<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+May 5 2005, 05:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ May 5 2005, 05:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I guess everyone's just going to ignore <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=92787&view=findpost&p=1467556' target='_blank'>my post</a> then. I'm cool with that. I'll just go away then. I didn't expect anybody to be able to answer my questions or refute my points anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're post is trying to prove that there are such things as Sheep and Goats, and further, discrete categories.
No one disagrees that there are Sheep and Goats, or discrete categories, therefore, no one feels they must respond to your post.
There is an argument about whether there are discrete categories in this particular area of life, which is still ongoing, carried on by posts such as the one directly above your post from this page. But you didn't really add anything to this argument, other than to point out that it is silly to deny the existence of discrete categories in general. Remember that the Kinsey scale didn't deny the existence of the "100% straight" classification, that idea wasn't introduced until later in the thread.
To be honest I wasn't thinking of the psychology of all this when I first posted, or when I contested for my earlier points. So, I apologize for talking some nonsense. (I wasn't on the same level as everyone else.)
Psychology - I know nothing about. So, I really can't continue to debate. But there have been studies where highly motivated homosexuals became heterosexual. Suppose homosexuality IS like depression (as I believe theClam made reference to in saying you don't choose depression) if this is the case then we need to be treating homosexuals, not embracing them. When someone is depressed, we counsel them, perhaps give them medication but mostly we talk about what's bugging them.
There are (as far as I know) two kinds of depression.
Chemical Depression AND Psychological Depression
Perhaps the same is true for homosexuals? Some may be chemically homosexual while others may just have it all in their heads.
It sounds like an unwanted orientation.
Male and male, can't re-produce. Yet man is attracted to man. Why embrace this? Why not fix it? Go see a doctor or whatever?
I have now revised my answer (and probably will later on as well) that homosexuality may well be a disorder and should never have been taken off that list by the APA. But, I believe some homosexuals are homosexual by choice and some are homosexual by either chemicals or their own minds. (Which is a huge trap, the mind is a vastly powerful thing.)
My apologies again, for not playing on the same field as everyone else. I was in-fact in my own world. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Yes, lets be picky now. Man on man is evil but woman on woman is hot?
I find it amusing how one side always picks on the singular man/man syndrome, yet when women are lesbian they are "hot" or "ok". Amusing.
Actually DarkAti, what is being refereced is that treating homosexuals has lead to depression among them(Which your NARTH person admits, See Ageri's post), not that it is like depression.
It isn't a disease nor a mental "disorder" which is why it is off that list.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 5 2005, 10:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 5 2005, 10:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes, lets be picky now. Man on man is evil but woman on woman is hot?
I find it amusing how one side always picks on the singular man/man syndrome, yet when women are lesbian they are "hot" or "ok". Amusing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm going to suggest that stems primarily from the added annoyance of having to write something like "male and male, or female and female, can't reproduce" instead of just listing the first one. Similarly, when talking about someone whose gender we don't know, its so much easier to just say "he" rather than "he or she", since English doesn't have a word for unknown genders.
That said, I have a suspicion that most (straight) men find ga* women more acceptable than ga* men, while most (straight) women find ga* men more acceptable than ga* women. A straight man would commonly fantasize about a single woman, and never about a single man. So its a relatively small mental jump from there to a pair of women, while a pair of men is going even farther in the opposite direction. And vice versa for women.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+May 5 2005, 03:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ May 5 2005, 03:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Psychology - I know nothing about. So, I really can't continue to debate. But there have been studies where highly motivated homosexuals became heterosexual. Suppose homosexuality IS like depression (as I believe theClam made reference to in saying you don't choose depression) if this is the case then we need to be treating homosexuals, not embracing them. When someone is depressed, we counsel them, perhaps give them medication but mostly we talk about what's bugging them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're making the grave and erroneous assumption that homosexuality is:
a) A disorder at all. b) Something that is detrimental to the health and/or quality of life of the person.
What's the point in even trying to treat it if it's not causing a problem for the person in question? I know that none of the people I know that are homosexual or bisexual have any problems at all with their sexual orientation, and I'm damn sure that a vast majority of the g.ay population feels the samy way about themselves.
You seem to have decided that as homosexuality and depression have been compared because they are both not chosen, then that means that homosexuality is just like depression and is a disorder. I don't honestly see the logic there. Do you have anything to back this claim up? (If you want to see a source for my stance, then you can refer back to the APA's stance on homosexuality as a mental disorder.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Male and male, can't re-produce. Yet man is attracted to man. Why embrace this? Why not fix it? Go see a doctor or whatever?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's the need to fix it? It's not doing the person any harm (see above). I mean, it's not like you can just go to the doctor and take anti-g.ay drugs or something.
Besides, the studies that Aegeri posted showed that only a very small minority of homosexuals have any possibility of "treatment" working.
Sterile people can't reproduce. When a couple uses birth control, they cannot reproduce. Does this mean that sterile people should seek therapy when they experience sexual urges? That couples should seek therapy when they wish to use a condom during sex?
@DarkATi Why should they be treated? Many (if not most) homosexuals are happy with their sexual orientation and they aren't doing any harm to anyone else by being ****. You talk like reproduction is the ultimate goal of everyone's existence, which is simply not true.
Jesus, darkati. This whole christian bullcrap is going a bit too far, no? Just accept people for what they are and don't try to fix it if they're happy with the way they are.
Homosexuality is unnatural. Period. Fact. End of story. Because procreation isn't even a possibility. It may occur in nature sporadically, in rare instances but the fact is - heterosexuality is normal and homosexuality is not.
It should be treated because it goes against nature. It is a disorder. I love how God describes it like that in the Bible, he says, "It is confusion." and it truly is.
I'm not saying that person is confused, I'm saying the whole idea of sticking your **** inside a man's butt is confusion, likewise, the idea of two women "having sex" is confusion. It isn't natural.
Now, onto the more religious side of things as brought up by Walkabout.
I don't judge anyone. Neither did Jesus. But he did say that God does judge us. It is Him and Him alone that we have to answer to. The Bible sheds a negative light on homosexuality 100% of the time. It's up to the homosexual to determine what needs to be done, if anything. I have no right to speak a word for it or against it. I suck too. I sin too. I should be going to hell too.
I know people that are homosexual and go to church, would be considered devout Christians. It is between them and God. If they're truly happy and see nothing wrong with it... then let them do as they wish.
Back more on-topic.
Homosexuality isn't natural and that's the whole basis for my argument really. It occurs but this hardly makes it natural, as disease occurs, murders occur, two headed chickens occur - it will never make these things normal or acceptable.
I don't think homosexuals are under the delusion that they're going to get kids out of anal sex. I'd have thought the point was pleasure/bonding. There's nothing wrong with that, same as how there's nothing wrong in a woman giving a man a blow job.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+May 5 2005, 02:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ May 5 2005, 02:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Homosexuality is unnatural. Period. Fact. End of story. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe from your christian point of view, but you seem to forget that not everyone's christian and can have their own opinions about things. Whoah.
I am doing this anway because I did a paper on what homosexuality is said about in the bible.
<!--QuoteBegin-cyndane Circa: 1999+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cyndane Circa: 1999)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In preparation for each passage, read the entire chapter. For Romans 1:26-27, read the first 3 chapters of Romans. Read Genesis chapter 38 for a clear picture of the Old Testament attitudes about women, sex, the necessity of producing offspring, the control of men over women, the double standard for men and women, and other sexuality issues.
Genesis 19:5: "Bring them out to us that we may know them."
Author's Note: "Know" simply means know! No hint at homosexuality exists in the original Hebrew. No later Bible references to Sodom ever mention homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. Many modern translations add words to the text to create the lie that the people of Sodom were homosexual.
"SODOMY" is not a biblical word. Laws against sodomy not only violate the Constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state; they also use an incorrect and wrongly translated term for the laws. A "Sodomite" in the Bible is simply a person who lives in Sodom, which included Lot and his family. The term "sodomite" in the King James Version of Deuteronomy 23:17 and I Kings 14:24 is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew word for "temple prostitute." (See the recent book by Mark D. Jordan: The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology. University of Chicago Press, 1997.)
The average person assumes that the Bible clearly condemns male to male sexual intercourse as "sodomy" and that the city of Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, which is seen as the worst of all sins in the Bible. These assumptions are based on no evidence at all in the Bible.
No Jewish scholars before the first Christian century taught that the sin of Sodom was sexual. None of the biblical references to Sodom mention sexual sins but view Sodom as an example of injustice, lack of hospitality to strangers, idolatry and as a symbol for desolation and destruction. See Deuteronomy 29:22-28; 32:32; Ezekiel 16:49-50; Jeremiah 49:18; 50:41; Isaiah 13:19-22 and Matthew 10:14-15. In Jude 7, the term "strange flesh" is Greek hetero sarkos ("different flesh" and from which the word "heterosexual" comes) and refers to foreign idols or people. It is not homo ("the same") flesh or people. Sarkos is never used in the New Testament as a word for "sex."
The word "know" in Genesis 19:5 is Hebrew YADA. It is used 943 times in the Old Testament to "know" God, good and evil, the truth, the law, people, places, things, etc. It is a very flexible word, as are many Hebrew words. In Genesis 19:5, the word was used to express the request of the people of Sodom that Lot should bring out the strangers in his house so that they could know who they were. Sodom was a tiny fortress in the barren wasteland south of the Dead Sea. The only strangers that the people of Sodom ever saw were enemy tribes who wanted to destroy and take over their valuable fortress and the trade routes that it protected. Lot himself was an alien in their midst.
Lot's strange response to the request was to offer his young daughters to the men, an offer that seems to me to be far more reprehensible than any problem of sexual orientation. If the men were homosexual, why did Lot offer to give them his daughters? These hostile and violent people were heterosexual, and homosexual orientation had nothing to do with the incident.
Special note on YADA: The Hebrew word YADA "to know" is never used in the Old Testament to mean "to have sex with". People have been conditioned to think that "to know someone biblically" means to have sex. The use of YADA in Genesis 4:1-2 to say that Adam knew Eve and she conceived and gave birth to Cain is followed by saying that later she gave birth to his brother Abel without any reference to YADA. Why? Simply because YADA does not mean to have sex. It is a general term that describes many kinds of intimate relationships. I have studied all of the uses of YADA in the Old Testament, and my personal conclusion is that it never means what we mean by sexual intercourse. Just substitute a common slang expression for sexual intercourse instead of the word "know" in Genesis 4:1 and you will see how inappropriate the idea is. The Old Testament Hebrew writers never thought or wrote in those terms. The Bible never gives any details about sexual acts. The only clear Hebrew term for sexual acts is "to lie with," which is left without any further explanation.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN SODOM?
To twist the story to say what it does not say is to miss what it does say. The story does not deal with sexual orientation or with homosexuality and has no bearing at all on the issue of God's acceptance or rejection of *** and Lesbians. The story of Sodom clearly teaches that evil and violent people who attack aliens and strangers whom they do not know or understand receive God's quick and terrible punishment.
The purpose of the story is to show that misunderstood, strange, or feared minorities in any community are in danger from violence by the majority when that majority is ignorant, ungodly, selfish and afraid. The real message of Sodom is backwards from the claims of homophobic preachers and teachers. The **** and Lesbian minority in our society today is more like the guests in Lot's house who were protected behind closed doors ("in the closet") than like the frightened mindless mob that wanted to expose, humiliate and destroy people that they did not "know" and control.
Set the record straight! Genesis 19 is about the fear (like homophobia) and anger of a mob (like many misguided religious fanatics) directed against a small group of isolated strangers (like *** and Lesbians today) in their midst. Sexual orientation is not the issue here or anywhere else in the Bible.
Read also the strange story in Judges 19:1-30 of the Levite in Gibeah, which was patterned after the story of Lot and the angels in Genesis 19. Jewish teachers before the time of Christ never saw either of these stories as having any connection with homosexuality or sexual orientation. Neither should we.
Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."
Author's Note: Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship.
Because these two verses in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) have been used more than any other Bible texts to condemn and reject **** and lesbian people, the following material is given to help you think objectively about traditional abusive use of the Bible regarding homosexuals.
The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is obviously a hypocritical selective use of the Bible against *** and lesbians. Nobody today tries to keep the laws in Leviticus. Look at Leviticus 11:1-12, where all unclean animals are forbidden as food, including rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others that are called an "abomination." Leviticus 20:25 demands that "you are to make a distinction between the clean and unclean animal and between the unclean and clean bird; and you shall not make yourself an abomination by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean." You can eat some insects like locusts (grasshoppers), but not others.
Leviticus 12:1-8 declares that a woman is unclean for 33 days after giving birth to a boy and for 66 days after giving birth to a girl and goes on to demand that certain animals must be offered as a burnt offering and a sin offering for cleansing. Nobody today who claims to be a Christian tries to keep these laws, and few people even know about them! Why do you think that most people don't know about them?
Read Leviticus 23 to see the detailed regulations concerning "complete rest" on the Sabbath day and demands of animal sacrifices to be carried out according to exact instructions. Leviticus 18:19 forbids a husband from having sex with his wife during her menstrual period. Leviticus 19:19 forbids mixed breeding of various kinds of cattle, sowing various kinds of seeds in your field or wearing "a garment made from two kinds of material mixed together." Leviticus 19:27 demands that "you shall not round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your beard." The next verse forbids "tattoo marks on yourself." Most people do not even know that these laws are in the Bible and are demanded equally with all the others.
Why don't fundamentalists organize protests and picket seafood restaurants, oyster bars, church barbecue suppers, all grocery stores, barber shops, tattoo parlors, and stores that sell suits and dresses made of mixed wool, cotton, polyester, and other materials? All of these products and services are "abominations" in Leviticus. When have you heard a preacher condemn the demonic abomination of garments that are made of mixed fabrics?
The warning is given in Leviticus 26:14-16 that "If you do not obey me and do not carry out all of these commandments, if instead, you reject my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances so as not to carry out all my commandments ...I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that shall waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you shall sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies shall eat it up." The list of punishments and terrors that will come from not keeping all of the commandments continues through many verses.
Read what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1-5 about hypocrites who judge others. "Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves... Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ...You hypocrite!"
If you have been led to misuse Leviticus and other parts of the Bible in order to condemn and hate and reject people, you are on the wrong path. Jesus quoted only one passage from Leviticus: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (19:18). Jesus used Leviticus to teach love. Many false teachers use Leviticus and other writings to condemn, humiliate and destroy. I know which approach seems truly Christian to me. Jesus never condemned homosexuals or even mentioned anything that could be taken as a reference to sexual orientation.
Any charge against *** and Lesbians based on the life and teachings of Jesus has to be dismissed for a lack of evidence!
The use of Leviticus to judge and condemn anyone today is ludicrous and absurd in the light of the total content of the book. To call the content of the Book of Leviticus the "word of God" and try to enforce any part of it today is without support in the teachings of Jesus and in the letters of Paul.
Jesus in Mark 7:18-23 chided his disciples for their lack of spiritual understanding. Jesus and his disciples had been condemned by the religious leaders because they did not wash and eat according to the Law. Jesus said, "Are you too so uncomprehending? Don't you see that whatever goes into your mouth from the outside cannot defile you; because it does not go into your heart, but into your stomach, and is eliminated? (Thus Jesus declared all foods clean."). And Jesus added, "That which proceeds from within you, out of your heart, defiles you. Evil thoughts, abusive sex acts, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting, wickedness, deceit, not caring, envy, slander, arrogance and foolishness: all of these evil things proceed from within and defile you."
Paul also rejected the absolute commands of Leviticus in Colossians 2:8-23, where he said, "If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 'Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!' (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using) in accordance with human commandments and teachings? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against human indulgence." (2:20-23). Paul declared in 2:14 that Jesus has "canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us which was hostile to us; and Jesus has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."
Many people have answered the argument that most of the "abominations" in Leviticus referred to food by saying that the people back then knew that pork was unhealthy, and that is why pigs were declared to be unclean. If you follow that logic, you would declare anything that is unhealthy to be an "abomination." We know that cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, fat food and many other things are unhealthy; so why are they not also called "abominations" and condemned by the rabid Bible literalists with protests and pickets against cigarette machines, all liquor stores and bars, all fast food outlets, and any store that sells anything that is unhealthy? The reason is simple. The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject anyone is impossible to justify in the light of the facts.
The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is absurd and makes literal legalistic bible based religion look ridiculous.
To me personally, the message of Jesus Christ always has been good news for everyone. Personal evangelism has been my basic emphasis in the ministry since I became pastor of a small rural church in South Carolina in 1952 when I was nineteen years old. Our little church led the Baptist Churches of South Carolina one year in per capita baptisms. In all of my churches, both Baptist and MCC, my emphasis has been personal evangelism. What is your emphasis in your ministry? I personally have led hundreds of people to Christ and taught other hundreds of people to become effective in sharing Christ with others. During all of this time I have been homosexual. I have realized that I was **** since I was a about 10 years old. God loves me just as I am and uses me in ministry that fits me and my life as an individual. I pray that you find the same thing for yourself.
Romans 1:26-27: "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error." Author's Note: All of this refers to idolatrous religious practices that were common in the time of Paul.
Taking anything that Paul said out its context is like trying to drive a car blindfolded. You don't know where you are, where you have been, where you are going, or who you just ran over and killed!
Paul's writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, ***, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand. A lot of Paul's writing is very difficult to translate. Since most of his letters were written in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We know, or think we know, what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said. As 2 Peter 3:16-18 pointed out, we have to be on guard against using Paul's writings in unhealthy and destructive ways.
When I taught a college course in the Book of Romans, I decided to memorize Romans, as Augustine suggested. The effort paid off. Being able to visualize the message of Romans as a whole immediately cleared up a lot of Paul's thought that I had not been able to untangle before by traditional means of study. It helped so much that I continued to memorize the books of the Bible that I taught in college courses.
The theme of the first 3 chapters of Romans is expressed in 1:16: "The gospel is the power of God for spiritual freedom (salvation) for all who believe." Paul showed that all people equally need and can have Jesus in their lives. Paul's gospel is inclusive, as expressed in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Romans 1:26-27 is part of Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous religious worship and rituals. Read all of Romans 1:18 to 2:4 for the context of the verses.
Romans 1:26-27 contains some words used only here by Paul. Familiar words are used here in unusual ways. The passage is very difficult to translate. The argument is directed against some form of idolatry that would have been known to Paul's readers. To us, 2,000 years later and in a totally different culture, the argument is vague and indirect.
Verse 25 is clearly a denunciation of idol worship, "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature and not the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."." Paul at no point in his writing dealt with same-sex orientation or the expression of love and affection between two people of the same sex who love each other.
Paul wrote Romans from Corinth, the second largest city in the empire and the crossroads of world trade and culture. Pausanius observed at about the same time as Paul that there were over 1,000 religions in Corinth. The most prominent were the fertility cult of Aphrodite, worship of Apollo, and the Delphi Oracle, which was across the bay from Corinth. Paul's readers would have been aware of the religious climate from which he wrote Romans and would have understood Paul a lot better than we do.
The word "passions" in 1:26 is the same word used to speak of the suffering and death of Jesus in Acts 1:3 and does not mean what we mean by "passion" today. Eros is the Greek word for romantic love, but eros is never used even once in the New Testament. "Passions" in 1:26 probably refers to the frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music.
We do not know the meaning of "burn" in 1:27, because Paul never used this particular word anywhere else, and it's origin is uncertain. The term "against nature" is also strange here, since exactly the same term is used by Paul in Romans 11:21-24 to speak of God acting "against nature" by including the Gentiles with the Jews in the family of God. "Against nature" was used to speak of something that was not done in the usual way, but did not necessarily mean that something "against nature" was evil, since God also "acted against nature."
One more word needs special attention. "Committing indecent acts" in 1:27 is translated by King James Version as "working that which is unseemly." Phillips goes far beyond the evidence and renders it as "Shameful horrors!" The Greek word is askemosunen and is formed of the word for "outer appearance" plus the negative particle. It speaks of the inner or hidden part or parts of the individual that are not ordinarily seen or known in public. "Indecent" in 1 Corinthians 12:23 referred to the parts of the body that remain hidden but are necessary and receive honor. 1 Corinthians 13:5 used the word to say that love does not behave "indecently."
This word for "indecency" was used to translate Deuteronomy 24:1 into Greek to say that a man could divorce his wife if he "found some indecency in her." The religious teachers argued endlessly about what "some indecency" meant. Some said it was anything that displeased the husband. Others were more strict and said it could only refer to adultery. In Matthew 19:1-12, Jesus commented on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but he did not define the term.
Paul was certainly aware of the variety of ways that the teachers interpreted the word "indecency," and he used it in a variety of ways himself. To read into "indecent acts" a whole world of homosexual ideas is to abandon the realities of objective academic study and to embark on useless and damaging speculation that cannot be supported by the meaning of the word or by Paul's use of it elsewhere.
If Paul had intended to condemn homosexuals as the worst of all sinners, he certainly had the language skills to do a clearer job of it than emerges from Romans 1:26-27. The fact is that Paul nowhere condemned or mentioned romantic love and sexual relations between people of the same sex who love each other. Paul never commented on sexual orientation. As in the rest of the Bible, Paul nowhere even hinted that Lesbians and **** men can or should change their sexual orientation.
SPECIAL NOTE on Romans 1:31, where the King James Version translated the Greek word astorgous as "without natural affection." This is one of the characteristics of people "with a reprobate mind" (KJV of 1:28). The word for "reprobate" is more recently translated as "depraved" or "perverted" in order more neatly to fit the sexualizing of everything possible in the list. The literal meaning of "reprobate" (Greek dokimon) is "to fail to measure up" or "to fail to meet the test" and simply means that the list of things that follows is the result of a mind that has abandoned God. The word astorgous, "without natural affection," is used only here and in 2 Timothy 3:3. It has nothing at all to do with homosexuality or with sex. It is the Greek word for "family love" or "family ties" with the negative prefix. It refers to people who despise and reject their family members. Rather than being directed at homosexuals, it is a term that is directed at people who despise and reject their own homosexual children and brothers and sisters! Modern translators, knowing this, usually render the word as "unloving," and the implication of some sort of "unnatural" or "perverted" affection is removed. Many more translation corrections are needed elsewhere!
The use of Romans 1:26-27 against homosexuals turns out to be a blunt instrument to batter and wound people who were not intended in the original text. Paul clearly taught throughout Romans, Galatians and his other letters that God's freely given and all inclusive love is for every person on earth. Notice what Paul said about judging others in Romans 2:1: "Therefore you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."
I Corinthians 6:9: "The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God." Author's Note: The Greek words translated "effeminate" and "homosexual" do not mean effeminate or homosexual!
I Timothy 1:9-10: "Law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and fornicators and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound (healthy) teaching." Author's Note: The Greek word translated "homosexual" does not mean homosexual!
These two verses contain completely wrong translations to create "homosexual ghosts" that do not really exist! Ghosts may not hurt you, but they can make you hurt yourself! The homosexual ghosts in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 were created by the inaccurate and intentionally misleading translation of two Greek words.
1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 sound very convincing in including lesbians and **** men in the most dreadful lists of depraved human behavior imaginable. The fact is that the word translated "homosexual" does not mean "homosexual" and the word translated "effeminate" does not mean "effeminate"!
The English word "homosexual" is a composite word made from a Greek term (homo, "the same") and a Latin term (sexualis , "sex"). The term "homosexual" is of modern origin and was not used until about 100 years ago. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is parallel to the word "homosexual." No Bible before the Revised Standard Version in 1946 used "homosexual" in any Bible translation.
The word translated as "homosexual" or "sexual pervert" or some other similar term is Greek arsenokoites, which was formed from two words meaning "male" and "bed". This word is not found anywhere else in the Bible and has not been found anywhere in the contemporary Greek of Paul's time. We do not know what it means. The word is obscure and uncertain. It probably refers to male prostitutes with female customers, which was a common practice in the Roman world, as revealed in the excavations at Pompeii and other sites.
When early Greek speaking Christian preachers condemned homosexuality, they did not use this word. John Chrysostom (A.D. 345-407) preached in Greek against homosexuality, but he never used this word for homosexuals, and when he preached on 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, he did not mention homosexuals. See the full discussion of this in John Boswell's book: Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality - Appendix 1, "Lexicography and Saint Paul," pages 335-353.
"Soft" does not mean "effeminate." The word translated "effeminate in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is Greek malakoi and means "soft" or "vulnerable." The word is translated as "soft" in reference to clothing in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 and as "illness" in Matthew 4:23 and 9:35. It is not used anywhere else in the New Testament and carries no hint of reference to sexual orientation. Malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 probably refers those who are "soft," "pliable," "unreliable," or "without courage or stability." The translation of malakoi as "effeminate" is incorrect, ignorant, degrading to women, and impossible to justify based on ancient usage compared to the meaning of "effeminate" today.
This incorrect rendering of malakoi and arsenokoites as references to gender orientation has been disastrous for millions of ****, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual people. This mistaken translation has enlisted a mighty army of ignorant religious fanatics against homosexual people and has turned many Lesbians and *** against the Bible, which holds for them as for all people the good news of God's love in Christ.
Evil homophobic Bible "translations from hell" must not go unchallenged. The use of these translations by ignorant religious bigots to incite fear and hate against *** demands a clear, academically sound, credible and easily understood response. Material given in this web site is only a beginning. Every Bible word that has been incorrectly used to wound, alienate and oppress people must be examined in detail and carefully exposed. God has called us to return the Bible to the oppressed and outcast people for whom it was written.
Three of the passages: Genesis 19:5; I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 are incorrectly translated. The other three: Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27 are taken out of their original setting of condemning idolatrous religious practices and wrongly used to judge and condemn people of the same sex who love each other. None of these passages refer to people of the same sex who love each other. None originally were aimed at homosexuals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One my favorite basic papers done while I was still in grade school.
<!--QuoteBegin-cyndane circa 1995+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cyndane circa 1995)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bible languages of Hebrew and Greek have no word for homosexual. Old Testament Hebrew is a very primitive language. It is the first step beyond picture writing and is the first alphabetic language. It originally consisted only of consonants with no vowels written in the text. There is no "past, present, or future" in Hebrew. The Hebrew language had only about a 30,000 word vocabulary. Modern English has over 300,000 words. One Hebrew word could be used in dozens of different ways, and the meaning was determined by the context. Each word was made up of 3 letters of the alphabet and usually expressed some form of activity or action. It is impossible to translate most Hebrew words exactly into modern English. Scholars come as close as they can and do a lot of guessing.
New Testament Greek was far more complex than Hebrew. Greek had a 250,000 word vocabulary and a great variety of words developed to express shades of meaning and degrees of feeling. Greek, for example, had four different words for "love". Greek had many verb forms that do not exist in English. The Greek used in the New Testament is different from classical or modern Greek. For many years, some scholars thought that New Testament Greek was a special language created by the Holy Spirit. Then, in the late nineteenth century, a collection of manuscripts was discovered from the time of the New Testament. These documents were bills of sale, personal letters, business and news reports that were written in exactly the same kind of Greek that the Bible used. For the first time, Bible scholars knew and could study the kind of "everyday" Greek, called "koine" Greek, that was used in the New Testament. The King James Version was translated in 1611, long before the oldest manuscripts were discovered.
The reason that there are so many different Bible translations ( about 30 major ones) today is because the exact meaning of many words is still in question, and even what should be included as original material is hotly debated by Bible specialists. Other recent discoveries, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, add new information that throws light on the meaning of Bible words.
The word "homosexual" is made up of Greek homo, meaning "the same," and Latin sexualis, from which the English word "sex" is derived. The word "homosexual" has been in use to refer to people who have sex with others of the same gender for only about 100 years. According to the most recent edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (tenth edition), "homosexual" as an adjective was first used in 1892 and as a noun in 1902, and "homophobia" was first used in 1969 and "homophobe" first used in 1975. The translation of any Bible word as "homosexual" is a mistake.
The Greek word in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 that is translated "homosexual" is arsenokoites, which is formed from two words meaning "male" and "bed." The word is not found anywhere else in the New Testament and has not been found anywhere in contemporary Greek of Paul's time. We are not sure what it means. It only appears in these two lists. The word is of obscure origin and uncertain meaning. It probably refers to male prostitutes with female customers, which was a common practice in the Roman world.
When early Greek-speaking Christian preachers condemned homosexuals, they did not use this word. John Chrysostom (A.D. 345-407) preached in Greek against homosexuality, but he never used this word for homosexuals. When he wrote homilies and preached on 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, he did not mention homosexuals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 4 2005, 05:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 4 2005, 05:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Edit: Well, not ALL men. I can admire a guy who is strong, or looks good, but the only time sexuality enters into it is when I think "Wow, he must get a lot of chicks." Thinking about them in any other way is nauseating for me... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> @TommyVercetti Exactly the kind of narrowminedness we are trying to get away from. Personally I find your view more disgusting then hetro/homo sexuals making out in public. You were taught it was "bad", which is why you think it is "nauseating". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I KNEW you were going to say this. And I'm going to tell you you're wrong. I was never taught any of this stuff was wrong. It was natural. Not environmental. I came to that conclusion on my own WITHOUT outside influences (not even the media).
Anyways, I'm not going to defend myself because then a bunch of people will get mad at me and call me a homophobe because, even though I have no problem with **** or bi people, I am most certainly neither.
It's very easy to lose track of what is actually being discussed in a debate like this, so let me recap what I think are the underlying questions here. If I've missed one, someone point it out.
1--Is homosexuality a "normal", "naturally occuring" phenomenon? A--It is important to distinguish between "normal" and "naturally occuring", which mean two different things. Homosexuality does indeed seem to be naturally occuring, but what defines "normal"? Social acceptance? Rate of incidence? Something else? Following that train of thought to question 2...
2--Is homosexuality socially accepted? A--Not really. For all the legal progress the ga* rights movement has made here, the American populace mostly retains the belief that homosexuality is in some way abnormal and wrong. Acceptance is different in other parts of the world. Some places (like most of Europe) have fairly high acceptance, while others have even less social acceptance of the practice than the US.
3--<i>Should</i> homosexuality be socially accepted? A--Ah, here's the kicker. This is the big question, lurking behind every other debate on homosexuality. But despite the tendancy of both groups to call on science, "Should it be socially accepted" is really a moral question. Science can only tell us how and how often homosexality occurs, and maybe how easy it is to change (assuming we can ever come to an agreement on what science says about those questions). It can't tell us whether we <i>should</i> change it or not.
4--Can homosexuality be changed? A--Not really as important of a question as it looks. When attempting to disprove change, it is often considered to refer to a 100% homosexual turning into a 100% heterosexual, which is admitted to be very rare even by the defenders of Reparative Therapy...but if you consider it in the light of the existence of people other than 100% one way or the other (which was the original topic of this thread), it is much easier to defend. Could not someone who had been 70/30 transform into 30/70? And it is not necessary to prove that this is common...only that it is possible. This thread has already linked to studies where this was the case, which were then derided as being invalid because the subjects didn't start and end at 100/0 and 0/100. But are they really less valid because the subjects moved along the line somewhere in the middle?
Edit: Interesting research Cyndane, I'll have to look at that more cloesly when I have the time.
Oh yea, and secondarily, before anyone pops back in and flames me for not being bi, know that 5 of my friends are bisexuals, though none are completely homosexual. So I guess you're right in your original point; I must be a rare breed for not having had even a fantasy that wasn't heterosexual.
<!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+May 5 2005, 01:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti @ May 5 2005, 01:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 4 2005, 05:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 4 2005, 05:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Edit: Well, not ALL men. I can admire a guy who is strong, or looks good, but the only time sexuality enters into it is when I think "Wow, he must get a lot of chicks." Thinking about them in any other way is nauseating for me... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> @TommyVercetti Exactly the kind of narrowminedness we are trying to get away from. Personally I find your view more disgusting then hetro/homo sexuals making out in public. You were taught it was "bad", which is why you think it is "nauseating". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I KNEW you were going to say this. And I'm going to tell you you're wrong. I was never taught any of this stuff was wrong. It was natural. Not environmental. I came to that conclusion on my own WITHOUT outside influences (not even the media).
Anyways, I'm not going to defend myself because then a bunch of people will get mad at me and call me a homophobe because, even though I have no problem with **** or bi people, I am most certainly neither. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Prove it to me then, cause simply stating it doesn't show how you were taught it wasn't "wrong." I think it would be safe to say the vast majority of children have grown up with it being "wrong." Especially those on this board. (Note: majority is >= 50%, which is NOT ALL)
*edit* I know quite a few homosexuals as well that doesn't mean anything. The thought of sleeping with another girl does not turn my stomach and I'm sure it doesn't turn yours either.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 5 2005, 03:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 5 2005, 03:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Prove it to me then, cause simply stating it doesn't show how you were taught it wasn't "wrong." I think it would be safe to say the vast majority of children have grown up with it being "wrong." Especially those on this board. (Note: majority is >= 50%, which is NOT ALL) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Prove it to you? You don't trust me on my own natural sexuality? You think society has a direct line to my pleasure center? Listen: I don't, and never have, gotten it up for a man. Now I feel guilty about that. Are you happy now?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 5 2005, 03:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 5 2005, 03:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+May 5 2005, 01:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti @ May 5 2005, 01:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 4 2005, 05:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 4 2005, 05:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Edit: Well, not ALL men. I can admire a guy who is strong, or looks good, but the only time sexuality enters into it is when I think "Wow, he must get a lot of chicks." Thinking about them in any other way is nauseating for me... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> @TommyVercetti Exactly the kind of narrowminedness we are trying to get away from. Personally I find your view more disgusting then hetro/homo sexuals making out in public. You were taught it was "bad", which is why you think it is "nauseating". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I KNEW you were going to say this. And I'm going to tell you you're wrong. I was never taught any of this stuff was wrong. It was natural. Not environmental. I came to that conclusion on my own WITHOUT outside influences (not even the media).
Anyways, I'm not going to defend myself because then a bunch of people will get mad at me and call me a homophobe because, even though I have no problem with **** or bi people, I am most certainly neither. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Prove it to me then, cause simply stating it doesn't show how you were taught it wasn't "wrong." I think it would be safe to say the vast majority of children have grown up with it being "wrong." Especially those on this board. (Note: majority is >= 50%, which is NOT ALL) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> How do you want him to prove his feelings about things over the internet? He said it's his own opinion not based on other's. Can't you just accept that or must you enforce that he was raised with the thought that it's "bad"?
<a href='http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?ovi=1&zoom=5&mapdata=qNCyos1mfP6oZNFDNV9FyObAioty%2fy5NTKlkz4sxzbNq2lm66H6b6wDWrvAIKoWdoN4Gd3gjH18%2by0UQYuk5leggbCZese12IFEz%2b3G8uom5DhWdkrirMehQUCZ%2b57s9aX097hN2Pag6lUw%2bH11lAByUg7r9uReCIcJ7qIY7glBnqNZY8RFlMaWPdQzqBO30yhdbSP5hyeO1ExUCgcoBeoR8f%2fp7sY%2fYb3SXRSuTnaKTaH917o5ZAm5NpY7htqL%2ba9ppywzREihbH5Hqz32%2b57UitPcHb4ixF5WleDfQXl9%2bzW1rF3hJmaTI66gjbTFMvSAJFG1MjW0KpEfPMQ5O6T3a0Ky2OuhurKxssLE3gLONa7urmF7LoW20Q7x8ia3ekmlLMy7CDAw%2fn9ZH04od1KBYDd%2fvHqb4y84z0JVBXfE%3d' target='_blank'>Mapquest of Pawling NY</a>
He fits in to the majority(with the exception of speaking english, he is one of the minorties now) of many major categories... so yes. The assumption stands.
Typical guy, probably a very typical family, upstate NY... suburban?
Actually, born in Manhattan, moved to Pittsburgh (the city, not the outlying hills), moved to Brooklyn, moved here 2 years ago and I'm bored as hell around all these whitebread kids. Also, my parents are as liberal as you can get, one is a pantheist and the other an atheist. No one made me dislike bis or homos (which I don't!). No one made me straight, except perhaps God (if there is one <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->).
edit: Oh, and thanks for calling me a member of a typical suburban family. That's worse than cursing me out. >.<
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 5 2005, 03:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 5 2005, 03:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well lets look at demographics... he is white.
Born in 1989 (if profile is correct)
and is in Pawlling, NY.
<a href='http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?ovi=1&zoom=5&mapdata=qNCyos1mfP6oZNFDNV9FyObAioty%2fy5NTKlkz4sxzbNq2lm66H6b6wDWrvAIKoWdoN4Gd3gjH18%2by0UQYuk5leggbCZese12IFEz%2b3G8uom5DhWdkrirMehQUCZ%2b57s9aX097hN2Pag6lUw%2bH11lAByUg7r9uReCIcJ7qIY7glBnqNZY8RFlMaWPdQzqBO30yhdbSP5hyeO1ExUCgcoBeoR8f%2fp7sY%2fYb3SXRSuTnaKTaH917o5ZAm5NpY7htqL%2ba9ppywzREihbH5Hqz32%2b57UitPcHb4ixF5WleDfQXl9%2bzW1rF3hJmaTI66gjbTFMvSAJFG1MjW0KpEfPMQ5O6T3a0Ky2OuhurKxssLE3gLONa7urmF7LoW20Q7x8ia3ekmlLMy7CDAw%2fn9ZH04od1KBYDd%2fvHqb4y84z0JVBXfE%3d' target='_blank'>Mapquest of Pawling NY</a>
He fits in to the majority(with the exception of speaking english, he is one of the minorties now) of many major categories... so yes. The assumption stands.
Typical guy, probably a very typical family, upstate NY... suburban? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Because he's all that he must be lying about his feelings. Thanks for proving us wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+May 5 2005, 02:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti @ May 5 2005, 02:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually, born in Manhattan, moved to Pittsburgh (the city, not the outlying hills), moved to Brooklyn, moved here 2 years ago and I'm bored as hell around all these whitebread kids. Also, my parents are as liberal as you can get, one is a pantheist and the other an atheist. No one made me dislike bis or homos (which I don't!). No one made me straight, except perhaps God (if there is one <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->).
edit: Oh, and thanks for calling me a member of a typical suburban family. That's worse than cursing me out. >.< <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> He proved me wrong, that is all I was asking for. Sometimes the profile gives us complete info, other times it does not.
I stand corrected. At least someone was kind enough to point it out. Rather then dragging the topic more off then what it is already.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 5 2005, 03:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 5 2005, 03:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+May 5 2005, 02:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti @ May 5 2005, 02:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually, born in Manhattan, moved to Pittsburgh (the city, not the outlying hills), moved to Brooklyn, moved here 2 years ago and I'm bored as hell around all these whitebread kids. Also, my parents are as liberal as you can get, one is a pantheist and the other an atheist. No one made me dislike bis or homos (which I don't!). No one made me straight, except perhaps God (if there is one <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->).
edit: Oh, and thanks for calling me a member of a typical suburban family. That's worse than cursing me out. >.< <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He proved me wrong, that is all I was asking for. Sometimes the profile gives us complete info, other times it does not.
I stand corrected. At least someone was kind enough to point it out. Rather then dragging the topic more off then what it is already. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know if that's pointed at me, seen as you quoted him. But weren't you the one who didn't believe him about his feelings, thus dragging the topic off?
I certainly didn't intend to go off-topic, trying to convince you of the truth, but now that you know, or at least admit to the possibility, that I'm completely straight, it should be used in the discussion.
With what I know of myself as proof, I can safely say that I think that there is such a thing as a completely straight or completely homosexual person. That was my information for your thread - not gathered from something I Googled, but my own experience. I think it's pretty funny how people got a little angry despite the fact that I like bis even if I don't like what they do. This also has nothing to do with morality (morals? Me? You smoking?), but, as I stated several times, the fact that I just don't dig that kind of action.
Anyways, that settles that, take this info from the One Heterosexual Man and do with it what you will.
From <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone#Effects_of_testosterone_on_humans' target='_blank'>Wikipedia</a>: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Early infancy androgen effects are the least understood. In the first weeks of life for male infants, testosterone levels rise. The levels remain in a pubertal range for a few months, but usually reach the barely detectable levels of childhood by 4-6 months of age. The function of this rise in humans is unknown. It has been speculated that "brain masculinization" is occurring since no significant changes have been identified in other parts of the body.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suspect male homosexuality and bisexuality occur when this "masculinization of the brain" does not happen as expected. Hormone levels may not reach the required amount (ie. dietary deficiency), or they may drop before they should. This could result in a person who's gender identity is somewhere in-between male and female, and they may have mental characteristics of both genders.
I guess female homosexuality may also be caused by an unexpected rise in testosterone during infancy. Unlike males, sexual preference isn't as much of an issue with passing genetic traits in females, as historically, women were not given much of a choice as to who their partners were.
I have to admit, it would be interesting if it was determined that bottle-feeding a male baby with formula increased it's chance of becoming homosexual. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+May 5 2005, 10:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ May 5 2005, 10:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To be honest I wasn't thinking of the psychology of all this when I first posted, or when I contested for my earlier points. So, I apologize for talking some nonsense. (I wasn't on the same level as everyone else.)
Psychology - I know nothing about. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is inherently obvious and the idea of it being 'some' as your last two posts have indicated is an understatement.
The rest of your inane garbage has already been refuted and does not need to be a second time. I will again, simply say to go back and read my references papers particularly those focusing on sexuality in animal models and how these have been related to humans.
Comments
You're post is trying to prove that there are such things as Sheep and Goats, and further, discrete categories.
No one disagrees that there are Sheep and Goats, or discrete categories, therefore, no one feels they must respond to your post.
There is an argument about whether there are discrete categories in this particular area of life, which is still ongoing, carried on by posts such as the one directly above your post from this page. But you didn't really add anything to this argument, other than to point out that it is silly to deny the existence of discrete categories in general. Remember that the Kinsey scale didn't deny the existence of the "100% straight" classification, that idea wasn't introduced until later in the thread.
Psychology - I know nothing about. So, I really can't continue to debate. But there have been studies where highly motivated homosexuals became heterosexual. Suppose homosexuality IS like depression (as I believe theClam made reference to in saying you don't choose depression) if this is the case then we need to be treating homosexuals, not embracing them. When someone is depressed, we counsel them, perhaps give them medication but mostly we talk about what's bugging them.
There are (as far as I know) two kinds of depression.
Chemical Depression
AND
Psychological Depression
Perhaps the same is true for homosexuals? Some may be chemically homosexual while others may just have it all in their heads.
It sounds like an unwanted orientation.
Male and male, can't re-produce. Yet man is attracted to man. Why embrace this? Why not fix it? Go see a doctor or whatever?
I have now revised my answer (and probably will later on as well) that homosexuality may well be a disorder and should never have been taken off that list by the APA. But, I believe some homosexuals are homosexual by choice and some are homosexual by either chemicals or their own minds. (Which is a huge trap, the mind is a vastly powerful thing.)
My apologies again, for not playing on the same field as everyone else. I was in-fact in my own world. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi
I find it amusing how one side always picks on the singular man/man syndrome, yet when women are lesbian they are "hot" or "ok". Amusing.
Actually DarkAti, what is being refereced is that treating homosexuals has lead to depression among them(Which your NARTH person admits, See Ageri's post), not that it is like depression.
It isn't a disease nor a mental "disorder" which is why it is off that list.
I find it amusing how one side always picks on the singular man/man syndrome, yet when women are lesbian they are "hot" or "ok". Amusing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going to suggest that stems primarily from the added annoyance of having to write something like "male and male, or female and female, can't reproduce" instead of just listing the first one. Similarly, when talking about someone whose gender we don't know, its so much easier to just say "he" rather than "he or she", since English doesn't have a word for unknown genders.
That said, I have a suspicion that most (straight) men find ga* women more acceptable than ga* men, while most (straight) women find ga* men more acceptable than ga* women. A straight man would commonly fantasize about a single woman, and never about a single man. So its a relatively small mental jump from there to a pair of women, while a pair of men is going even farther in the opposite direction. And vice versa for women.
You're making the grave and erroneous assumption that homosexuality is:
a) A disorder at all.
b) Something that is detrimental to the health and/or quality of life of the person.
What's the point in even trying to treat it if it's not causing a problem for the person in question? I know that none of the people I know that are homosexual or bisexual have any problems at all with their sexual orientation, and I'm damn sure that a vast majority of the g.ay population feels the samy way about themselves.
You seem to have decided that as homosexuality and depression have been compared because they are both not chosen, then that means that homosexuality is just like depression and is a disorder. I don't honestly see the logic there. Do you have anything to back this claim up? (If you want to see a source for my stance, then you can refer back to the APA's stance on homosexuality as a mental disorder.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Male and male, can't re-produce. Yet man is attracted to man. Why embrace this? Why not fix it? Go see a doctor or whatever?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's the need to fix it? It's not doing the person any harm (see above). I mean, it's not like you can just go to the doctor and take anti-g.ay drugs or something.
Besides, the studies that Aegeri posted showed that only a very small minority of homosexuals have any possibility of "treatment" working.
Sterile people can't reproduce. When a couple uses birth control, they cannot reproduce. Does this mean that sterile people should seek therapy when they experience sexual urges? That couples should seek therapy when they wish to use a condom during sex?
Why should they be treated? Many (if not most) homosexuals are happy with their sexual orientation and they aren't doing any harm to anyone else by being ****. You talk like reproduction is the ultimate goal of everyone's existence, which is simply not true.
It should be treated because it goes against nature. It is a disorder. I love how God describes it like that in the Bible, he says, "It is confusion." and it truly is.
I'm not saying that person is confused, I'm saying the whole idea of sticking your **** inside a man's butt is confusion, likewise, the idea of two women "having sex" is confusion. It isn't natural.
Now, onto the more religious side of things as brought up by Walkabout.
I don't judge anyone. Neither did Jesus. But he did say that God does judge us. It is Him and Him alone that we have to answer to. The Bible sheds a negative light on homosexuality 100% of the time. It's up to the homosexual to determine what needs to be done, if anything. I have no right to speak a word for it or against it. I suck too. I sin too. I should be going to hell too.
I know people that are homosexual and go to church, would be considered devout Christians. It is between them and God. If they're truly happy and see nothing wrong with it... then let them do as they wish.
Back more on-topic.
Homosexuality isn't natural and that's the whole basis for my argument really. It occurs but this hardly makes it natural, as disease occurs, murders occur, two headed chickens occur - it will never make these things normal or acceptable.
~ DarkATi
Prove it.
Regardless of whether it is "natural" or "normal" or not, I still don't understand why that means it should be regarded as a disease to be treated.
Maybe from your christian point of view, but you seem to forget that not everyone's christian and can have their own opinions about things. Whoah.
<!--QuoteBegin-cyndane Circa: 1999+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cyndane Circa: 1999)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
In preparation for each passage, read the entire chapter. For Romans 1:26-27, read the first 3 chapters of Romans. Read Genesis chapter 38 for a clear picture of the Old Testament attitudes about women, sex, the necessity of producing offspring, the control of men over women, the double standard for men and women, and other sexuality issues.
Genesis 19:5:
"Bring them out to us that we may know them."
Author's Note: "Know" simply means know! No hint at homosexuality exists in the original Hebrew. No later Bible references to Sodom ever mention homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. Many modern translations add words to the text to create the lie that the people of Sodom were homosexual.
"SODOMY" is not a biblical word. Laws against sodomy not only violate the Constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state; they also use an incorrect and wrongly translated term for the laws. A "Sodomite" in the Bible is simply a person who lives in Sodom, which included Lot and his family. The term "sodomite" in the King James Version of Deuteronomy 23:17 and I Kings 14:24 is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew word for "temple prostitute." (See the recent book by Mark D. Jordan: The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology. University of Chicago Press, 1997.)
The average person assumes that the Bible clearly condemns male to male sexual intercourse as "sodomy" and that the city of Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, which is seen as the worst of all sins in the Bible. These assumptions are based on no evidence at all in the Bible.
No Jewish scholars before the first Christian century taught that the sin of Sodom was sexual. None of the biblical references to Sodom mention sexual sins but view Sodom as an example of injustice, lack of hospitality to strangers, idolatry and as a symbol for desolation and destruction. See Deuteronomy 29:22-28; 32:32; Ezekiel 16:49-50; Jeremiah 49:18; 50:41; Isaiah 13:19-22 and Matthew 10:14-15. In Jude 7, the term "strange flesh" is Greek hetero sarkos ("different flesh" and from which the word "heterosexual" comes) and refers to foreign idols or people. It is not homo ("the same") flesh or people. Sarkos is never used in the New Testament as a word for "sex."
The word "know" in Genesis 19:5 is Hebrew YADA. It is used 943 times in the Old Testament to "know" God, good and evil, the truth, the law, people, places, things, etc. It is a very flexible word, as are many Hebrew words. In Genesis 19:5, the word was used to express the request of the people of Sodom that Lot should bring out the strangers in his house so that they could know who they were. Sodom was a tiny fortress in the barren wasteland south of the Dead Sea. The only strangers that the people of Sodom ever saw were enemy tribes who wanted to destroy and take over their valuable fortress and the trade routes that it protected. Lot himself was an alien in their midst.
Lot's strange response to the request was to offer his young daughters to the men, an offer that seems to me to be far more reprehensible than any problem of sexual orientation. If the men were homosexual, why did Lot offer to give them his daughters? These hostile and violent people were heterosexual, and homosexual orientation had nothing to do with the incident.
Special note on YADA: The Hebrew word YADA "to know" is never used in the Old Testament to mean "to have sex with". People have been conditioned to think that "to know someone biblically" means to have sex. The use of YADA in Genesis 4:1-2 to say that Adam knew Eve and she conceived and gave birth to Cain is followed by saying that later she gave birth to his brother Abel without any reference to YADA. Why? Simply because YADA does not mean to have sex. It is a general term that describes many kinds of intimate relationships. I have studied all of the uses of YADA in the Old Testament, and my personal conclusion is that it never means what we mean by sexual intercourse. Just substitute a common slang expression for sexual intercourse instead of the word "know" in Genesis 4:1 and you will see how inappropriate the idea is. The Old Testament Hebrew writers never thought or wrote in those terms. The Bible never gives any details about sexual acts. The only clear Hebrew term for sexual acts is "to lie with," which is left without any further explanation.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN SODOM?
To twist the story to say what it does not say is to miss what it does say. The story does not deal with sexual orientation or with homosexuality and has no bearing at all on the issue of God's acceptance or rejection of *** and Lesbians. The story of Sodom clearly teaches that evil and violent people who attack aliens and strangers whom they do not know or understand receive God's quick and terrible punishment.
The purpose of the story is to show that misunderstood, strange, or feared minorities in any community are in danger from violence by the majority when that majority is ignorant, ungodly, selfish and afraid. The real message of Sodom is backwards from the claims of homophobic preachers and teachers. The **** and Lesbian minority in our society today is more like the guests in Lot's house who were protected behind closed doors ("in the closet") than like the frightened mindless mob that wanted to expose, humiliate and destroy people that they did not "know" and control.
Set the record straight! Genesis 19 is about the fear (like homophobia) and anger of a mob (like many misguided religious fanatics) directed against a small group of isolated strangers (like *** and Lesbians today) in their midst. Sexual orientation is not the issue here or anywhere else in the Bible.
Read also the strange story in Judges 19:1-30 of the Levite in Gibeah, which was patterned after the story of Lot and the angels in Genesis 19. Jewish teachers before the time of Christ never saw either of these stories as having any connection with homosexuality or sexual orientation. Neither should we.
Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."
Author's Note: Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship.
Because these two verses in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) have been used more than any other Bible texts to condemn and reject **** and lesbian people, the following material is given to help you think objectively about traditional abusive use of the Bible regarding homosexuals.
The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is obviously a hypocritical selective use of the Bible against *** and lesbians. Nobody today tries to keep the laws in Leviticus. Look at Leviticus 11:1-12, where all unclean animals are forbidden as food, including rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others that are called an "abomination." Leviticus 20:25 demands that "you are to make a distinction between the clean and unclean animal and between the unclean and clean bird; and you shall not make yourself an abomination by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean." You can eat some insects like locusts (grasshoppers), but not others.
Leviticus 12:1-8 declares that a woman is unclean for 33 days after giving birth to a boy and for 66 days after giving birth to a girl and goes on to demand that certain animals must be offered as a burnt offering and a sin offering for cleansing. Nobody today who claims to be a Christian tries to keep these laws, and few people even know about them! Why do you think that most people don't know about them?
Read Leviticus 23 to see the detailed regulations concerning "complete rest" on the Sabbath day and demands of animal sacrifices to be carried out according to exact instructions. Leviticus 18:19 forbids a husband from having sex with his wife during her menstrual period. Leviticus 19:19 forbids mixed breeding of various kinds of cattle, sowing various kinds of seeds in your field or wearing "a garment made from two kinds of material mixed together." Leviticus 19:27 demands that "you shall not round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your beard." The next verse forbids "tattoo marks on yourself." Most people do not even know that these laws are in the Bible and are demanded equally with all the others.
Why don't fundamentalists organize protests and picket seafood restaurants, oyster bars, church barbecue suppers, all grocery stores, barber shops, tattoo parlors, and stores that sell suits and dresses made of mixed wool, cotton, polyester, and other materials? All of these products and services are "abominations" in Leviticus. When have you heard a preacher condemn the demonic abomination of garments that are made of mixed fabrics?
The warning is given in Leviticus 26:14-16 that "If you do not obey me and do not carry out all of these commandments, if instead, you reject my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances so as not to carry out all my commandments ...I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that shall waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you shall sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies shall eat it up." The list of punishments and terrors that will come from not keeping all of the commandments continues through many verses.
Read what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1-5 about hypocrites who judge others. "Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves... Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ...You hypocrite!"
If you have been led to misuse Leviticus and other parts of the Bible in order to condemn and hate and reject people, you are on the wrong path. Jesus quoted only one passage from Leviticus: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (19:18). Jesus used Leviticus to teach love. Many false teachers use Leviticus and other writings to condemn, humiliate and destroy. I know which approach seems truly Christian to me. Jesus never condemned homosexuals or even mentioned anything that could be taken as a reference to sexual orientation.
Any charge against *** and Lesbians based on the life and teachings of Jesus has to be dismissed for a lack of evidence!
The use of Leviticus to judge and condemn anyone today is ludicrous and absurd in the light of the total content of the book. To call the content of the Book of Leviticus the "word of God" and try to enforce any part of it today is without support in the teachings of Jesus and in the letters of Paul.
Jesus in Mark 7:18-23 chided his disciples for their lack of spiritual understanding. Jesus and his disciples had been condemned by the religious leaders because they did not wash and eat according to the Law. Jesus said, "Are you too so uncomprehending? Don't you see that whatever goes into your mouth from the outside cannot defile you; because it does not go into your heart, but into your stomach, and is eliminated? (Thus Jesus declared all foods clean."). And Jesus added, "That which proceeds from within you, out of your heart, defiles you. Evil thoughts, abusive sex acts, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting, wickedness, deceit, not caring, envy, slander, arrogance and foolishness: all of these evil things proceed from within and defile you."
Paul also rejected the absolute commands of Leviticus in Colossians 2:8-23, where he said, "If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 'Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!' (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using) in accordance with human commandments and teachings? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against human indulgence." (2:20-23). Paul declared in 2:14 that Jesus has "canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us which was hostile to us; and Jesus has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."
Many people have answered the argument that most of the "abominations" in Leviticus referred to food by saying that the people back then knew that pork was unhealthy, and that is why pigs were declared to be unclean. If you follow that logic, you would declare anything that is unhealthy to be an "abomination." We know that cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, fat food and many other things are unhealthy; so why are they not also called "abominations" and condemned by the rabid Bible literalists with protests and pickets against cigarette machines, all liquor stores and bars, all fast food outlets, and any store that sells anything that is unhealthy? The reason is simple. The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject anyone is impossible to justify in the light of the facts.
The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is absurd and makes literal legalistic bible based religion look ridiculous.
To me personally, the message of Jesus Christ always has been good news for everyone. Personal evangelism has been my basic emphasis in the ministry since I became pastor of a small rural church in South Carolina in 1952 when I was nineteen years old. Our little church led the Baptist Churches of South Carolina one year in per capita baptisms. In all of my churches, both Baptist and MCC, my emphasis has been personal evangelism. What is your emphasis in your ministry? I personally have led hundreds of people to Christ and taught other hundreds of people to become effective in sharing Christ with others. During all of this time I have been homosexual. I have realized that I was **** since I was a about 10 years old. God loves me just as I am and uses me in ministry that fits me and my life as an individual. I pray that you find the same thing for yourself.
Romans 1:26-27:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
Author's Note: All of this refers to idolatrous religious practices that were common in the time of Paul.
Taking anything that Paul said out its context is like trying to drive a car blindfolded. You don't know where you are, where you have been, where you are going, or who you just ran over and killed!
Paul's writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, ***, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand. A lot of Paul's writing is very difficult to translate. Since most of his letters were written in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We know, or think we know, what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said. As 2 Peter 3:16-18 pointed out, we have to be on guard against using Paul's writings in unhealthy and destructive ways.
When I taught a college course in the Book of Romans, I decided to memorize Romans, as Augustine suggested. The effort paid off. Being able to visualize the message of Romans as a whole immediately cleared up a lot of Paul's thought that I had not been able to untangle before by traditional means of study. It helped so much that I continued to memorize the books of the Bible that I taught in college courses.
The theme of the first 3 chapters of Romans is expressed in 1:16: "The gospel is the power of God for spiritual freedom (salvation) for all who believe." Paul showed that all people equally need and can have Jesus in their lives. Paul's gospel is inclusive, as expressed in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Romans 1:26-27 is part of Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous religious worship and rituals. Read all of Romans 1:18 to 2:4 for the context of the verses.
Romans 1:26-27 contains some words used only here by Paul. Familiar words are used here in unusual ways. The passage is very difficult to translate. The argument is directed against some form of idolatry that would have been known to Paul's readers. To us, 2,000 years later and in a totally different culture, the argument is vague and indirect.
Verse 25 is clearly a denunciation of idol worship, "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature and not the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."." Paul at no point in his writing dealt with same-sex orientation or the expression of love and affection between two people of the same sex who love each other.
Paul wrote Romans from Corinth, the second largest city in the empire and the crossroads of world trade and culture. Pausanius observed at about the same time as Paul that there were over 1,000 religions in Corinth. The most prominent were the fertility cult of Aphrodite, worship of Apollo, and the Delphi Oracle, which was across the bay from Corinth. Paul's readers would have been aware of the religious climate from which he wrote Romans and would have understood Paul a lot better than we do.
The word "passions" in 1:26 is the same word used to speak of the suffering and death of Jesus in Acts 1:3 and does not mean what we mean by "passion" today. Eros is the Greek word for romantic love, but eros is never used even once in the New Testament. "Passions" in 1:26 probably refers to the frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music.
We do not know the meaning of "burn" in 1:27, because Paul never used this particular word anywhere else, and it's origin is uncertain. The term "against nature" is also strange here, since exactly the same term is used by Paul in Romans 11:21-24 to speak of God acting "against nature" by including the Gentiles with the Jews in the family of God. "Against nature" was used to speak of something that was not done in the usual way, but did not necessarily mean that something "against nature" was evil, since God also "acted against nature."
One more word needs special attention. "Committing indecent acts" in 1:27 is translated by King James Version as "working that which is unseemly." Phillips goes far beyond the evidence and renders it as "Shameful horrors!" The Greek word is askemosunen and is formed of the word for "outer appearance" plus the negative particle. It speaks of the inner or hidden part or parts of the individual that are not ordinarily seen or known in public. "Indecent" in 1 Corinthians 12:23 referred to the parts of the body that remain hidden but are necessary and receive honor. 1 Corinthians 13:5 used the word to say that love does not behave "indecently."
This word for "indecency" was used to translate Deuteronomy 24:1 into Greek to say that a man could divorce his wife if he "found some indecency in her." The religious teachers argued endlessly about what "some indecency" meant. Some said it was anything that displeased the husband. Others were more strict and said it could only refer to adultery. In Matthew 19:1-12, Jesus commented on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but he did not define the term.
Paul was certainly aware of the variety of ways that the teachers interpreted the word "indecency," and he used it in a variety of ways himself. To read into "indecent acts" a whole world of homosexual ideas is to abandon the realities of objective academic study and to embark on useless and damaging speculation that cannot be supported by the meaning of the word or by Paul's use of it elsewhere.
If Paul had intended to condemn homosexuals as the worst of all sinners, he certainly had the language skills to do a clearer job of it than emerges from Romans 1:26-27. The fact is that Paul nowhere condemned or mentioned romantic love and sexual relations between people of the same sex who love each other. Paul never commented on sexual orientation. As in the rest of the Bible, Paul nowhere even hinted that Lesbians and **** men can or should change their sexual orientation.
SPECIAL NOTE on Romans 1:31, where the King James Version translated the Greek word astorgous as "without natural affection." This is one of the characteristics of people "with a reprobate mind" (KJV of 1:28). The word for "reprobate" is more recently translated as "depraved" or "perverted" in order more neatly to fit the sexualizing of everything possible in the list. The literal meaning of "reprobate" (Greek dokimon) is "to fail to measure up" or "to fail to meet the test" and simply means that the list of things that follows is the result of a mind that has abandoned God. The word astorgous, "without natural affection," is used only here and in 2 Timothy 3:3. It has nothing at all to do with homosexuality or with sex. It is the Greek word for "family love" or "family ties" with the negative prefix. It refers to people who despise and reject their family members. Rather than being directed at homosexuals, it is a term that is directed at people who despise and reject their own homosexual children and brothers and sisters! Modern translators, knowing this, usually render the word as "unloving," and the implication of some sort of "unnatural" or "perverted" affection is removed. Many more translation corrections are needed elsewhere!
The use of Romans 1:26-27 against homosexuals turns out to be a blunt instrument to batter and wound people who were not intended in the original text. Paul clearly taught throughout Romans, Galatians and his other letters that God's freely given and all inclusive love is for every person on earth. Notice what Paul said about judging others in Romans 2:1: "Therefore you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."
I Corinthians 6:9:
"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God."
Author's Note: The Greek words translated "effeminate" and "homosexual" do not mean effeminate or homosexual!
I Timothy 1:9-10:
"Law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and fornicators and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound (healthy) teaching."
Author's Note: The Greek word translated "homosexual" does not mean homosexual!
These two verses contain completely wrong translations to create "homosexual ghosts" that do not really exist! Ghosts may not hurt you, but they can make you hurt yourself! The homosexual ghosts in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 were created by the inaccurate and intentionally misleading translation of two Greek words.
1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 sound very convincing in including lesbians and **** men in the most dreadful lists of depraved human behavior imaginable. The fact is that the word translated "homosexual" does not mean "homosexual" and the word translated "effeminate" does not mean "effeminate"!
The English word "homosexual" is a composite word made from a Greek term (homo, "the same") and a Latin term (sexualis , "sex"). The term "homosexual" is of modern origin and was not used until about 100 years ago. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is parallel to the word "homosexual." No Bible before the Revised Standard Version in 1946 used "homosexual" in any Bible translation.
The word translated as "homosexual" or "sexual pervert" or some other similar term is Greek arsenokoites, which was formed from two words meaning "male" and "bed". This word is not found anywhere else in the Bible and has not been found anywhere in the contemporary Greek of Paul's time. We do not know what it means. The word is obscure and uncertain. It probably refers to male prostitutes with female customers, which was a common practice in the Roman world, as revealed in the excavations at Pompeii and other sites.
When early Greek speaking Christian preachers condemned homosexuality, they did not use this word. John Chrysostom (A.D. 345-407) preached in Greek against homosexuality, but he never used this word for homosexuals, and when he preached on 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, he did not mention homosexuals. See the full discussion of this in John Boswell's book: Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality - Appendix 1, "Lexicography and Saint Paul," pages 335-353.
"Soft" does not mean "effeminate." The word translated "effeminate in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is Greek malakoi and means "soft" or "vulnerable." The word is translated as "soft" in reference to clothing in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 and as "illness" in Matthew 4:23 and 9:35. It is not used anywhere else in the New Testament and carries no hint of reference to sexual orientation. Malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 probably refers those who are "soft," "pliable," "unreliable," or "without courage or stability." The translation of malakoi as "effeminate" is incorrect, ignorant, degrading to women, and impossible to justify based on ancient usage compared to the meaning of "effeminate" today.
This incorrect rendering of malakoi and arsenokoites as references to gender orientation has been disastrous for millions of ****, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual people. This mistaken translation has enlisted a mighty army of ignorant religious fanatics against homosexual people and has turned many Lesbians and *** against the Bible, which holds for them as for all people the good news of God's love in Christ.
Evil homophobic Bible "translations from hell" must not go unchallenged. The use of these translations by ignorant religious bigots to incite fear and hate against *** demands a clear, academically sound, credible and easily understood response. Material given in this web site is only a beginning. Every Bible word that has been incorrectly used to wound, alienate and oppress people must be examined in detail and carefully exposed. God has called us to return the Bible to the oppressed and outcast people for whom it was written.
Three of the passages: Genesis 19:5; I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 are incorrectly translated. The other three: Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27 are taken out of their original setting of condemning idolatrous religious practices and wrongly used to judge and condemn people of the same sex who love each other. None of these passages refer to people of the same sex who love each other. None originally were aimed at homosexuals.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One my favorite basic papers done while I was still in grade school.
<!--QuoteBegin-cyndane circa 1995+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cyndane circa 1995)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Bible languages of Hebrew and Greek have no word for homosexual. Old Testament Hebrew is a very primitive language. It is the first step beyond picture writing and is the first alphabetic language. It originally consisted only of consonants with no vowels written in the text. There is no "past, present, or future" in Hebrew. The Hebrew language had only about a 30,000 word vocabulary. Modern English has over 300,000 words. One Hebrew word could be used in dozens of different ways, and the meaning was determined by the context. Each word was made up of 3 letters of the alphabet and usually expressed some form of activity or action. It is impossible to translate most Hebrew words exactly into modern English. Scholars come as close as they can and do a lot of guessing.
New Testament Greek was far more complex than Hebrew. Greek had a 250,000 word vocabulary and a great variety of words developed to express shades of meaning and degrees of feeling. Greek, for example, had four different words for "love". Greek had many verb forms that do not exist in English. The Greek used in the New Testament is different from classical or modern Greek. For many years, some scholars thought that New Testament Greek was a special language created by the Holy Spirit. Then, in the late nineteenth century, a collection of manuscripts was discovered from the time of the New Testament. These documents were bills of sale, personal letters, business and news reports that were written in exactly the same kind of Greek that the Bible used. For the first time, Bible scholars knew and could study the kind of "everyday" Greek, called "koine" Greek, that was used in the New Testament. The King James Version was translated in 1611, long before the oldest manuscripts were discovered.
The reason that there are so many different Bible translations ( about 30 major ones) today is because the exact meaning of many words is still in question, and even what should be included as original material is hotly debated by Bible specialists. Other recent discoveries, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, add new information that throws light on the meaning of Bible words.
The word "homosexual" is made up of Greek homo, meaning "the same," and Latin sexualis, from which the English word "sex" is derived. The word "homosexual" has been in use to refer to people who have sex with others of the same gender for only about 100 years. According to the most recent edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (tenth edition), "homosexual" as an adjective was first used in 1892 and as a noun in 1902, and "homophobia" was first used in 1969 and "homophobe" first used in 1975. The translation of any Bible word as "homosexual" is a mistake.
The Greek word in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 that is translated "homosexual" is arsenokoites, which is formed from two words meaning "male" and "bed." The word is not found anywhere else in the New Testament and has not been found anywhere in contemporary Greek of Paul's time. We are not sure what it means. It only appears in these two lists. The word is of obscure origin and uncertain meaning. It probably refers to male prostitutes with female customers, which was a common practice in the Roman world.
When early Greek-speaking Christian preachers condemned homosexuals, they did not use this word. John Chrysostom (A.D. 345-407) preached in Greek against homosexuality, but he never used this word for homosexuals. When he wrote homilies and preached on 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, he did not mention homosexuals.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There we go. I feel better now.
<!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Edit: Well, not ALL men. I can admire a guy who is strong, or looks good, but the only time sexuality enters into it is when I think "Wow, he must get a lot of chicks." Thinking about them in any other way is nauseating for me...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
@TommyVercetti Exactly the kind of narrowminedness we are trying to get away from. Personally I find your view more disgusting then hetro/homo sexuals making out in public. You were taught it was "bad", which is why you think it is "nauseating". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I KNEW you were going to say this. And I'm going to tell you you're wrong. I was never taught any of this stuff was wrong. It was natural. Not environmental. I came to that conclusion on my own WITHOUT outside influences (not even the media).
Anyways, I'm not going to defend myself because then a bunch of people will get mad at me and call me a homophobe because, even though I have no problem with **** or bi people, I am most certainly neither.
1--Is homosexuality a "normal", "naturally occuring" phenomenon?
A--It is important to distinguish between "normal" and "naturally occuring", which mean two different things. Homosexuality does indeed seem to be naturally occuring, but what defines "normal"? Social acceptance? Rate of incidence? Something else? Following that train of thought to question 2...
2--Is homosexuality socially accepted?
A--Not really. For all the legal progress the ga* rights movement has made here, the American populace mostly retains the belief that homosexuality is in some way abnormal and wrong. Acceptance is different in other parts of the world. Some places (like most of Europe) have fairly high acceptance, while others have even less social acceptance of the practice than the US.
3--<i>Should</i> homosexuality be socially accepted?
A--Ah, here's the kicker. This is the big question, lurking behind every other debate on homosexuality. But despite the tendancy of both groups to call on science, "Should it be socially accepted" is really a moral question. Science can only tell us how and how often homosexality occurs, and maybe how easy it is to change (assuming we can ever come to an agreement on what science says about those questions). It can't tell us whether we <i>should</i> change it or not.
4--Can homosexuality be changed?
A--Not really as important of a question as it looks. When attempting to disprove change, it is often considered to refer to a 100% homosexual turning into a 100% heterosexual, which is admitted to be very rare even by the defenders of Reparative Therapy...but if you consider it in the light of the existence of people other than 100% one way or the other (which was the original topic of this thread), it is much easier to defend. Could not someone who had been 70/30 transform into 30/70? And it is not necessary to prove that this is common...only that it is possible. This thread has already linked to studies where this was the case, which were then derided as being invalid because the subjects didn't start and end at 100/0 and 0/100. But are they really less valid because the subjects moved along the line somewhere in the middle?
Edit: Interesting research Cyndane, I'll have to look at that more cloesly when I have the time.
<!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Edit: Well, not ALL men. I can admire a guy who is strong, or looks good, but the only time sexuality enters into it is when I think "Wow, he must get a lot of chicks." Thinking about them in any other way is nauseating for me...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
@TommyVercetti Exactly the kind of narrowminedness we are trying to get away from. Personally I find your view more disgusting then hetro/homo sexuals making out in public. You were taught it was "bad", which is why you think it is "nauseating". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I KNEW you were going to say this. And I'm going to tell you you're wrong. I was never taught any of this stuff was wrong. It was natural. Not environmental. I came to that conclusion on my own WITHOUT outside influences (not even the media).
Anyways, I'm not going to defend myself because then a bunch of people will get mad at me and call me a homophobe because, even though I have no problem with **** or bi people, I am most certainly neither. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Prove it to me then, cause simply stating it doesn't show how you were taught it wasn't "wrong." I think it would be safe to say the vast majority of children have grown up with it being "wrong." Especially those on this board. (Note: majority is >= 50%, which is NOT ALL)
*edit* I know quite a few homosexuals as well that doesn't mean anything. The thought of sleeping with another girl does not turn my stomach and I'm sure it doesn't turn yours either.
Prove it to you? You don't trust me on my own natural sexuality? You think society has a direct line to my pleasure center? Listen: I don't, and never have, gotten it up for a man. Now I feel guilty about that. Are you happy now?
<!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Edit: Well, not ALL men. I can admire a guy who is strong, or looks good, but the only time sexuality enters into it is when I think "Wow, he must get a lot of chicks." Thinking about them in any other way is nauseating for me...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
@TommyVercetti Exactly the kind of narrowminedness we are trying to get away from. Personally I find your view more disgusting then hetro/homo sexuals making out in public. You were taught it was "bad", which is why you think it is "nauseating". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I KNEW you were going to say this. And I'm going to tell you you're wrong. I was never taught any of this stuff was wrong. It was natural. Not environmental. I came to that conclusion on my own WITHOUT outside influences (not even the media).
Anyways, I'm not going to defend myself because then a bunch of people will get mad at me and call me a homophobe because, even though I have no problem with **** or bi people, I am most certainly neither. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Prove it to me then, cause simply stating it doesn't show how you were taught it wasn't "wrong." I think it would be safe to say the vast majority of children have grown up with it being "wrong." Especially those on this board. (Note: majority is >= 50%, which is NOT ALL) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do you want him to prove his feelings about things over the internet? He said it's his own opinion not based on other's. Can't you just accept that or must you enforce that he was raised with the thought that it's "bad"?
Born in 1989 (if profile is correct)
and is in Pawlling, NY.
<a href='http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?ovi=1&zoom=5&mapdata=qNCyos1mfP6oZNFDNV9FyObAioty%2fy5NTKlkz4sxzbNq2lm66H6b6wDWrvAIKoWdoN4Gd3gjH18%2by0UQYuk5leggbCZese12IFEz%2b3G8uom5DhWdkrirMehQUCZ%2b57s9aX097hN2Pag6lUw%2bH11lAByUg7r9uReCIcJ7qIY7glBnqNZY8RFlMaWPdQzqBO30yhdbSP5hyeO1ExUCgcoBeoR8f%2fp7sY%2fYb3SXRSuTnaKTaH917o5ZAm5NpY7htqL%2ba9ppywzREihbH5Hqz32%2b57UitPcHb4ixF5WleDfQXl9%2bzW1rF3hJmaTI66gjbTFMvSAJFG1MjW0KpEfPMQ5O6T3a0Ky2OuhurKxssLE3gLONa7urmF7LoW20Q7x8ia3ekmlLMy7CDAw%2fn9ZH04od1KBYDd%2fvHqb4y84z0JVBXfE%3d' target='_blank'>Mapquest of Pawling NY</a>
He fits in to the majority(with the exception of speaking english, he is one of the minorties now) of many major categories... so yes. The assumption stands.
Typical guy, probably a very typical family, upstate NY... suburban?
edit: Oh, and thanks for calling me a member of a typical suburban family. That's worse than cursing me out. >.<
Born in 1989 (if profile is correct)
and is in Pawlling, NY.
<a href='http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?ovi=1&zoom=5&mapdata=qNCyos1mfP6oZNFDNV9FyObAioty%2fy5NTKlkz4sxzbNq2lm66H6b6wDWrvAIKoWdoN4Gd3gjH18%2by0UQYuk5leggbCZese12IFEz%2b3G8uom5DhWdkrirMehQUCZ%2b57s9aX097hN2Pag6lUw%2bH11lAByUg7r9uReCIcJ7qIY7glBnqNZY8RFlMaWPdQzqBO30yhdbSP5hyeO1ExUCgcoBeoR8f%2fp7sY%2fYb3SXRSuTnaKTaH917o5ZAm5NpY7htqL%2ba9ppywzREihbH5Hqz32%2b57UitPcHb4ixF5WleDfQXl9%2bzW1rF3hJmaTI66gjbTFMvSAJFG1MjW0KpEfPMQ5O6T3a0Ky2OuhurKxssLE3gLONa7urmF7LoW20Q7x8ia3ekmlLMy7CDAw%2fn9ZH04od1KBYDd%2fvHqb4y84z0JVBXfE%3d' target='_blank'>Mapquest of Pawling NY</a>
He fits in to the majority(with the exception of speaking english, he is one of the minorties now) of many major categories... so yes. The assumption stands.
Typical guy, probably a very typical family, upstate NY... suburban? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because he's all that he must be lying about his feelings. Thanks for proving us wrong.
edit: Oh, and thanks for calling me a member of a typical suburban family. That's worse than cursing me out. >.< <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
He proved me wrong, that is all I was asking for. Sometimes the profile gives us complete info, other times it does not.
I stand corrected. At least someone was kind enough to point it out. Rather then dragging the topic more off then what it is already.
edit: Oh, and thanks for calling me a member of a typical suburban family. That's worse than cursing me out. >.< <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He proved me wrong, that is all I was asking for. Sometimes the profile gives us complete info, other times it does not.
I stand corrected. At least someone was kind enough to point it out. Rather then dragging the topic more off then what it is already. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know if that's pointed at me, seen as you quoted him. But weren't you the one who didn't believe him about his feelings, thus dragging the topic off?
With what I know of myself as proof, I can safely say that I think that there is such a thing as a completely straight or completely homosexual person. That was my information for your thread - not gathered from something I Googled, but my own experience. I think it's pretty funny how people got a little angry despite the fact that I like bis even if I don't like what they do. This also has nothing to do with morality (morals? Me? You smoking?), but, as I stated several times, the fact that I just don't dig that kind of action.
Anyways, that settles that, take this info from the One Heterosexual Man and do with it what you will.
From <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone#Effects_of_testosterone_on_humans' target='_blank'>Wikipedia</a>:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Early infancy androgen effects are the least understood. In the first weeks of life for male infants, testosterone levels rise. The levels remain in a pubertal range for a few months, but usually reach the barely detectable levels of childhood by 4-6 months of age. The function of this rise in humans is unknown. It has been speculated that "brain masculinization" is occurring since no significant changes have been identified in other parts of the body.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suspect male homosexuality and bisexuality occur when this "masculinization of the brain" does not happen as expected. Hormone levels may not reach the required amount (ie. dietary deficiency), or they may drop before they should. This could result in a person who's gender identity is somewhere in-between male and female, and they may have mental characteristics of both genders.
I guess female homosexuality may also be caused by an unexpected rise in testosterone during infancy. Unlike males, sexual preference isn't as much of an issue with passing genetic traits in females, as historically, women were not given much of a choice as to who their partners were.
I have to admit, it would be interesting if it was determined that bottle-feeding a male baby with formula increased it's chance of becoming homosexual. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Psychology - I know nothing about. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is inherently obvious and the idea of it being 'some' as your last two posts have indicated is an understatement.
The rest of your inane garbage has already been refuted and does not need to be a second time. I will again, simply say to go back and read my references papers particularly those focusing on sexuality in animal models and how these have been related to humans.
just because you throw out values you don't deem worth while doesn't mean other people don't treasure them