Guest Unorthodox Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 People in cities are more willing to ADMIT that they are gay, due to absence of the redneck factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starsky Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 I just thought this scripture to be very profoundly connected to homosexuality...D&C 88: 35 35 That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still.You might ask why....On another forum there was a gay man who was really excited because now that he was married to his companion / also male, he was now eligable for a temple sealing for this union.He gave as his reasoning that because they was now able to obey the laws of the land....being married legally and lawfully....they were worthy of a temple sealing....We tried to explain why that was rediculous.....but all he could say was that someday the brethren would allow it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgallan Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 Therefore, they must remain filthy still. Though not gay I am no doubt guilty by support, therefore filthy. Filthy works here. And anybody who ever saw my bathroom during my bachelor years would agree. ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starsky Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 confederacy....with sin, is not righteousness... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgallan Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 If that is how righteous is defined then I'll take a pass..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starsky Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 Originally posted by sgallan@Jun 21 2004, 04:03 PM If that is how righteous is defined then I'll take a pass..... I didn't read any definition of righteousness....but if you need one...it is one who has received the atonement because they repented from their sins.Intolerance for sin is Godly...you know. God cannot tolerate the least degree of sin....neither can those who have been born again...However....one can and must love the sinner... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgallan Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Gee, if many of the sentiments I hear about this subject is what is defined as love..... I'll pass on that as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starsky Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Originally posted by sgallan@Jun 21 2004, 06:22 PM Gee, if many of the sentiments I hear about this subject is what is defined as love..... I'll pass on that as well. <span style=\'font-family:Geneva\'>Whatever... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted June 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Originally posted by shanstress70@Jun 21 2004, 03:57 AM Well gosh, Nic...What's the point of all these studies if you know the answers? Better tell the scientists who have been studying this for years to call it off since you already know what they're going to find. Wow, we have smarter people here than I thought! I do not know of a single study that had indicated variant responses to cognitive conditioning linked to autotomic biologic responses have no link to environmental influences. Pavlov demonstrated that there was a definite link to environmental conditioning to cognitive recognition of external stimuli to autotomic (sympatric nervous system) responses.Studies done in systematic desensitization, aversion therapy and biofeedback have all demonstrated that cognitive recognition can alter every emotion and personality habit. Even basic fears and other non voluntary responses can be altered. B.H. Skinner, Pavlov and many other have conducted studies in the science of behavioral modification (brain washing). I have never seen as study that indicated that reproductive behavior cannot be altered in the higher primates - including humans. And there were some wild studies done in Germany under Hitler.My only point is this - how can we deal with any topic if facts are to be ignored and emotions allowed to dictate opinions. How can there be love if truth is ignored and prejudice rules. If there is any proof the demonstrates that environmental conditioning plays no role in human reproduction behavior - I have never heard of such a study or experiment. If there were just one believer in homosexuality unrelated to environmental conditioning that would put forth their understanding in step by step scientific methodology then I would gladly change my mind. If such a thing has been demonstrated beyond scientific doubt why won’t anyone share the truth? If something has been demonstrated - or anyone thinks it has been demonstrated would you please share in a scientific manner, because I just have not been able to connect to all this emotional charged opinions of prejudice. Where are "all these studies" posters keep talking about? Will someone start naming them?The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanstress70 Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Originally posted by Traveler@Jun 21 2004, 10:23 PM I do not know of a single study that had indicated variant responses to cognitive conditioning linked to autotomic biologic responses have no link to environmental influences. Pavlov demonstrated that there was a definite link to environmental conditioning to cognitive recognition of external stimuli to autotomic (sympatric nervous system) responses.Studies done in systematic desensitization, aversion therapy and biofeedback have all demonstrated that cognitive recognition can alter every emotion and personality habit. Even basic fears and other non voluntary responses can be altered. B.H. Skinner, Pavlov and many other have conducted studies in the science of behavioral modification (brain washing). I have never seen as study that indicated that reproductive behavior cannot be altered in the higher primates - including humans. And there were some wild studies done in Germany under Hitler.My only point is this - how can we deal with any topic if facts are to be ignored and emotions allowed to dictate opinions. How can there be love if truth is ignored and prejudice rules. If there is any proof the demonstrates that environmental conditioning plays no role in human reproduction behavior - I have never heard of such a study or experiment. If there were just one believer in homosexuality unrelated to environmental conditioning that would put forth their understanding in step by step scientific methodology then I would gladly change my mind. If such a thing has been demonstrated beyond scientific doubt why won’t anyone share the truth? If something has been demonstrated - or anyone thinks it has been demonstrated would you please share in a scientific manner, because I just have not been able to connect to all this emotional charged opinions of prejudice. Where are "all these studies" posters keep talking about? Will someone start naming them?The Traveler My point, Traveler, is that we simply don't know the answers yet (nature or nurture). There is not enough proof to make a conclusive statement, which I think Nic was trying to do. And there are studies going on trying to get this proof one way or another. Are you saying you don't believe anyone is studying this? Surely not. This is probably one of the hottest topics out there. And I dare say that there are scientists who are studying with both mindsets.IMO, we shouldn't just pick a side just because we WANT it to be true and believe it. The LDS church (and some other churches) teaches it is wrong, so of course members want to believe that it is a choice. But we don't know what the answer is. I don't pretend to know, but I lean toward it NOT being a choice, at least for some people. I know a few homosexuals, and I have asked the question to two of them, "If you could take a pill and be straight, would you?" They both said yes, and explained that their lives are very difficult because of their sexual tendencies. Why would they choose to be alienated from their families, in some cases? Not to mention their friends, jobs (unless you work at Kodak), etc.OTOH, I wouldn't be totally shocked if they found out the other side is true. I don't pretend to be a scientist! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srm Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Originally posted by Unorthodox@Jun 21 2004, 12:25 PM People in cities are more willing to ADMIT that they are gay, due to absence of the redneck factor. I would wager that there is more gay bashing in urban areas than in 'red-neck' areas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srm Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 My point, Traveler, is that we simply don't know the answers yet (nature or nurture). maybe the real issue is if nature vs. nurture (or a little of both) makes any difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanstress70 Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Originally posted by srm@Jun 22 2004, 10:47 AM maybe the real issue is if nature vs. nurture (or a little of both) makes any difference? I don't get what you're saying, or do I? Are you really saying that if a person is born gay it is still wrong? Then maybe it's wrong for someone to be born with one leg too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srm Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Originally posted by shanstress70+Jun 22 2004, 09:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shanstress70 @ Jun 22 2004, 09:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--srm@Jun 22 2004, 10:47 AM maybe the real issue is if nature vs. nurture (or a little of both) makes any difference? I don't get what you're saying, or do I? Are you really saying that if a person is born gay it is still wrong? Then maybe it's wrong for someone to be born with one leg too. If a person is born with any predisposition...does that make it right or wrong? I think it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starsky Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 I wonder how many years it will be before the pediphiles start claiming they were born this way and should have a right to a life choice style of living....according their their biological drives.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Unorthodox Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Deleted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest curvette Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Originally posted by Starsky@Jun 22 2004, 10:44 AM I wonder how many years it will be before the pediphiles start claiming they were born this way and should have a right to a life choice style of living....according their their biological drives.... I'm sure some of them already make that claim. The big difference though is that pedophiles force their perversion on innocent children. I don't see how homosexuality, if engaged in by mutually consenting adults, harms anyone. A behavior that hurts other people and takes away their rights should be condemned whether it is an inborn trait or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starsky Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 There will come a day when it is voluntary.... Sodomy was on the law books not too long ago.... Children (boys mostly) were the objects of these gay men..... They used children and teens because they were easy to persuade... and manipulate to get what they wanted.... After that...they began to manipulate the population....to accept... then the laws.... Actually if you think about it...some polygamist groups practice with full acceptence...pediphilia....they make children the brides of old men... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srm Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Originally posted by curvette+Jun 22 2004, 11:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Jun 22 2004, 11:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Starsky@Jun 22 2004, 10:44 AM I wonder how many years it will be before the pediphiles start claiming they were born this way and should have a right to a life choice style of living....according their their biological drives.... Â Â Â I'm sure some of them already make that claim. The big difference though is that pedophiles force their perversion on innocent children. I don't see how homosexuality, if engaged in by mutually consenting adults, harms anyone. A behavior that hurts other people and takes away their rights should be condemned whether it is an inborn trait or not. It seems that you are answering my original question,"maybe the real issue is if nature vs. nurture (or a little of both) makes any difference? "Am I correct that you're saying that Nature vs. Nurture doesn't make a difference...at least w/ pediphiles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicodemus Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Originally posted by shanstress70@Jun 21 2004, 04:57 AM Well gosh, Nic...What's the point of all these studies if you know the answers? Better tell the scientists who have been studying this for years to call it off since you already know what they're going to find. Wow, we have smarter people here than I thought! Well gosh, I guess I should be quiet then and never post my opinions as long as opposition exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicodemus Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Originally posted by shanstress70+Jun 22 2004, 05:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shanstress70 @ Jun 22 2004, 05:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Jun 21 2004, 10:23 PM I do not know of a single study that had indicated variant responses to cognitive conditioning linked to autotomic biologic responses have no link to environmental influences. Pavlov demonstrated that there was a definite link to environmental conditioning to cognitive recognition of external stimuli to autotomic (sympatric nervous system) responses.Studies done in systematic desensitization, aversion therapy and biofeedback have all demonstrated that cognitive recognition can alter every emotion and personality habit. Even basic fears and other non voluntary responses can be altered. B.H. Skinner, Pavlov and many other have conducted studies in the science of behavioral modification (brain washing). I have never seen as study that indicated that reproductive behavior cannot be altered in the higher primates - including humans. And there were some wild studies done in Germany under Hitler.My only point is this - how can we deal with any topic if facts are to be ignored and emotions allowed to dictate opinions. How can there be love if truth is ignored and prejudice rules. If there is any proof the demonstrates that environmental conditioning plays no role in human reproduction behavior - I have never heard of such a study or experiment. If there were just one believer in homosexuality unrelated to environmental conditioning that would put forth their understanding in step by step scientific methodology then I would gladly change my mind. If such a thing has been demonstrated beyond scientific doubt why won’t anyone share the truth? If something has been demonstrated - or anyone thinks it has been demonstrated would you please share in a scientific manner, because I just have not been able to connect to all this emotional charged opinions of prejudice.  Where are "all these studies" posters keep talking about? Will someone start naming them?The Traveler My point, Traveler, is that we simply don't know the answers yet (nature or nurture). There is not enough proof to make a conclusive statement, which I think Nic was trying to do. And there are studies going on trying to get this proof one way or another. Are you saying you don't believe anyone is studying this? Surely not. This is probably one of the hottest topics out there. And I dare say that there are scientists who are studying with both mindsets.IMO, we shouldn't just pick a side just because we WANT it to be true and believe it. The LDS church (and some other churches) teaches it is wrong, so of course members want to believe that it is a choice. But we don't know what the answer is. I don't pretend to know, but I lean toward it NOT being a choice, at least for some people. I know a few homosexuals, and I have asked the question to two of them, "If you could take a pill and be straight, would you?" They both said yes, and explained that their lives are very difficult because of their sexual tendencies. Why would they choose to be alienated from their families, in some cases? Not to mention their friends, jobs (unless you work at Kodak), etc.OTOH, I wouldn't be totally shocked if they found out the other side is true. I don't pretend to be a scientist! I was not trying to make a conclusive statement, I was saying that it seems that NO behavior will be determined ABSOLUTELY when it comes to genetics, but that there will be behavioral weaknesses employed by genetic problems. Not an absoluteness or determination of behavior. A weakness. Not determination.A majority of scientists are agnostic (they feel by necessity by applying the scientific method to metaphysics) and perform similar studies on how spirituality and God is really just partial temporal lobe epilepsy- a mental disorder. Shouldn't argue with them either. This is why it is important to study science for yourself, you cannot trust scientists on everything they say- even when there are a lot of them. They are people just like you, and probably MORE opinionated then yourself. I know quite a few and they are very outspoken on many issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicodemus Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Originally posted by Starsky@Jun 22 2004, 11:44 AM I wonder how many years it will be before the pediphiles start claiming they were born this way and should have a right to a life choice style of living....according their their biological drives.... Very good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Unorthodox Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 It will someday be proven beyond a doubt whether it is genetic or not. Scientific results can be faked...but eventually the truth comes out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest curvette Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Originally posted by srm@Jun 22 2004, 11:22 AM Am I correct that you're saying that Nature vs. Nurture doesn't make a difference...at least w/ pediphiles? Absolutely. Why should society tolerate a person who can't control their compulsion to hurt a child or anyone else? If a person's inborn nature causes them to harm someone, that person should be treated when possible, but if they still can't control themselves, be separated from society. I don't believe this has anything to do with sexual orientation though. I don't believe that two homosexuals who choose a life together are harming anyone. They aren't forcing a sexual act on anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starsky Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Of course there are times....naaaa, I won't say it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.