Palin's Church Promotes Gay Conversion

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


dbates...respectfully, how can you say that homosexuality and racism aren't related?

Homosexuality is based on genetics. "Race" is genetically determined, as well. So is red hair, blue eyes, or a bunch of moles on your skin.

There was an interesting experiment I remember reading about (some time ago, memory like Swiss cheese lately) in a classroom of elementary age children.... In the 1960s, I think...essentially, the teacher told the children that everyone with blue eyes were superior to all the others.

Well, the results showed a hint of how the human ego can be easily manipulated. By proposing a divisive 'theory' of some sort of 'superiority' over another, it turned those who were 'anointed' into monsters.

Not meaning to imply that every church has a 'holier-than-thou' atitude against those who don't toe the line, but it seems that if you don't 'believe', you are disdained and outcast. It's the "My religion is better than yours" mentality.

Or, "My sexuality is better than yours"??

Imagine you have an attraction to the opposite sex, but it was against society's 'mores'. (I know, I know...this is a thought experiment here, nothing else)

Anyway, so this imagined society says that to conform you must be homosexual, even for those who had an attraction to the opposite sex...so that minority of heterosexuals have to live a secret life...but darned if there isn't a 'church' somewhere that could convert them!! Praise be!

As I said....a thought experiment....hopefully to point out obvious hypocrisy.

AND, in case you're wondering, this imaginary society reproduced by in-vitro, and cloning....just so I can avoid the obvious refutations.




posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
If you practice homosexuality in a Muslim country, they won't pray for you. They will kill you.
I realize racism is, sadly, still a problem in this country. But this thread is not about racism.
Well then, I guess we should all offer up a few prayers for the safety of gay people should Obama be elected.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Homosexuality is a social condition. A desire, not a genetic determination. No one is born a homosexual, they become homosexual. Either because they were molested by a person of the same sex, or because they were socially opened to it by others and enticed into it. And as of recent, are taught that gay is ok in schools.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


And how do you know this?
I'll tell you what's a social condition: Hate and bigotry. Are you choosing to be ignorant by not backing up your post or were you born that way?



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Krieger
Um, you realize just how bigoted this is, right?

How exactly is it bigoted when it's a conference and the gays that show up (if there are any) WANT TO BE THERE? If any gay person is prayed over, then they have asked to be there and the church is providing a service for them - prayer.

I don't know what gay person would want to do that, but apparently there are some otherwise this conference wouldn't be taking place.

I'm not a fundamentalist, and frankly I dont understand why they think the way they do sometimes, but I don't see any harm in this. It's kinda' silly IMHO, but if they want to pray over people who are asking to be prayed over .... whatever.

Lemme' know when her fellow church members start flying airplanes into buildings full of people, or when it's minister starts blaming white people for all the worlds problems from the pulpit .... then there is a big problem.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
It seems to me that MANY people here seem to be confusing tolerance and acceptance. Let me provide you a definition...

Tolerance: the act or capacity of enduring

Acceptance: favorable reception; approval; favor.

You can tolerate something without necessarily accepting it. I do not think that homosexual people are 'bad'. I tolerate their decision but do not accept it. Simple.

If Palin's church is helping people to transform their homosexual lifestyle into a heterosexual one, then so be it. The participants in this program seek out that help. This is very similar in my eyes to churches having programs to break pornography addictions in the sense that it is an uncontrollable sexual urge to some which they wish to overcome.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

The mere fact that you say something that ignorant shows that you simply do not know what you're talking about.

A person is not 'converted' from to Straight to Gay any more than is 'converted' from Gay to Straight!

It is in the brain. It is genetic.

No amount of 'prayer' is going to help, except possibly to mask a person's true feelings and allow him/her to be self-deluded.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by NJE03
 


PLEASE, NJ....I appreciate your post, 'tolerance' vs. 'acceptance'....but please don't sully such a great observation with the follow-on using the word 'decision'.

That implies 'choice'....and that is not pertinent to human sexuality as pertains to homosexuality/heterosexuality.

Sexual attraction between humans is very complex, but many people wish to try to 'wrap their heads around it' by over-simplifying.

A heterosexual man is NOT attracted to every woman he sees. There are certain attributes that trigger a response. Same with a heterosexual woman...she looks for something, very personal to her, in a man.

Well, folks! Works exactly the same way in homosexual men and women.

This 'conversion' phenomenon preys blatantly on people who cannot reconcile their being Gay with their "choice" of a religion, when they are afraid of being ostracized. So, Gay 'conversion' is really, at its core, is a fear-based concept.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by spec_ops_wannabe
reply to post by Cowgirlstraitup7
 


It's not like it's horrible or anything like that. It's certainly far better than murders and executions like Hitler did.
I don't even see why this should be an issue. Freedom of Religion as I recall?


WHAT!?


What type of moronic logic is that? "Well at least it's not as bad as Hitler!"

Facism is Facism regardless of what means are used to enforce it.

Freedom of Religion is also Freedom FROM Religion.



[edit on 9-9-2008 by Quazga]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


The fact that it is there, and that a person who is in a position to become the most powerful person in the world promotes it makes it dangerous. If someone is in a position to say that it is 'wrong' to be gay and that you need to be cured, then the more likely it is that gay people exposed to it's prescence will suffer trauma as a result of the emotional blackmail of that society.

Simply put - if these churches promoting heterosexuality through prayer are promoted (i'm not saying they should be shut down - free speech and all) then there is the danger that it is going to cause increased rates of intolerance toward gay people and be harmful to those who are gay.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by newguyhere2
Ones sexuality is not a choice.


Actually, I beg to differ. I know I'm new so nobody's going to care but I'm a gay turned bisexual with a little bit of experimentation just to see if it was possible and just now starting to understand and control the infrequent relapses into homosexual interest. The problem is that dopamine is the same chemical behind drug addiction and sexual pleasure so when gays have relapses or cravings like drug addicts do, which is that parts of the brain are craving dopamine and the person craves the habitual source of the dopamine release, the gays are inclined to say that they just can't change themselves because this is who they are whereas a drug addict realizes that the cravings are a part of the dopamine high process and has no social support to say that it's ok for him to continue the way he is.

I just prefer the way that I smell and think when I'm heterosexual and want to make babies someday to repopulate a post-apocalyptic world with a superior breed of human beings. Plus, a lot of gays have funny looking faces and bodies and that's something I'm hoping not to have to deal with.

Does that make me a bigot?



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Epinephrine

Actually, I beg to differ. I know I'm new so nobody's going to care but I'm a gay turned bisexual with a little bit of experimentation just to see if it was possible and just now starting to understand and control the infrequent relapses into homosexual interest. The problem is that dopamine is the same chemical behind drug addiction and sexual pleasure so when gays have relapses or cravings like drug addicts do, which is that parts of the brain are craving dopamine and the person craves the habitual source of the dopamine release, the gays are inclined to say that they just can't change themselves because this is who they are whereas a drug addict realizes that the cravings are a part of the dopamine high process and has no social support to say that it's ok for him to continue the way he is.

I just prefer the way that I smell and think when I'm heterosexual and want to make babies someday to repopulate a post-apocalyptic world with a superior breed of human beings. Plus, a lot of gays have funny looking faces and bodies and that's something I'm hoping not to have to deal with.

Does that make me a bigot?


I would advise you to avoid emphasizing the sexual pleasure aspect since it seems to dumb down human attraction and the experience that comes with it. there is far more to being attracted to someone else than simply doing it for sexual pleasure. Love can not be solely reduced to dopamine reception. If it was that simple, we'd all live in a Utopia.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Epinephrine

Originally posted by newguyhere2
Ones sexuality is not a choice.




Does that make me a bigot?

No it just makes you confused.


Using your logic, pleasure is bad because of stigma. You equate the desire for homosexual arousal with drug addiction.


Let's just take the homosexual nature out of it for a bit. When I was rasied, ALL SEXUAL BEHAVIOR was deemed bad. So I was inclined to feel the same way you feel, but about all sexual beahvior.

I had the same logic fallacies runnin through my brain as well because I was stigmatized to believe that sexual pleasure was somehow a sin.

It takes a LONG time to deal with those types of imprints.

If you have an inclination towards homosexuality, it's because you like it. Even though you try to make your self feel better by claiming that its all about the addictive chemicals.

Regardless of this, you have the right to live however you want. And the reason? Because, unless it's hurting another person, whatever you do is OK... there is NOTHING that is wrong.

Thats why you can live however you want. And when a organization comes along and tries to tell you that this activity is bad and that one isn't... they just create division.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by Quazga]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Epinephrine
 


You can't be serious!. But if you are, congratulations on your road to hetero land. I'm afraid your problems are only just beginning.
Are you saying that all gays are in a state of addiction? I know there are several drugs out there to help with dofferent addicts like heroin has methadone and smoking has some also, but I yet have to see the pill that stops those homosexual cravings.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Epinephrine
 


here's the funny thing, Epi....

As I've already mentioned, human sexuality is very complex.

I have a friend who seems to have a similar story to yours....similar, but not exactly the same. He, under a great deal of family pressure, decided to 'turn straight', marry, and have a family.

Bi-sexuality is not a new concept, even if it makes some uncomfortable.

Most Gay men are not remotely attracted to women. And, I have no idea what you meant about the 'appearances' of Gay people....that is a specious comment.

Ya know, I have never wanted to have sex with a woman. They are not attractive to me in a sexual way. Oh, I can appreciated the asthetics of a 'beautiful' woman....but recall, one society's idea of beauty may be different from another's. In centuries past, in Europe for instance, voluputous pasty-white women were considered 'beautiful', since the tanned thin ones were considered lower-class workers. Funny, how attitudes change over the years, eh?

Anyway, this is straying from the topic, methinks. But, sometimes one needs to expand one's thoughts in order to not be misunderstood.

What I tend to find interesting in the Gay/Straight 'conversion' discussions is it focuses inordinately on the male aspect of homosexuality....not the female variety. Why do you suppose that is?

I mean, most Straight men I've encountered love to fantacize about woman-on-woman (with them in the middle). Why is that? Why the double-standard?



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I love how we're all supposed to accept how gay people are, but we're also supposed to be frightened by these evil religious people like Palin. You cant have it both way folks. Either you want respect for all, or you're just going to have to deal with others who disagree with you.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uniceft17
They can pray untill there faces turn red for all I care. Just know that no one is going to go from gay to straight, they are still gay, just supressing their gay thoughts and not acting on it, which is stupid, their should be nothing wrong with love..

People should be who they are, not who everyone else wants them to be.

[edit on 9/8/2008 by Uniceft17]


Geez don't tell that to child molesters, man/boy proponents and rapists ----- they're standing in line to get their stamp of approval, they figure they're next in line.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unnoan

I would advise you to avoid emphasizing the sexual pleasure aspect since it seems to dumb down human attraction and the experience that comes with it. there is far more to being attracted to someone else than simply doing it for sexual pleasure. Love can not be solely reduced to dopamine reception. If it was that simple, we'd all live in a Utopia.


Sex and sexuality can be reduced to a dopamine reactions and often are. Love has nothing to do directly with sex or sexuality and thus was not mentioned. Besides which, love feels more like serotonin, which has it's own problems attached to it.

Utopia is a concept born in the chemical mind that has no possibility of a literal translation to objective reality. The use of impossible ideas and human imagination to make a point makes no sense unless you were hoping to provoke an emotional response using the subjective meaning that these ideas provide. What kind of emotional response were you hoping to provoke?



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Dronetek
 


Drone, you're missing the point.

It's not JUST about one aspect of her 'church'....it tends to get deeper and deeper, when you take off your rose-colored glasses.

Much hay has been made about Rev Wright....because I KNOW you want to scratch that itch...and try to impugn Obama through association.

I hate to bring this up, but does that association also apply to every member of a Catholic church who prayed dilegently for years, whilst the priest they reverred was buggering little boys?

A person who attends a Church does not have control over the person who preaches. AND the person doing the preaching may fool most of the people most of the time, but sometimes their true colors bleed through the charade. THEN, a person has a choice....because religion IS A CHOICE!

Palin's 'church' is way, way outside of normal Christian teachings. It is bloody scary, really.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Epinephrine

Sex and sexuality can be reduced to a dopamine reactions and often are. Love has nothing to do directly with sex or sexuality and thus was not mentioned. Besides which, love feels more like serotonin, which has it's own problems attached to it.

Utopia is a concept born in the chemical mind that has no possibility of a literal translation to objective reality. The use of impossible ideas and human imagination to make a point makes no sense unless you were hoping to provoke an emotional response using the subjective meaning that these ideas provide. What kind of emotional response were you hoping to provoke?


See this is where I have huge issues with modern thought.

The tyranny of the objective world.


I believe that Christianity is about removing this tyranny and focusing on the dominion of the Subjetive world. Your soul is the entirety of your subjective experience, not necessarily the mechanisms which support it.

That being the case, I remove the focus from the objective world almost entirely in my life, and focus on the subjective. Ultimately it's not the Objective world which is important, but my Subjective orientation to it.

This is what I have found to be true salvation. The kicker is this... I am ultimately responsible for the condition of my soul. That's right... it's all in my head, and that is the only thing I have true power over, which is fine, because that is where true power actually resides.





top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join