexuals, are being transferred to Exodus International, the longtime partners have announced.
The transitioning of the conferences from Colorado-based Focus on the Family to Florida-based Exodus comes 11 years after the first Love One Out conference was held.
Exodus International speakers always have been featured prominently at the conferences, and Focus on the Family says it will continue to provide speakers and financial support to the conferences. A joint press release Aug. 11 said the transition was a "logical step for both organizations." Exodus International is a Christian ministry that seeks to assist homosexuals in overcoming unwanted same-sex attractions.
The final Love Won Out conference sponsored by Focus on the Family will be held in Birmingham, Ala., Nov. 7.
"Exodus is thrilled with this opportunity as the Love Won Out conference is a natural fit in our ongoing efforts to share the hope we've found," Exodus President Alan Chambers said in a statement. "Love Won Out has been and will continue to be a powerful event dedicated to helping the global Christian church better understand and more effectively reflect biblical truth and Christ-like compassion to a hurting world".......
"Everyone knows these are challenging times for organizations and individuals all across the globe," Schneeberger said. "It is not an inexpensive undertaking to put on a Love Won Out event; and contrary to what our detractors say, the conferences rarely have recouped the financial investment made in them. That is a cost we have always paid because of the positive impact the events have had. With Exodus moving aggressively to strengthen its church outreach, though, they are the ones who ought to be shepherding Love Won Out as it continues on in its second decade. Our financial challenges have led us to recognize a strategic opportunity that makes sense independent of economic circumstances."
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=31084 (http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=31084)
Basically, it appears that Focus can't cover the costs of the conferences anymore. But, if Exodus can carry the ball from there, more power to them.