It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christian "Ex-Gay" Movement Grows, Brainwashing Thousands

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistor
reply to post by kleverone
 

Best post so far. Aren't you the kleverone?


I concur, he don't call himself kleverone for nothin'.



Originally posted by resistor

Originally posted by goosdawg
they have sex...

Oops!
Skimming a bit too much. I assume the article means 'simulated sex'? I can't imagine these sea birds actually accomplishing the dirty deed, which is difficult enough with the ingenuity of a human.


Well we can give the little guys credit for trying.



Originally posted by resistor
And I know that those beaks can't be involved.



Ack!

Oh no you didn't!?

I wish you hadn't gone there...




posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by goosdawg
 


Lot understood that God considers homosexuality to be abominable, and that it could bring a swift response as God made man for a woman and a woman for a man. Lot was not a holy man, as he lived much like the other people in Sodom, but he knew about God through Abraham. In fact he wasn't saved from the destruction of Sodom for his own efforts but only because of Abraham pleading to God for his life.

I, myself think that homosexuality is a sin against God and man, but so is sex out of marraige, and adultery, there is no difference to me. But I am not their judge and don't want to be, and I don't hate or treat any of them any diferent from any other person I know. But... when it comes out of the bedroom and into my face and I am told to accept and embrace it, I will tell you what I think and reject it to your face because some wish to openly display their private affairs to the world. Otherwise it's between gays and God.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by Fromabove]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Originally posted by goosdawg
I'll bet the "Imposers' would love to have a tool like that at their disposal.

"Here, take this drug, it will make you heterosexual so you'll be worthy of our god's love and salvation."


Heh, yeah. That's one way to use this discovery. I was actually saving that link for another discussion. Remember a while back they had some rumours about the US military attempting to create a 'gay bomb'? That was the thought that occurred to me after I read that article.

Who knows. They might actually already have it... news reports usually lag 5-10 years behind actual military applications.



"Gay Bomb!?"


That's the American's tax dollars hard at work for you!

*searches*

Yeah! Here's a link to the story:

BBCNews | Americas | US military pondered love not war

Incredible! Check this out:


The plan for a so-called "love bomb" envisaged an aphrodisiac chemical that would provoke widespread homosexual behaviour among troops, causing what the military called a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale.

Scientists also reportedly considered a "sting me/attack me" chemical weapon to attract swarms of enraged wasps or angry rats towards enemy troops.

A substance to make the skin unbearably sensitive to sunlight was also pondered.

Another idea was to develop a chemical causing "severe and lasting halitosis", so that enemy forces would be obvious even when they tried to blend in with civilians.

In a variation on that idea, researchers pondered a "Who? Me?" bomb, which would simulate flatulence in enemy ranks.

Indeed, a "Who? Me?" device had been under consideration since 1945, the government papers say.

However, researchers concluded that the premise for such a device was fatally flawed because "people in many areas of the world do not find faecal odour offensive, since they smell it on a regular basis".
Source | BBCNews | Americas | US military pondered love not war



How come they couldn't envision a "Love Bomb" that would end invasive hate-mongering stupidity, and allow everyone to forget their prejudices and live in peace and harmony?

Now there's something I could get behind...(no pun intended.)



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   
This sort of thing gets me really agitated, I'm not gay, but I would certainly trust a gay over a bible thumper any day..


Gays don't chose to be gay, they simply are that way...

however, religious people chose to be religious... and that we CAN cure!



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky



Gays don't chose to be gay, they simply are that way...

however, religious people chose to be religious... and that we CAN cure!





The God Gene

Dean H. Hamer has received much criticism for his new book, "The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired Into Our Genes."

www.entheogens.com...




Gene change alters sex orientation in flies

NEW YORK - Altering a single gene in a fruit fly can turn its sexual orientation around, causing male flies to lose interest in females, and females to display male mating rituals to other females, according to a study published in the journal Cell on Friday.

www.chinadaily.com.cn...


It starts to look that both religion and sexual orientation seem to start in your genes.
As we all know, genes dont "have" to be the only factor that makes you but it seems to have a big part in it.

So the same as you "could" bring people to a different belief/faith, so should it be possible to change the way they see their sexuality.
If one wanted to !

There are quite some active groups trying to make the new generation more homosexual, so i dont think it is so strange to see a counter movement rising.

If you dont believe me, come and see the "amsterdam gay parade".
It is a public gay fest that even makes a lot of gay's look the other way.

Not strange that some people try to let young people see an other side to.

I believe a large part of the gay people are lost hetrosexuals and a smaler group of them are the genetic gay's
The lost hetrosexuals and fashion gay's could be "cured", the genetic ones only with genetic engineering.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I know a guy who, growing up was VERY straight. Was a skirt chaser and women loved him. Then he started hanging out with new people. Partying and clubbing with them. Many of these new people were gay. I knew them. Great people. Anyways, he is now gay. Yup. He has no interest in girls.

This happened years ago, and it shocked me. He said he NEVER had a thing for guys growing up....and just sort of fell into it. He said he was never in the closet. Nothing like that.

I dont know. I have no explanation for it. But his claim is he chose it.

I also knew a family in my father's church (he was a pastor) and they had 2 kids. A girl and a boy. The boy from VERY early on was VERY feminine. His father, very "manly". We watched this boy grow up (starting at age 4) and he remained very "girly". Found out the other day from my parents that he is indeed an adult gay male now. From what we know, there was no abuse in that house. He was just born this way....from what we know.


So, fact is. Some do choose it. And some dont.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 



Originally posted by IAF101
Just because it is observed in nature doesnt mean that it is "normal". There are cows with 8 legs and frogs with 3 eyes. That does not make these animals normal.


It's the application of the word normal that's causing the disagreement here, IMHO.

While it's not "normal" for a frog to have three eyes, it would be normal for that three-eyed frog to look funny, or normal for an eight-legged cow to walk funny.

So while we can say that it's not "normal" for a person to be homosexual, it is normal, to that person, to be attracted to a person of the same sex.

And since they can't naturally reproduce, what's the harm if they should find someone, like them, to share their mutual proclivities?

Could an underlying reason they're so severely ostracized by their churches, apart from interpreted scriptural exhortations, be due to the fact that conservative christian teachings require their members to "go forth and be fruitful" and multiply their numbers?

(Ensuring a steady supply of malleable young minds to condition and continue their system of mass patriarchal control.)

And since homosexual members cannot, by their nature, fulfill that maxim, they are pressured to get "fixed" to conform to the fold?


Originally posted by IAF101
Homosexual existence is counter to the natural selection and other scientific principles because it does not permit procreation and thus is detrimental to the evolution of the species.


Scientific speculation actually contradicts your assertion:


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

If, as you say, homosexuality is a "defect," by not reproducing and introducing their "defective" genetic material into the mix, they actually contribute to the overall health of the gene pool.

You see?



Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by goosdawg
No more than a white man can "decide" to be black.
They can act "black" but they can't be black.

Why not?


Lets use another analogy.

If you have a red horse, you can paint it white and call it a bunny, you might even be able to brainwash it into thinking it's a bunny, but genetically it's still a red horse, and it's actions will be determined by it's genetically driven instincts.

It'll run like a horse, eat like a horse, and poop like a horse.

No matter how hard you try, you cannot overwrite it's genetic encoding without destroying it.


Originally posted by IAF101
When a black person can become a white person why is the reverse not possible ? When a man can be transformed to a woman and a woman to a man through medical procedures what is the difference between choice and reality ? If they believe they are black or woman or homosexual then their mind lets them be that.


For the same reason a red horse can't be altered, at the genetic level to be a white bunny.


Lest I be remiss, IAF101, thank-you for contributing to this thread, your input has been much appreciated.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Originally posted by greeneyedleo
So, fact is. Some do choose it. And some dont.


Thanks for your input as well, greeneyedleo, what you've pointed out here is quite relevant.

There are subtle gradients between the dichotomy of gay/straight:


...it is common knowledge that there are gays, straights and bi’s. This has led to the theory that sexual orientation lies on a continuum with exclusively gay guys at one end and exclusively straight men at the other end. Between the two ends there are bi guys who may fall for a guy or a girl. In terms of the biological evidence above, this suggests that the differences in the brains of bi guys from straights are less pronounced than the differences between the brains of gays and straights.

Summing up, the degree of choice in being gay for a guy at the ‘exclusively gay’ end of the continuum is effectively zero. The guy at the ‘exclusively straight’ end of the continuum will also be without any real choice in being straight. In between there will be gays who are progressively less exclusively gay, those who are bi with a tendency towards the gay life, those bi’s who are equally gay and straight in orientation and then guys who have an increasingly straight (and decreasing gay) orientation. Where a guy lies on that continuum will determine how much, if any, choice he has in choosing a same or opposite sex partner.
Source | Is Being Gay Natural and Do We Have a Choice?

Unfortunately for society, some people are blinded by ideology or prejudice to the vast gray area between polar opposites, and allow hatred and fear to cloud their judgment.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I'm straight, I never made a conscious choice to be straight. It's intrinsic. DUH.

Personally I find that "God gene" far more interesting. Maybe someday some wise man will use genetic engineering to create a new race of humans "homo atheist sapiens"
. That would be my dream, to ruin all the religious people's world, permanently.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


I've a confession, I'm not really pagan.

But I've got friends who are!


I'm actually a student of the Tao.

Just thought I'd clear that up, thanks.


Oh, and I'm also friends with followers of Wicca.

And Atheists, too!

Most of my "friends" who claimed to be "Christian" turned out to be greedy lying, self-centered backstabbers, and I have nothing now but pity for them.

So, yeah, I may show a little "bias" at times.


[edit on 16-12-2007 by goosdawg]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by goosdawg
I'm actually a student of the Tao.


I studied the I Ching for years and believe that it had an enormous positive impact on my life.

The point is to expose oneself to the wisdom that comes to us from our forebears in order to glean what is valuable in our own life's journey.

Humans keep making the same mistakes over and over again, generation after generation.

Humans began trying to pass on the lessons learned long before the first word was ever written.

Studies of the ancient texts confirm this and frankly I doubt that it will ever change, althought The Urantia Book teaches that eventually the human race will evolve to a point that we finally get it.

I won't be around to witness that, I'm sure.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I only want to ask a few questions.

Are those who are being converted from being gay happy?

If they are what business of it of mine that that where once gay and no longer gay now?

If they are not happy what is keeping them from going back to their life style besides themselves? Are they being held prisoner and being forced to have intercourse with a woman?

If they are not being forced then one would agree they are choosing to stop living the gay lifestyle. If this is the case again what business is it of mine that they choose a different path in their life?

If a bunch of guys get spoke to by someone who is gay and convinces them that being gay is natural and these guys then start living a gay life style does this mean I should be mad that they are being converted “against their will”?

Actually I see this as one of those rather pointless things to be upset about. It’s not like anyone is forcing their beliefs on another as you cannot force your belief on anyone either they believe or not. Unless you are one of the converts that is mad about being converted it’s not your choice stay out of it. If you are one that is mad about being converted then by all means go back to living a gay lifestyle. The fact that people are choosing to leave the life style should be proof that not everyone that is gay was born that was. It is actually believed that some is nature and some are nurture.

At least give the people the right to choose. I mean come they do have the right to speak with people and choose to leave whatever life style they please do they not? Or has mankind lost human rights and I have not been informed of this yet?

Unless these people are not choosing to leave the lifestyle they live I don’t think it is anyone here on ATSs business what they do so long as they are abiding by the laws and not hurting others.

Raist



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by goosdawg
 


Lot understood that God considers homosexuality to be abominable, and that it could bring a swift response as God made man for a woman and a woman for a man. Lot was not a holy man, as he lived much like the other people in Sodom, but he knew about God through Abraham. In fact he wasn't saved from the destruction of Sodom for his own efforts but only because of Abraham pleading to God for his life.

I, myself think that homosexuality is a sin against God and man, but so is sex out of marraige, and adultery, there is no difference to me. But I am not their judge and don't want to be, and I don't hate or treat any of them any diferent from any other person I know. But... when it comes out of the bedroom and into my face and I am told to accept and embrace it, I will tell you what I think and reject it to your face because some wish to openly display their private affairs to the world. Otherwise it's between gays and God.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by Fromabove]


Being gay is no different than having black, brown, or blond hair - you don't choose. The next time you find yourself "attracted" to someone, ask yourself if you are choosing to feel that way. So if someone the opposite sex of you feels the same way towards the same person, is it wrong? Of course not. If anyone thinks that their "God" feels it is wrong, then your "God" is an idiot.

Now ask me about marriage and adultery? Well, I guess that is a topic for a different day.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Gay Movement grows brainwashing thousands



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by birchtree
Gay Movement grows brainwashing thousands


Religion is designed to brainwash people... and it oppresses anyone who doesn't succumb to it.

Like Unions, Religion had it's day a long time ago. Now, it's an anchor on society, and makes quite the effort to revert our progress.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


What progress would that be. Schools having to teach alternative lifestyles in sex Education classes. Folks can do what they want. I am not saying if it is right or wrong....but progress should not be forcing it in my face all day. This is not a question of right or wrong or even free speech it is about Gay Elitists pushing and pushing. I dont need the Jehovhas witnesses on my door and I dont need an alternative lifestyle sex education teacher telling my kid what is ok and not. It is being pushed beyond the boundaries. Period.
When I look at it, who is trying to brainwash who. That is the point of my one sentence post. By the way if you dont succumb and say its ok to be gay what do you get. I guess it is ok to believe what you want as long as you dont believe that being gay is wrong......

[edit on 16-12-2007 by birchtree]

[edit on 16-12-2007 by birchtree]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Goosdawg,

In response to your original argument that the "Sexual Reorientation" movement is actually actively anti-homosexual I would have to vehemently agree and add that I see no reason why it should be interpreted otherwise. If i started a group that taught black people to act white would I not be deemed a racist? I believe this entire movement is quite clearly anti-homosexual and it would take a fair amount of self delusion to believe otherwise.

The real problem I have with this entire argument is society's incessant need to label and categorize everything. Everything and everyone needs to be broken down into a list of easily understood names and labels and then categorized as either bad or good. I've never understood the desire to do this and I never will.

Why can we not just be ourselves regardless of what that entails? I will never understand why people feel the need to judge me and tell me how I should live my life. More over, I will never understand why they think I will respect their opinion or even listen to what they have to say.

The sexual reorientation movement is ridiculous and absurd and I know from personal experience. Never before have I heard such illogical nonsense as the stuff that came from those who tried to turn me straight. There was nothing wrong with me and I never felt there was until people began telling me there was. Teenage years are hard enough without a concerted effort to royally mess with your head perpetrated by people you trusted and believed to be authority figures. Fortunately I've always had a good sense of reason and logic and have since been able to laugh most of that off.

I've never had a problem with my orientation, not personally at least, the only problems i've ever had have stemmed from the ignorance and pompous ego of society. If I don't have a problem with it then why should anyone else? There are so many other far more interesting aspects to my personality that I fail to see why people have to obsess over who I sleep with. I'm an artist, a die hard trekkie, i love history, politics, philosophy, science, medieval literature, I'm learning to tattoo, i'm working on a webcomic, i roll my own cigarettes, have a major love for Halo and am a conspiracy nut. Wouldn't you rather talk to me about any of the things I've mentioned instead of how sinful and deluded I am?

I just don't understand why it's so hard for people to accept their fellow humans as individuals and to let them live their lives and wish them the best. I think a lot of these die hard crusading religious people are sadly self sheltered and living in their own self imposed ignorance due to a personal fear of something inside them. Or maybe I'm wrong, maybe we should just revert back to Victorian ideologies and condemn absolutely everything that doesn't coincide with the ignorant opinions of a few deluded souls.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 




Just because something is done in the animal kingdom does not mean its natural or normal and this analogy does not help your case. There are deformations and freaks of nature all the time in the animal kingdom. Also, you do realize we have evolved higher than creatures in nature right?


That is completely true. I hate people comparing what animals do, to what we do.

There are animals that EAT THEIR OWN YOUNG. So, does that mean it is acceptable for us to do that? There are animals that will KILL one of their young if it is deformed. So, does that mean it is acceptable for us to do that?


Deosn't that put the whole it's natural/not natural agument pro or anti to bed permanently then as it's clear that moral and ethical assertions cannot be proved along naturalistic lines.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Is it wrong that I find this funny and ironic?


It almost seems to me a case of one cult telling members of another cult that they are wrong and should open themselves up to brainwashing from cult a to "cure" them of the brainwashing of cult b.


I look forward to the day when Christians and Homosexuals can openly embrace each other and band together to spread their propaganda for the good of all mankind.





Jasn



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowflux
 


IF people lived in the jungle all by themselves then society wouldnt bother what they did or didnt do. When people in a community, the community decides a code and judges people by that code. If you cant or wont live up to the code, respecting the communities choices at large then you have no right to expect that they respect and/or like what you decide to do. Acceptance is a two way street. If you cant accept the wishes of the society at large, they wont accept your eccentricities as well. Such people are better off living as hermits.

By that standard the Victorian age in England was much better in terms of morality, at least they didnt overtly allow frekish debauchery and sodomy as a way of life.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join