Gayness

[Outshined]

Originally posted by lindy9556@Feb 2 2005, 12:01 AM

Curvette, It is disturbing that homosexuals are put in the same category as scum of the earth. Sad really. Thing is...if it was morally "legal", I would stand up with the homosexuals to beat the rapists and the pedophiles.

I have a friend who is a clinical therapist specializing in sexual disorders. He works for a department of the state studying sex offenders. He told me once that there is no such thing as a homosexual, only homosexual behavior, that it is a verb, not a noun.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Outshined@Feb 2 2005, 04:55 AM

I have a friend who is a clinical therapist specializing in sexual disorders. He works for a department of the state studying sex offenders. He told me once that there is no such thing as a homosexual, only homosexual behavior, that it is a verb, not a noun.

Uh...which state would that be? "Homosexual" is a noun or an adjective. It's most definitely not a verb. (Ask Mirriam-Webster)

[Traveler]

The Traveler

Trav--I thought you had a back ground in science--no offense, but this is some of the most unscientific thinking I have encountered from a person educated in science.

First, a 50% correlation for any biological trait is considered STRONG evidence of genetic correlation.

Second, you make the mistake of equating homosexual orientation, with homosexual behavior. Obviously people can learn to control their behavior. That has nothing to do with what it means to be homosexual. You are talking about the individual's very sense of biological identity. We're not talking about just a tendency, we are talking about an unalteable characteristic.

Think of it this way: Could you, as a heterosexual, simply change your sexual orientation because society told you you had to? or that it was evil to be hetero and you had to change that. Could you?

My background is Math and Physics - I currently work as a Principal Engineer in the robotics and automation industry I have also worked as an engineer in the aerospace industry (total over 30 years practical experience). My scientific automation design philosophies were highlighted as the cover article (not written by me) in the publication “Automated Material Handling”. (Would you like the month and year of the article)? What is your scientific background?

One basic tenet of scientific thinking is to question the methods and means others use to draw their conclusions. I find your reluctance to provide detail in your logic most unscientific. I would of thought that you would have been excited and elated at the prospect of elaborating on your logic processes.

But lets ask some questions:

1. Who paid for the study?

2. What 50% showed genetic correlation and what 50% showed no genetic correlation?

3. How were the twins in the study group identified?

4. What considerations were studied in the placement of 50% possible genetic correlation in homosexuality group? For example were those with homosexual tendencies placed in the homes of University educators that live in an environment where 70% of the population openly supports homosexuality or were they placed among agrarian society with less than 20% openly support homosexuality?

5. Do the authors of the article agree with you that genetic correlation to homosexuality is the only possible conclusion to the study?

6. Did the authors of the article espouse genetic correlation to homosexuality prior to the study?

As a scientist this would be only the beginning of questions I would ask.

Also you are disturbed with my equating homosexual orientation with homosexual behavior. The reason I do so is because the biological function in operation is reproductive. The only part of that biological function that can be considered orientation is the cognitive responses and behaviors. All non-cognitive reproductive biological functions are identical in both heterosexual and homosexuals. If I have errored in this assessment please advise me of the non-cognitive biological functions that are different.

Since scientists such as Pavlov and Skinner have demonstrated that [ANY] cognitive biological function can be altered by aggressive learning process involving positive and negative stimulation, I have labeled the cognitive parts of the biological reproductive process as behavior. Would you please explain to me why you would label any cognitive response as strictly genetic orentation?

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 1 2005, 05:12 PM

These are two extreme examples. Most of us probably fall in between somewhere. I guess I just feel that, YES, we do always have a choice, but our choices are ALWAYS influenced by our genetics and our environments. We are driven by much more than just our desires to do good or evil. But I do agree with you that our environments and personal choice are always a factor.

I have often wondered why some fail and others find success. I think there may be a third factor beyond genetics and environment and that is our eternal self. The D&C tells us that in this life we are given choice so that "That which was from the beginning is plainly made manifest".

I do not know why some lie and other tell truth, why some are kind and others mean – and so on; however I believe that discipline is not the easy road or ever the default condition. I also believe that seeking self and ignoring discipline is destructive and evil – likewise serving others and disciplining one’s passions is uplifting, enlightened and good.

Thank you for your kind consideration of my opinion

The Traveler

[Amillia]

Since scientists such as Pavlov and Skinner have demonstrated that [ANY] cognitive biological function can be altered by aggressive learning process involving positive and negative stimulation, I have labeled the cognitive parts of the biological reproductive process as behavior. Would you please explain to me why you would label any cognitive response as strictly genetic orentation?

Good question!

[Outshined]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 2 2005, 09:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 2 2005, 09:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Feb 2 2005, 04:55 AM

I have a friend who is a clinical therapist specializing in sexual disorders. He works for a department of the state studying sex offenders. He told me once that there is no such thing as a homosexual, only homosexual behavior, that it is a verb, not a noun.

Uh...which state would that be? "Homosexual" is a noun or an adjective. It's most definitely not a verb. (Ask Mirriam-Webster)

Tennessee. His point is that it is an action, not a state of being or a person. But you're right, adjective would be a better description.

[Jason]

Cal,

You said: "First, I know of know study that shows adultery to be as strongly genetically related as homosexuality."

I believe the studies of a genetic disposition for Adultery are in the early stages.

You said: "Second, if it were, YES, I don't believe in a God that would judge you as harshly as someone who did not have the gene. God judges according to what a person is GIVEN."

We are all given the same commandments by God. So we are judged by those rules of God, not our tendencies to sin in one way or another.

You said: "Third, your response to my reference to God condoning slavery in the OT was totally disingenuous. You completely avoided the issue by smearing the meaning of the term slavery to mean some nebulous condition affecting all of mankind. READ the OT for yourself. It was clearly refering to the enslavement of human beings by other human beings in the common sense of the word."

WE ARE SLAVES. You and I may not have a whip on our backs, but we are still slaves in every sense of the word. We are slaves to our houses, cars, children, even our bellies. We are slaves to our governments, their taxes, and everything else. We are slaves to the wrath of nature (eg Tsunami) and basically have absolutely no control over anything we do. We are, as I said before, slaves to God in every sense of the word. God can snuff our our existence at any moment, and there's nothing we can do about it.

You seem to have the false belief/perception that you're in control of your life. That's pretty funny.....

[Lindy]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 1 2005, 05:12 PM

Well, there are certain points on which we do agree.  I agree that all people are born with weaknesses, and that choice is almost always available.  I think it is a proven scientific fact that certain people are innately drawn (or tempted by, if you will) certain behaviors.  This varies in degree. ........  Most of us probably fall in between somewhere.  I guess I just feel that, YES, we do always have a choice, but our choices are ALWAYS influenced by our genetics and our environments.  We are driven by much more than just our desires to do good or evil.  But I do agree with you that our environments and personal choice are always a factor.

So, let me try to understand.....according to genetics I should lean towards drug and alcohol abuse? Gee, I put Jose' Cuervo on my "not to do list" and I turned down those free drugs the other day........ WHAT WAS I THINKING? Genetics are drawing me into the kitchen....closer....closer to that bottle. And I think that tomorrow I should just tell the guy "give me the dope" cause I am drawn to having some excitement in my life (by genetics)

Bad me for thinking all these years that I chose another way of life for myself BY MYSELF.... I could have been out enjoying a total different lifestyle, and doing things I knew were wrong.... and not be held accountable for anything, because of genetics? I blew so many years of my life being the way I thought I was supposed to be, and I could have been doing what I really WANTED to do? I should have read a thread like this 25 years ago so I could have been enjoying more out of life!

[Outshined]

Originally posted by lindy9556@Feb 2 2005, 02:19 PM

So, let me try to understand.....according to genetics I should lean towards drug and alcohol abuse? Gee, I put Jose' Cuervo on my "not to do list" and I turned down those free drugs the other day........ WHAT WAS I THINKING? Genetics are drawing me into the kitchen....closer....closer to that bottle. And I think that tomorrow I should just tell the guy "give me the dope" cause I am drawn to having some excitement in my life (by genetics)

Bad me for thinking all these years that I chose another way of life for myself BY MYSELF.... I could have been out enjoying a total different lifestyle, and doing things I knew were wrong.... and not be held accountable for anything, because of genetics? I blew so many years of my life being the way I thought I was supposed to be, and I could have been doing what I really WANTED to do? I should have read a thread like this 25 years ago so I could have been enjoying more out of life!

[Traveler]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Feb 2 2005, 11:26 AM

WE ARE SLAVES. You and I may not have a whip on our backs, but we are still slaves in every sense of the word. We are slaves to our houses, cars, children, even our bellies. We are slaves to our governments, their taxes, and everything else. We are slaves to the wrath of nature (eg Tsunami) and basically have absolutely no control over anything we do. We are, as I said before, slaves to God in every sense of the word. God can snuff our our existence at any moment, and there's nothing we can do about it.

You seem to have the false belief/perception that you're in control of your life. That's pretty funny.....

I do not agree with Cal about a lot of things but this statement of yours is quite incredible. I have not followed all you two have said to each other but from this post I think I agree more with Cal.

If you really believe this then how can you believe that any man ought to judged by the very being that is really responsible for everything that happens?

The Traveler

[Jason]

If you really believe this then how can you believe that any man ought to judged by the very being that is really responsible for everything that happens?

The Traveler

God owns us. If we violate His rules, we will be punished.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Feb 2 2005, 06:29 PM

If you really believe this then how can you believe that any man ought to judged by the very being that is really responsible for everything that happens?

The Traveler

God owns us. If we violate His rules, we will be punished.

Not so fast my friend - How could we possibly be responsible for violating his rules if he is the one that controls everything and is really responsible for what happened?

This particular attribute of you G-d looks a lot like what I believe to be the primary reason I do not want to be in Hell with Satan as G-d. I am sorry but what your are posting is rather scary.

The Traveler

[Jason]

How could we possibly be responsible for violating his rules if he is the one that controls everything and is really responsible for what happened?

Im not saying we don't have free will. Even slaves can choose to obey or disobey their masters. But if you disobey, you will be punished.

[pushka]

Just discovered this link on another website...a shocking article regarding what used to happen to homosexuals at BYU...

http://www.affirmation.org/learning/legacies.asp

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by pushka@Feb 3 2005, 03:33 PM

Just discovered this link on another website...a shocking article regarding what used to happen to homosexuals at BYU...

http://www.affirmation.org/learning/legacies.asp

Surreal. It sort of follow's Traveler's theory of conditioning and Pavlov's dog. (except it didn't work...)

[pushka]

Yes...I think it's terribly sad that the church thought it must employ such methods to 'cure' people of their homosexuality...

[Cal]

Originally posted by lindy9556@Feb 1 2005, 11:13 PM

Cal- I think that there have been some really good statements given, and I will be wrong no matter what I think. I am who I am, you are who you are....we think different. Nothing wrong with that. I'm right, you're wrong.... just kidding

I would be a little more impressed if you could give some logical reasons for your opinion, but that is your choice. No hard feelings.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined+Feb 2 2005, 04:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Feb 2 2005, 04:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--lindy9556@Feb 2 2005, 12:01 AM

Curvette,  It is disturbing that homosexuals are put in the same category as scum of the earth. Sad really. Thing is...if it was morally "legal", I would stand up with the homosexuals to beat the rapists and the pedophiles.

I have a friend who is a clinical therapist specializing in sexual disorders. He works for a department of the state studying sex offenders. He told me once that there is no such thing as a homosexual, only homosexual behavior, that it is a verb, not a noun.

Then, there is no such thing as a heterosexual, only heterosexual behavior.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traveler@Feb 2 2005, 09:51 AM

The Traveler

Trav--I thought you had a back ground in science--no offense, but this is some of the most unscientific thinking I have encountered from a person educated in science.

First, a 50% correlation for any biological trait is considered STRONG evidence of genetic correlation.

Second, you make the mistake of equating homosexual orientation, with homosexual behavior. Obviously people can learn to control their behavior. That has nothing to do with what it means to be homosexual. You are talking about the individual's very sense of biological identity. We're not talking about just a tendency, we are talking about an unalteable characteristic.

Think of it this way: Could you, as a heterosexual, simply change your sexual orientation because society told you you had to? or that it was evil to be hetero and you had to change that. Could you?

My background is Math and Physics - I currently work as a Principal Engineer in the robotics and automation industry I have also worked as an engineer in the aerospace industry (total over 30 years practical experience). My scientific automation design philosophies were highlighted as the cover article (not written by me) in the publication “Automated Material Handling”. (Would you like the month and year of the article)? What is your scientific background?

One basic tenet of scientific thinking is to question the methods and means others use to draw their conclusions. I find your reluctance to provide detail in your logic most unscientific. I would of thought that you would have been excited and elated at the prospect of elaborating on your logic processes.

But lets ask some questions:

1. Who paid for the study?

2. What 50% showed genetic correlation and what 50% showed no genetic correlation?

3. How were the twins in the study group identified?

4. What considerations were studied in the placement of 50% possible genetic correlation in homosexuality group? For example were those with homosexual tendencies placed in the homes of University educators that live in an environment where 70% of the population openly supports homosexuality or were they placed among agrarian society with less than 20% openly support homosexuality?

5. Do the authors of the article agree with you that genetic correlation to homosexuality is the only possible conclusion to the study?

6. Did the authors of the article espouse genetic correlation to homosexuality prior to the study?

As a scientist this would be only the beginning of questions I would ask.

Also you are disturbed with my equating homosexual orientation with homosexual behavior. The reason I do so is because the biological function in operation is reproductive. The only part of that biological function that can be considered orientation is the cognitive responses and behaviors. All non-cognitive reproductive biological functions are identical in both heterosexual and homosexuals. If I have errored in this assessment please advise me of the non-cognitive biological functions that are different.

Since scientists such as Pavlov and Skinner have demonstrated that [ANY] cognitive biological function can be altered by aggressive learning process involving positive and negative stimulation, I have labeled the cognitive parts of the biological reproductive process as behavior. Would you please explain to me why you would label any cognitive response as strictly genetic orentation?

The Traveler

First, you can read the studies for yourself. They are well known and can be fairly easily accessed through Google research. Therefore, I do not find it necessary to go beyond the fundamental conclusions reached by the studies--your accusation that I have not provided logical reasoning I find, well, illogical. On the otherhand, what evidence or study can you site that would show that homosexuality is purely environmental. Fact is, the Minnesota and Australian studies establish that it is not just environmental as Skinner or Pavlov would have us believe. They were of the school that all human behavior is environmentally determined. The most recent research is showing more and more how genetics plays a powerful part in human behavior.

Neither Skinner nor Pavlov would have been aware that homosexuals have anatomical structures in their brains that resemble that of the other sex--are you going to try to tell me that brain anatomy is environmental?

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 3 2005, 09:58 PM

Then, there is no such thing as a heterosexual, only heterosexual behavior.

If that's how you'd like to see it, swell. His point is that homosexuality is an aberration, and I agree with him.

We all know how you see the subject; don't feel obligated to rehash it for me. I can always go back and re-read it if the urge ever hits me.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Outshined+Feb 4 2005, 04:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Feb 4 2005, 04:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 3 2005, 09:58 PM

Then, there is no such thing as a heterosexual, only heterosexual behavior.

If that's how you'd like to see it, swell. His point is that homosexuality is an aberration, and I agree with him.

We all know how you see the subject; don't feel obligated to rehash it for me. I can always go back and re-read it if the urge ever hits me.

Isn't crazy what some people think? If homosexuality was normal, where are the offspring going to come from? Everything reproduces in the earth, except mountains and homosexuals.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

Would you be willing to acknowledge, notwithstanding the studies indicating a genetic basis for some homosexual tendencies, that not all homosexual behavior arises from a genetic disposition to be attracted only to the same sex?

Clearly, many people who have homosexual relationships also are capable of being attracted, or at least sexually aroused, by the opposite sex; otherwise, there would never be a case of a man marrying, having children, and then coming out as gay (as was the case of one of Word Perfect's founders.) Nor would you ever see heterosexual men doing homosexual acts in all-male environments like ships or prison. ("The traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy, and the lash!")

I think there is probably a core of genetically effeminate men who are exclusively homosexual, and a much larger class of men --maybe most -- who'd screw a snake if someone held it straight for them, or, less crudely, are capable of sexual arousal by a broad range of partners, male, female, interspecies, inanimate, or whatever.

Since you've been arguing against maintaining a moral disapproval of homosexual conduct based on its supposed genetic basis, does that argument still hold up when it's clear that the genetic basis is not present?

[Ray]

Originally posted by Cal@ Jan 30 2005, 01:11 PM

Easy for you to tell a gay person not to act on who he/she is. Tell me this, what kind of God would provide a "legal" outlet for hetero's and make gay sex a complete sin? Essentially holding gay people to an entirely different set of standards than heteros?

Labeling people as heterosexual or homosexual might be a convenient way of describing a group of people that you’re talking about, but it would be more correct and helpful to think of everyone on this Earth as a child of God, distinguished only by the choices we make and have made.

Originally posted by Cal+ Feb 1 2005, 08:54 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 1 2005, 08:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>First, I know of know study that shows adultery to be as strongly genetically related as homosexuality. Second, if it were, YES, I don't believe in a God that would judge you as harshly as someone who did not have the gene. God judges according to what a person is GIVEN.

No, God judges according to what a person has DONE with what he/she was given.

Originally posted by -Cal@ Feb 1 2005, 09:38 PM

Think of it this way: Could you, as a heterosexual, simply change your sexual orientation because society told you you had to? or that it was evil to be hetero and you had to change that. Could you?

Yes, I could, but whether or not I would is another matter. One of the first questions I would want answered is why I should.

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@ Feb 3 2005, 08:58 PM

…there is no such thing as a heterosexual, only heterosexual behavior.

BINGO! (or a more conservative Yes if that sounds better to you).

God did not make heterosexuals and homosexuals. He created children and gave them agency to make their own choices.

And btw, saying that Satan makes people homosexual is like saying the Devil made them that way, and that is wrong. We are prompted with good feelings and bad feelings, or good thoughts and bad thoughts, and what we do with those feelings and thoughts is up to us. Thus, nobody makes anybody do anything. We are only encouraged one way or the other.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Feb 4 2005, 12:21 PM

that not all homosexual behavior arises from a genetic disposition to be attracted only to the same sex?

I've noticed this particularly with women. Some women are very "butch" from birth. Total tomboys. But most women I know who are "lesbians" (and being involved in "theatre", I work with homosexuals of both genders frequently) seem to go back and forth between men and women. They seem very confused. I wonder if our sexually permissive society adds to confusion for those who may have a temporary attraction for the same sex, but who are basically heterosexual. I know some male homosexuals that I feel quite sure are simply biologically homosexual, and nothing will ever change that.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 4 2005, 04:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 4 2005, 04:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Feb 4 2005, 12:21 PM

that not all homosexual behavior arises from a genetic disposition to be attracted only to the same sex? 

I've noticed this particularly with women. Some women are very "butch" from birth. Total tomboys. But most women I know who are "lesbians" (and being involved in "theatre", I work with homosexuals of both genders frequently) seem to go back and forth between men and women. They seem very confused. I wonder if our sexually permissive society adds to confusion for those who may have a temporary attraction for the same sex, but who are basically heterosexual. I know some male homosexuals that I feel quite sure are simply biologically homosexual, and nothing will ever change that.

I think you have hit the nail on the head Curvette.

BTW I was a tomboy when I was young, even thought I shouldhave been born a boy, until I hit puberty. Then I liked being a girl and the affect I had on guys! LOL and the affect they had on me.