Christian "Ex-Gay" Movement Grows, Brainwashing Thousands

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

reply to post by greeneyedleo


I repeat: It is natural behavior to do what one's genetically driven to do.

Whether it's palatable, as human beings, is another thing.

Originally posted by goosdawg
I repeat: It is natural behavior to do what one's genetically driven to do.
Whether it's palatable, as human beings, is another thing.

The problem with your logic is that being gay has nothing, I repeat nothing to do with one's genetics. 'Gayness' cannot genetically be passed on to one's children like eye or hair color. So again, being gay is not normal or natural.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by goosdawg
Actually, judging by the behavior of most of the animal kingdom, I'd have to, respectfully, disagree with you there.

First of all, your use of the word 'most' is puzzling. 'Most' in the animal kingdom are not 'gay'.

By "most of the animal kingdom" I mean most animal species have individuals who display homosexual behavior.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
I view homosexuals the same as someone born with a deformity or defect. Somewhere the lines got crossed and they are not wired correctly.

Thats your problem.

Originally posted by goosdawg
By "most of the animal kingdom" I mean most animal species have individuals who display homosexual behavior.
Hope that clears it up for you.

Ok, and most animal species have deformaties and freaks of nature so I don't get your point.

Thats your problem.

Its not a problem for me since I'm not the one with something wired incorrectly.

The problem with your logic is that being gay has nothing, I repeat nothing to do with one's genetics. 'Gayness' cannot genetically be passed on to one's children like eye or hair color. So again, being gay is not normal or natural.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
The problem with your logic is that being gay has nothing, I repeat nothing to do with one's genetics.

Wrong, those who are homosexual are born that way, it's been scientifically verified.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
'Gayness' cannot genetically be passed on to one's children like eye or hair color. So again, being gay is not normal or natural.

Again, you're wrong, your opinion flies in the face of proven scientific fact.

I suggest you do a little research, here's a start:

Is Being Gay Natural and Do We Have a Choice?

And:

Central Park Zoo's gay penguins ignite debate

Originally posted by goosdawg
Wrong, those who are homosexual are born that way, it's been scientifically verified.

Where to begin....SIGH....
Ok, first of all its NOT proven that gays are born gay. However for this discussion I will assume its true. Being born a certain way has nothing to do with genetics. You are getting your scientific fields mixed up. People are born with deformities, but these deformaties are NOT genetically passed on to their children.

So again, being gay has nothing to do with one's genetic makeup even though they might be born gay. Being born gay just means something went wrong during the process of being born and nothing to do with your genetics as you CANNOT pass on to your children, 'gayness'.

Again, you're wrong, your opinion flies in the face of proven scientific fact.
Central Park Zoo's gay penguins ignite debate

That does not prove anything and if you want to compare yourself to a penguin then by all means go ahead.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]

goosdawg
This was used as example of history...not debate on virtue...that town was not too crash hot on that either...if old Lot had gone out there to fight he would have been slaughtered or worse...what he did was similar to Abrahams FAITH in being willing to sacrifice his son....in both cases Father was in control & nothing happened....(edit = maybe Lots heart was good & Father saw that but was wrong in trying to save 'guests' with daughters)those 'males' inside Lots house were angels.......but to get back onto the topic..............Father didn't make us to rear end eachother...although a hellova lot of that 'IN MANY OTHER WAYS' seems to be very popular in these 'Last days'....since the 'Fall' lots of things haven't been right....trying to 'Reform' Lots town was not on the agenda...sexual orgasmic addiction is very common...that 'degraded' into (SELF) 'Dark Lust' is another matter...that is why Lots town was destroyed...this current world is not far off that situation 'AGAIN'....so Homosexuality is very 'normal' since the fall......no Christain 'clubs' will change that.......& yes we are MUCH MORE than who we may 'Lust' over/after.....GB

[edit on 15-12-2007 by dave7]

reply to post by goosdawg


Im not even stating my opinion on the whole gay debate. LOL.

But I just wanted to remind most everyone - that anyone can find enough links to back up their side of any debate.

There is just as much info out there to back up one person's opinion, as there is to back up a different person's opinion.

With that said.

Carry on all!

Anyone care for some first hand testimony? It’s purely anecdotal to be sure, but perhaps not entirely without merit. I am a former homosexual who has been celibate for some eight yrs now. I spent about 20 years of my life in introspection and investigation of human sexuality. I spoke to many of my gay friends over the years about the matter, and found that I had something in common with about 90% of those who would talk about it. We all had prepubescent sexual experiences with members of the same sex. Some were molested by adults, or brothers, cousins, etc. Some were exposed to pornography, and acted out the things they saw with friends before they were emotionally mature enough to handle it (my words, not theirs). I spoke to only two people who said that they had not had a homosexual experience before adulthood. This is not to say that homosexuality is entirely learned. Every part of the human personality is partially genetic, and partially learned. Such a complex facet as sexuality surely must be both as well. My childhood best friend experienced some of the same things as I did, and is as hetero as possible. I believe that psychological factors play a big role. In my case, I felt rejected by my father, and so was looking for that love and acceptance that all children need in the physical affections of other men. It took me a long time to realize that it wasn’t to be found there, even after I knew that’s what I was seeking.

I decided to leave the gay lifestyle because it didn’t meet my needs. The gay community has an over-abundance of the ills that plague society in general. Addiction, disease and dysfunction are endemic. There’s lot’s of talk about love, but it’s really all about sex, as you would expect from a bunch of men who lack a mitigating female influence. The OP talks about these church groups as if they are sending out raiding parties to gay bars and taking captured prisoners to reeducation camps. The fact is that there are plenty of people like me who realize that the gay lifestyle is not making them happy, and seek an alternative.

As to the homosexuality in the animal kingdom issue, it’s true that there’s such behavior to be observed in animals. The difference is that there are no cases among animals in which individuals reject mating with the opposite sex in favor of attempting sex with the same gender. This happens only in humans and IMO, this supports the presence of psychological factors in human sexuality. We also need to remember that science is not immune from politics, and that researchers tend to be subject to those that fund their research. Any questions are welcomed.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Being born a certain way has nothing to do with genetics.

Really?!

...a study led by molecular biologist Dean Hamer of the National Institute of Health in Washington D.C. found evidence that a specific gene carried on the maternal line had an influence on sexual orientation in men. These studies suggest strongly that sexual orientation is rooted in biology and is not a matter of choice.

Source | Is Being Gay Natural and Do We Have a Choice?

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
So again, being gay has nothing to do with one's genetic makeup even though they might be born gay.

And again, you'd be wrong.

Here's another link in case you doubt the credentials of Dr Dean Hamer.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by goosdawg
Again, you're wrong, your opinion flies in the face of proven scientific fact.
Central Park Zoo's gay penguins ignite debate

That does not prove anything...

I disagree...but I actually read the links.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
...and if you want to compare yourself to a penguin then by all means go ahead.

If by that you mean two penguins who:

...are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": That is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex...
...At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly, and a chick, Tango, was born.
For the next 2 1/2 months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Gramzay is full of praise. "They did a great job," he said.

Central Park Zoo's gay penguins ignite debate

...then i would be honored to be compared to such a display of love and devotion, to "anthropomorphize a bit."

The world could use a bit more love and devotion like that displayed by these two little penguins, don't you think?

Some scientists say homosexual behavior in animals is not necessarily about sex. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at UC Riverside and author of "Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex From Animals" (University of California Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species. By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young. "That is a contribution to the gene pool," she said.

Source | Central Park Zoo's gay penguins ignite debate

IMHO it's this prurient fixation on the sex act itself rather than the devotion two sentient beings can exhibit for one another that inhibits a rational discourse on this matter.

If certain factions could learn to live and let live, the world would be a far, far better place for us all.

And I'd like to thank you for your contribution to this thread as well, 4thDoctorWhoFan, as much as I enjoy our exchanges, I hope you do as well.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by goosdawg]

Originally posted by resistor
The OP talks about these church groups as if they are sending out raiding parties to gay bars and taking captured prisoners to reeducation camps. The fact is that there are plenty of people like me who realize that the gay lifestyle is not making them happy, and seek an alternative.

I must take umbrage with your remark.

I never suggested anything of the sort.

What is suggested by the OP article, is that certain groups are pursuing a policy of "fixing" a situation to conform to their interpretation of a self-righteous, faith based belief system, so that those who don't fit their cookie-cutter mentality can be broken to conform to their guilt imposed patriarchal control structure.

Originally posted by resistor
As to the homosexuality in the animal kingdom issue, it’s true that there’s such behavior to be observed in animals. The difference is that there are no cases among animals in which individuals reject mating with the opposite sex in favor of attempting sex with the same gender.

According to the article on our two little penguins, that's not quite true:

When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either.

Source | Central Park Zoo's gay penguins ignite debate

But thank you for post, and your candor...



[edit on 15-12-2007 by goosdawg]

reply to post by goosdawg

** SIGH **
Everything you stated has nothing to do with genetics.
Regardless of whether being gay is a choice or not, regardless of whether or not you are born gay, has nothing to do with genetics. These are two different issues. There is no 'gay' gene! And since you cannot pass a 'gay' gene to your children (thank God), being gay has 0.00% to do with genetics.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Everything you stated has nothing to do with genetics.

Good heavens!

Perhaps you missed the reference in the quoted article...here it is again, in big letters so you can't say you didn't see it:

...a study led by molecular biologist Dean Hamer of the National Institute of Health in Washington D.C. found evidence that a specific gene carried on the maternal line had an influence on sexual orientation in men. These studies suggest strongly that sexual orientation is rooted in biology and is not a matter of choice.

Source | Is Being Gay Natural and Do We Have a Choice?

From this point forward, I'm going to suspect you're just being deliberately obtuse if you refuse to acknowledge the fact, based upon what I've now presented at least three times, that genetics plays a part in the determination of a person's sexual orientation.

Sheesh!

reply to post by goosdawg


"These programs don't work because they're founded on the false premise that being homosexual is something that one can choose to be."

If you believe that the programs don't work for whatever reason then you really have nothing to complain about. If they don't work then they'll die out without any help from you. It's a moot issue.

Originally posted by goosdawg
certain groups are pursuing a policy of "fixing" a situation to conform to their interpretation of a self-righteous, faith based belief system, so that those who don't fit their cookie-cutter mentality can be broken to conform to their guilt imposed patriarchal control structure.

I can't imagine a paragraph that better displays the biased preconception of the author. Of course that's to be expected considering the source. I can assure you that I don't fit anyone’s cookie cutter ideas, nor am I likely to be 'broken' any time soon. I feel absolutely no guilt whatsoever about being attracted to people of either sex, nor do I think God wants me to. Some people on the other hand.....

When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either.

Source | Central Park Zoo's gay penguins ignite debate


I notice the article doesn't say which came first, the rejection by the females, or the males lack of interest. Since the females generally decide who gets some, I'm guessing the females are in control there. Also, since there's apparently no sex going on between the males, where does the assumption of homosexuality come from? And since we're anthropomorphizing these birds, ever hear of best friends? Most guys, if they're not getting sex, prefer the company of other guys. I know that a hen-fest is not exactly my idea of a fun evening.

Originally posted by whitewave
If you believe that the programs don't work for whatever reason then you really have nothing to complain about. If they don't work then they'll die out without any help from you. It's a moot issue.

Oh I've got lots to complain about, but I'll try to get back on topic here, thanks!

According to the article:

Most of the people who run ex-gay ministries are not hatemongers and see their activities as a labor of love and compassion. "[They're] sincere, well-meaning people who are not in it for the money," says Toscano. But in recent years, the ex-gay movement has been co-opted by virulently anti-gay groups who routinely refer to homosexuality as an evil force that threatens to destroy America. These groups increasingly are hiring ex-gay activists as spokesmen, funding ex-gay research and establishing ex-gay ministries.

Source | Christian "Ex-Gay" Movement Grows, Brainwashing Thousands

These "ministries" are not "dieing out," in fact, they've "been co-opted by virulently anti-gay groups who routinely refer to homosexuality as an evil force that threatens to destroy America."

Can the advancement of an ideology based on hate be considered a good thing?

Not a moot point at all, IMHO.

I think that if someone is not gay, then they have no place commenting on it or deciding if someone can or should be converted.

What is good for one person may not be good for another, so to say that gays have been converted before, so it's true, would be a generalization made from ignorance.

Who cares if someone is gay? Who cares.......?

Why are you affected by it? Are you that weak? If it bothers you ignore it and stop thinking about it.


If a guy loves a guy or a girl loves a girl, who cares?

I don't personally understand it, but I don't understand a lot of things, DONE.

I don't understand how matter can be in two places at once according to Qantum Physics!?!

Do you see me trying to tell matter that it needs to fall in line, since I don't understand it?

I don't understand how bumble bee's fly? Do you see me trying to start a movement to erradicate that simple fact that my superior brain can't comphrehend.

We don't fully understand Nature...so to say that something is not natural stumps me

Originally posted by resistor

Originally posted by goosdawg
certain groups are pursuing a policy of "fixing" a situation to conform to their interpretation of a self-righteous, faith based belief system, so that those who don't fit their cookie-cutter mentality can be broken to conform to their guilt imposed patriarchal control structure.

I can't imagine a paragraph that better displays the biased preconception of the author.

Actually, that's my bias showing through.

Originally posted by resistor
I can assure you that I don't fit anyone’s cookie cutter ideas, nor am I likely to be 'broken' any time soon. I feel absolutely no guilt whatsoever about being attracted to people of either sex, nor do I think God wants me to.

And that, IMHO, is a healthy attitude to have, it shows that you respect yourself, as you are, and deserve the respect of others. And, for what it's worth, you have mine.

Originally posted by resistor
I notice the article doesn't say which came first, the rejection by the females, or the males lack of interest. Since the females generally decide who gets some, I'm guessing the females are in control there.

Aren't they always?

I'm under the impression the males showed no interest in the females, who in turn, having been snubbed, snubbed back.

Again, typical female behavior.

Originally posted by resistor
Also, since there's apparently no sex going on between the males, where does the assumption of homosexuality come from?

Um, actually:

...are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": That is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex...
...At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly, and a chick, Tango, was born.
For the next 2 1/2 months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Gramzay is full of praise. "They did a great job," he said.

Central Park Zoo's gay penguins ignite debate

Originally posted by resistor
I know that a hen-fest is not exactly my idea of a fun evening.

Nor mine!!

Whatever the sex of the "hens."

resistor [I feel absolutely no guilt whatsoever about being attracted to people of either sex, nor do I think God wants me to. Some people on the other hand.....]......spot on....guilt don't help.....your telling is the most accurate i've read here...but there is a spiritual telling too which i will share with all 'soon'............GB

Originally posted by goosdawg
Lot was gonna turn out his own daughters to be raped by the crowds, rather than let men lay down with other men?

You're disregarding the context of the scripture and the intent of the post.

This is not a comparison of the options Lot faced when he was confronted by every male in Sodom desiring sexual relations with his house guests.

The point is that in the Book of Genesis, the concept of homosexuality was known, contrary to a previous assertion and it was considered more vile than the obviously undesireable option of offering his virgin daughters to be gang raped.

Lot might have known that the latter option would not have appealed to the mob, anyway.

At any rate, don't mistake the forest for the trees.