# Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality



## John H. (Dec 29, 2003)

Think about this when you are thinking about Sexuality whether it be Heterosexuality, BiSexuality or Homosexuality. ALL ARE VERY NATURAL AND RIGHT AND GOOD and serve purpose(s). Each does exist in Nature and the Natural World of which we all are a part. Whether you, I or anyone else "agrees" or "not" with that IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. ALSO, God NEVER said and Christ NEVER said ONE WORD about any of these forms of Sexuality being wrong EVER. NOT ONE TIME. NEVER. If They NEVER said - and THEY NEVER DID - then I would think as long as people are not using and / or abusing another and as long as each is of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely it is no one else's business - not you, I, or the public or the government or religion (which IS MAN MADE) what two people agree to do. It is a VERY PRIVATE AND PERSONAL MATTER. AND IS NOT WRONG. Take Care, John H.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 29, 2003)

i agree, good points


----------



## ponyboy (Dec 29, 2003)




----------



## maddog1 (Dec 29, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> God NEVER said and Christ NEVER said ONE WORD about any of these forms of Sexuality being wrong EVER. NOT ONE TIME. NEVER. If They NEVER said - and THEY NEVER DID -



Oh really... The bible is the inspired word of God. Take a look at 1Cor9,   "...Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor HOMOSEXUALS, ...... shall inherit the kingdom of God."
I'm sure you won't agree with this and have your own agenda. I won't respond any further, but wanted to post the truth.


----------



## ZECH (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality*



> _*Originally posted by maddog1 *_
> Oh really... The bible is the inspired word of God. Take a look at 1Cor9,   "...Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulteres, nor effiminate, nor HOMOSEXUALS, ...... shall inherit the kingdom of God."
> I'm sure you won't agree with this and have your own agenda. I won't respond any further, but wanted to post the truth.


Everything he is posting is a crock!


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 29, 2003)

Homosexuality was not a word that was coined until 1869.  Depending on what version of the bible you read, it is not ever used.  



> 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
> 
> Our second New Testament text is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers ??? none of these will inherit the kingdom of God."



The remark is specifically against male prostitues, not homosexuals in general or all same sex relationships in general.  This is of course the KJV (after the New Testament was translated into greek fromhebrew, to latin , then the vulgar languages (french, spanish, italian) and finally, english.  There is still alot of room for misinterpretation.

In fact, if you look at the laws in the Old Testament, (The leviticus laws that seemingly prohibit it) the same mistranslation occurs.  Rabbinic scholars are not rallying to end homosexuality like the christians.  In original hebrew, many of these laws dealt with temple cleanliness rather than specifically against homosexuality.  Unless someone can quote and read Hebrew, Arameic, or Greek, there is absolutely no definative statement against homosexuals in both old and new testament except by intrepretion through translation.


----------



## ZECH (Dec 29, 2003)

There is but one closest to the orignal text.........The King James Version. Niv and all this new crap leaves out what ever to suit what people want to hear.


----------



## Bubbathug (Dec 29, 2003)

Geez, what brought on this unprovoked rant?

Bandaid, I was wondering what you do for a living?  You seem to be very well read in a number of topics from what I have seen in this thread and TGS's thread about religion.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 29, 2003)

I will pm you.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 29, 2003)

Thank you very much, BandAidWoman....


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 29, 2003)

Hey bandaid, how about a date?


----------



## maddog1 (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality*



> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Everything he is posting is a crock!



Everything Who is posting is a crock?


----------



## Pepper (Dec 29, 2003)

I don't want to jump into this mess, but I must point out that homosexuality is clearly condemned in scripture.


----------



## Pepper (Dec 29, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> There is but one closest to the orignal text.........The King James Version. Niv and all this new crap leaves out what ever to suit what people want to hear.



What about the New King James?


----------



## MikeKy (Dec 29, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Think about this when you are thinking about Sexuality whether it be Heterosexuality, BiSexuality or Homosexuality. ALL ARE VERY NATURAL AND RIGHT AND GOOD and serve purpose(s). Each does exist in Nature and the Natural World of which we all are a part. Whether you, I or anyone else "agrees" or "not" with that IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. ALSO, God NEVER said and Christ NEVER said ONE WORD about any of these forms of Sexuality being wrong EVER. NOT ONE TIME. NEVER. If They NEVER said - and THEY NEVER DID - then I would think as long as people are not using and / or abusing another and as long as each is of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely it is no one else's business - not you, I, or the public or the government or religion (which IS MAN MADE) what two people agree to do. It is a VERY PRIVATE AND PERSONAL MATTER. AND IS NOT WRONG. Take Care, John H.



This isn't a gay rights forum, is it?


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 29, 2003)

Don't worry, Mike...maybe they are all Log Cabin Republicans.


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 29, 2003)

So why did we leave out *MONOSEXUALITY* for those who have only masturbated or perhaps practice it along with the other sexual acts?

There are two kinds of Monosexuals. Those who do it and those who lie and say they don't do it.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 29, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Pepper *_
> I don't want to jump into this mess, but I must point out that homosexuality is clearly condemned in scripture.




  This was a good link discussing the meaning of the greek or hebrew words and how they came to pass as being interpreted as homosexual. 
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/hom_bibc.htm

Of course, we have to trust the interpretators  conclusions about the vagaries of the ancient languages since I don't think anyone here knows ancient biblical language...but I may be wrong.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 29, 2003)

When humans get involved it seems like everything gets mucked up. I have a hard time with religion in general because of interpretation and human weakness. Not saying that all of my opinions are in stone, but when the church constantly keeps splitting and dividing over human BS its hard to believe anything that comes from such a thing.

I grew up religious and my dad was an alter boy for many years, so it is almost somewhat odd for me to be saying these things. I fly seat of the pants more or less nowdays.

I've brought this up before and again I forget the name and period of the event (1400s or 1800s?), where various texts were burnt because people disagreed over certain things, and this whole thing was to avoid yet another church split. Of course it is ridiculous to expect perfection from people, but it seems all too often that people have thier head up thier bunghole and dont even try to cooperate or understand others.


----------



## HoldDaMayo (Dec 29, 2003)

to each his own... why condemn... but, if you wanna throw out some scripture that the translation can't be questioned...

God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him may be saved."  
(John 3:17

So, let me get this straight... The Son of God, the one who saved us all... didn't come to condemn... I feel pretty guilty condemning anyone... anyone ever been to Sunday School and learn that:

God is Love


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 29, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by HoldDaMayo *_
> to each his own... why condemn... but, if you wanna throw out some scripture that the translation can't be questioned...
> 
> God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him may be saved."
> ...




I think you just summed up the essence of what makes Christianity so great.


----------



## firestorm (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality*



> _*Originally posted by maddog1 *_
> Oh really... The bible is the inspired word of God. Take a look at 1Cor9,   "...Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor HOMOSEXUALS, ...... shall inherit the kingdom of God."
> I'm sure you won't agree with this and have your own agenda. I won't respond any further, but wanted to post the truth.



Yea Maddog and that is not the only place in the bible that speaks about the sin of homosexuality. This guy had no idea what he is talking about.  
Homosexuality has to be accepted because the government wont ban it but regardless it's still a sin in the eyes of God and Me for that matter.  I do not condone homosexuality and I refuse to accept gay marriages as normal and I certainly hope the government does not change their view on this either.  Peace


----------



## firestorm (Dec 29, 2003)

All you guys have very good points. Mudge and Mayo for example and right or wrong, I'm old fashioned and of old fashioned beliefs.  I do not dislike homosexuals at all I just do not condone that lifestyle and am repulsed by the thought of 2 guys getting it on.   Damn I accidentally saw a few minutes of  "queer ass folks" on Showtime one night and I was sickened by what I saw. It's just not normal man!!!  Guys going down on guys  ok.. thats enough I'm outta here I don't wish to discuss this any further I'm getting knots in my stomach.    
Last note: if your gay, abstinence is the way to go and seek professional help and maybe religous counseling.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 29, 2003)

It doesn't bother me that badly but I sure dont want to watch it. Lesbianism doesn't bother me but it doesn't really turn me on either.

One thing I dont like is the hypocrisy of so many males who find lesbians hot and gay men so discusting that they should be beaten or killed, thats just ridiculous beyond measure.

One bisexual woman on another board actually believes that gay men will burn in hell, and yet what she does is ok because there is no anal penetration when it comes to women. Dont even try to explain that to me her head was screwed on backwards.


----------



## firestorm (Dec 30, 2003)

Oh comeon now Mudge your kidding me.  Ok this gal your talking about has one serious screw loose.  What a wack job.   Oh and please don't use the word penitration and anal in the same sentence please. thanks.     Anyway I'm not a hypocrite, I don't believe either is moral.  
and I'm not saying all this to start a debat.  I refuse to debate my moral beliefs nor do I expect anyone else to explain theirs to me.  I agree,, live and let live just don't push it on me.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 30, 2003)

Geez, Firestorm....why the hell do you even need to let your mind go to thinking about two men getting it on? What does it have to do with you, or with your own life and relationships? 

I can appreciate anyone saying that their own religious beliefs, and the beliefs they hold personally in their own relationship with God, make this something they can't believe in for their lives. But to extend that so far as to think governments should ban it because you personally don't like the thoughts your own mind goes to? 

Historically, that resulted in a lot of lynchings, used as an excuse for beatings and murders, caused people to be jailed and abused for that reason alone. Court records have plenty of testimony where "hatred of the imagined act" was a successful defense as a reason to kill someone. Hell, as recently as in Matthew Shepards case (the college student who ended up beaten and tied to a fence and eventually died) the defendants attempted that same line of reasoning as a defense. 

I don't think anyone expects someone else to like or dislike the relationships of others, any more than I think you'd appreciate someone sticking their noses in your bedroom or imagining what you do in private with your wife. 

I honestly respect people who say they don't like it....but when they make that statement, I assume they are referring to themselves and their own sexual desires and behavior - not the lives of other people who pay taxes, support the community and expect others to keep their thoughts out of their bedrooms.


----------



## firestorm (Dec 30, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> Geez, Firestorm....why the hell do you even need to let your mind go to thinking about two men getting it on? What does it have to do with you, or with your own life and relationships?
> 
> I normally don't let my mind go there kbm. I just saw that show and it was there!  It doesn't have anything to do with me or my own relationships which is why I also said even though I don't approve of homosexuality, I also said, live and let live.
> ...


----------



## firestorm (Dec 30, 2003)

Kbm, i re-read my post and what I was simply stating was that Homosexuality has to be accepted since it isn't ever getting banned.  In that I'm not saying I feel the governement should ban it only saying that nothing short of banning it would ever make it go away so its going to be accepted.  Make sense?

As for my last note on that regarding the Government I stated the stance against same sex marriages.  not banning


----------



## firestorm (Dec 30, 2003)

As your referrence to my personnel life by the way,, I keep my personal life for the most part where my wife and kids are concerned quiet and just that personnel.  I don't march my family in heterosexual parades and carry banners looking for attention to myself and my way of life.  When someone comes in here and starts an "open" thread about their life style they are opening themselves up for dissection.  Hence you have never nor will ever see a thread here by me shoving my heterosexual beliefs in anyones face.   so my bedroom door is closed because I don't start thread opening myself up to criticism.


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Dec 30, 2003)

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!


It's John H!!!  Why couldn't you go to Elite Fitness forums or ABCBodybuilding.com?   Not here....


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Dec 30, 2003)

Oh, take care, The Great Satan.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 30, 2003)

Thanks for taking the time to explain, Firestorm....uh...what I meant by that last statement is that, in my own thinking, when someone talks about how they feel about certain intimate activity, I'm assuming they are referring to themselves participating in it - not regulating that behavior in other consenting adults.

I understand what you are saying about graphic displays on television programs - I've seen two episodes of that show and had to remind myself that it is an exaggeration of real life, just like any other media presentation. Still, I think about what they've seen heterosexuals doing in programs and whether or not they've felt the same way...and how they've adjusted to that reality in their face all of the time. 

I understand your concern about same-sex marriage, but I also think that people who choose a life partner should be entitled to be primarily consulted in matter concerning hospital visits, medication, funeral arrangements, inheritance rights, etc. There are some real horror stories out there about how some of those people have been mistreated by not having any legalrecognition or protection. I wrote about one experience like that in another thread that taught me a lot. 

For example, I read what you wrote about your neighbors in another thread - I have seen cases in which one of those partners dies, and the other is evicted from their home, a will contested and claimed invalid (legally unrelated "roommates"), a partner denied access to funeral arrangements, acknowledgement in an obituary, and even blocked from attending a funeral. If marriage isn't the answer, then something should be done to ensure protection of their lives and the investment they make in each other. 

It just seems to me that many religions would have a far better chance of influencing people if they would encourage honesty and show concern and caring for these people instead of helping create a hell on earth for them or force them to pretend they are something else in order to pursue life in peace. 

By the way, I know you aren't a bad guy.....hell, I'm lucky you are friendly enough to even exchange posts with me. Hope you had a good holiday....my break continues to be a working one. Instead of writing about gays (though hell, that seems to be all I'm doing on this forum lately) I'm working on the narratives of people who have reported alien "experiences." Suddenly the thought of two men together doesn't seem so strange when I'm reading about beings with bug features trying to fertilize a human woman.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 30, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by firestorm *_
> As your referrence to my personnel life by the way,, I keep my personal life for the most part where my wife and kids are concerned quiet and just that personnel.  I don't march my family in heterosexual parades and carry banners looking for attention to myself and my way of life.  When someone comes in here and starts an "open" thread about their life style they are opening themselves up for dissection.  Hence you have never nor will ever see a thread here by me shoving my heterosexual beliefs in anyones face.   so my bedroom door is closed because I don't start thread opening myself up to criticism.




Ahh...now my bad here - it does makes sense about what you meant when you said ban...except states have tried it and it just drives it to the gutter. It's late for me, so I shoulda put the reading glasses back on when I look at the screen! 

I agree completely about your personal life - that's WHY it's personal. I'm much the same way - I don't discuss my relationships in a revealing way online at all.  But as far as those parades go, I think they should reach a point where it isn't necessary to display numbers in "pride" parades to convince the rest of the population that they exist. Marching for civil rights, on the other hand, is appropriate if it means protecting their right to life and association. 

Ya know, I need to go up and re-read the original post by JohnH...I..didn't get the initial impression that it was advocating one orientation. I might just have to be eating some words here, which should make TGS get a good laugh at me....


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 30, 2003)

Naw..his thread choice didn't bother me at all, though I'm not sure why he felt the need to start one on the subject - I do agree that sexual expression between consenting adults is a personal, private thing and my own personal belief is that it shouldn't be socially ranked simply to make someone else feel more secure. I also think that people shouldn't automatically or deliberately assault the senses of those who feel differently about the subject.

Dammit - I should have started a thread with a poll asking who has a fantasy to sleep with an alien?

------ yikes...we might be afraid to find that one out.


----------



## firestorm (Dec 30, 2003)

yea well it is late my friend and I'm kinda even confused myself a bit too.    As for gay paraded again they don't bother me either but the point of even brining it up is similar to another post I just made regarding "thegreatsatan" and his religous beliefs.  When you stand up and paint a bullseye on your chest regardless if its a banner your carrying, a medal you wear around your neck or some freaky hair style you best expect that someone, somewhere is going to take aim at that target you proudly wear and pull the trigger.  Personnally, I don't like being behind the bullseye so I don't paint them.  But when you start a thread and your being so boisterous regarding a sensitive subject prepare for debate and disagreement.   That is all I'm really trying to say.   I get tired of the grand standing.  I say sit the hell down and be one of the human race and keep the bullshit at home behind a closed door.


----------



## firestorm (Dec 30, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> Thanks for taking the time to explain, Firestorm....uh...what I meant by that last statement is that, in my own thinking, when someone talks about how they feel about certain intimate activity, I'm assuming they are referring to themselves participating in it - not regulating that behavior in other consenting adults.
> 
> OK well nope that isn't me. lol  I'm not a regulator nor did I refer to myself participating.... I commented on a tv show was all.  lol
> ...



Christmas was fantastic!! I can't wait till next year!!! hahahaha
Oh man that is funny stuff how the hell did you get mixed up with this story about aliens????  oh that is really funny.


----------



## ZECH (Dec 30, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Pepper *_
> What about the New King James?


Nope, I don't like it Pepper. I can show you many instances where references to "the blood" have been left out or change!


----------



## Mudge (Dec 30, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by firestorm *_
> Anyway I'm not a hypocrite, I don't believe either is moral.



I understand, my dad is the same way, he views it as unclean just as pigs were seen as unclean back when. Still he will eat a hot dog  (the kind you buy in a store people)


----------



## John H. (Dec 30, 2003)

*Re: Re: Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality*



> _*Originally posted by maddog1 *_
> Oh really... The bible is the inspired word of God. Take a look at 1Cor9,   "...Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor HOMOSEXUALS, ...... shall inherit the kingdom of God."
> I'm sure you won't agree with this and have your own agenda. I won't respond any further, but wanted to post the truth.


 Hi Maddog1. I can see by your response you are using a "current" Bible - one that puts words into the Bible that originally never existed. You must remember that the Bible never existed before or even during the Time of Christ. It is the words of Men - over 40 and with over 40 different opinions. Written over a long period of time by many and with many reasons and not always good. It is a collection of literature - essays, poems, prose, etc. God and Christ speak FOR THEMSELVES and need no one else to do Their talking or speaking for Them. God created Men. Certainly HE KNOWS the strengths and weaknesses and dangers of MAN and would HIMSELF NEVER allow others to speak FOR Him. He KNOWS the dangers involved with Men. If He has something to say HE WILL SAY IT DIRECTLY and NOT THROUGH someone else. I know if I had things to say that were very important I - I WOULD say it and NEVER allow others to speak FOR me. I WOULD SAY MYSELF. The very same applies to God I am sure! You mention my "aggenda". My PERSONAL thoughts have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH what I said for what I said IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. And VERY ACCURATE. Religion "perpetuates" itself by having people "believe" (just accept without question) and "have faith" even though there is no real basis for that "faith" HONESTLY speaking. There are THOUSANDS of religions each one claiming to be the "real" and / or "truthful".... To the point of killing others even over this...  I believe ALL sources for ALL information MUST ALWAYS BE CONSIDERED with an open mind and very objectively and throughout a person's life. Honestly and accurately and completely so as near as is Humanly possible. And ALWAYS QUESTION EVERYTHING - never just "accept" from ANYONE.  Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Dec 30, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Pepper *_
> I don't want to jump into this mess, but I must point out that homosexuality is clearly condemned in scripture.


Hi Pepper. And "scripture" IS WRITTEN BY MEN - over 40 with over 40 different points of view. The Old Testament is nothing more than the old Jewish law books. The New Testament came after the Time of Christ. If God has something to say HE - HE - will say and NEVER ALLOW others to speak for Him. Same applies with Christ. Remember this too, Christ was on this earth for 32 years and NEVER SAID ONE WORD HIMSELF EVER about Homosexuality or BiSexuality being wrong. If they were wrong HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO FOR SURE - HE NEVER DID - EVER. He said a lot of other things but NEVER said a WORD about these being wrong. Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality DO EXIST and ALWAYS HAVE in Nature and the Natural World of which we all are a part. Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Dec 30, 2003)

*Re: Re: Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality*



> _*Originally posted by MikeKy *_
> This isn't a gay rights forum, is it?


  Hi MikeKy. ABSOLUTELY NOT. And NOT intended to be at all. It IS intended to express accuracy and truthfulness and completeness about these subjects. UNDERSTANDING ALL ASPECTS of Sexuality TRUTHFULLY SO. Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Dec 30, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> When humans get involved it seems like everything gets mucked up. I have a hard time with religion in general because of interpretation and human weakness. Not saying that all of my opinions are in stone, but when the church constantly keeps splitting and dividing over human BS its hard to believe anything that comes from such a thing.
> 
> I grew up religious and my dad was an alter boy for many years, so it is almost somewhat odd for me to be saying these things. I fly seat of the pants more or less nowdays.
> ...


Hi Mudge. You speak as to why God WOULD NEVER allow someone to speak FOR HIM. HE WILL SAY WHAT HE HAS TO SAY HIMSELF. He KNOWS Human Beings and KNOWS their capabilities - and failings. GOD NEVER SAID ONE TIME about any of the Sexualities being wrong. They are natural variations of Sexuality like all things in life and in living - VARIETY. Each has a good and real purpose(s). Each NEEDS to be HONESTLY AND ACCURATELY UNDERSTOOD. Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Dec 30, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by HoldDaMayo *_
> to each his own... why condemn... but, if you wanna throw out some scripture that the translation can't be questioned...
> 
> God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him may be saved."
> ...


Hi Hold. You will find that people tend to ONLY look at what THEY want and what is "convenient" and forget ALL the rest. I like to be VERY open minded and VERY objective and consider ALL INFORMATION FROM ALL SOURCES and QUESTION everyone and everything. That is how a person helps make themselves the best they can be and is a lifelong process. Take Care, John H.


----------



## Pepper (Dec 30, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi Pepper. And "scripture" IS WRITTEN BY MEN - over 40 with over 40 different points of view. The Old Testament is nothing more than the old Jewish law books. The New Testament came after the Time of Christ. If God has something to say HE - HE - will say and NEVER ALLOW others to speak for Him. Same applies with Christ. Remember this too, Christ was on this earth for 32 years and NEVER SAID ONE WORD HIMSELF EVER about Homosexuality or BiSexuality being wrong. If they were wrong HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO FOR SURE - HE NEVER DID - EVER. He said a lot of other things but NEVER said a WORD about these being wrong. Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality DO EXIST and ALWAYS HAVE in Nature and the Natural World of which we all are a part. Take Care, John H.



This post...I have to say that I 100% disagree with it. Scripture was inspired by God. He speaks through the scriptures.

The gap is too wide...we'll just have to disagree.

Happy New Year/Pepper


----------



## John H. (Dec 30, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Pepper *_
> This post...I have to say that I 100% disagree with it. Scripture was inspired by God. He speaks through the scriptures.
> 
> The gap is too wide...we'll just have to disagree.
> ...


 Hi Pepper. THINK about this. If YOU have something to say - especially if it is very important - do YOU DO YOUR TAKLING YOURSELF or do you have someone else speak FOR YOU? GOD KNOWS MAN - He made them and KNOWS the dangers involved in having someone else speak FOR Him. HE speaks HIMSELF. He does NOT allow others to speak FOR Him. The Bible is written BY MEN. Happy New Year Pepper, Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Dec 30, 2003)

With regard to Nature and Sexuality please read: BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE, by Bruce Bagemihl (St. Martin's Press). With regard to the Sexual practices of MEN in the past one book discusses this very well with regard to BiSexuality and Homosexuality - see: FORBIDDEN FRIENDSHIPS, by Michael Rocke (Oxford University Press). You MUST ask yourself WHY nearly one Man in two would be involved Sexually - and lovingly - see the book and read it yourself and check out its sources. Very well written. Also read: SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE HUMAN MALE and SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE HUMAN FEMALE, by Dr. Alfred Kinsey and Associates. These have stood the test of time. Take Care, John H.


----------



## ZECH (Dec 30, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Remember this too, Christ was on this earth for 32 years and NEVER SAID ONE WORD HIMSELF EVER about Homosexuality or BiSexuality being wrong. If they were wrong HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO FOR SURE - HE NEVER DID - EVER.


So he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for the fun of it I guess?
The balls themselves were composed of pressed pure powder sulfur.  Checking with volcanic experts around the world confirmed that no where else in the world, even around volcanic activity, were any balls of this composition found.  
When the balls had fallen from heaven, they were estimated to be around 5,000 degrees Celsius (or around 9,000 degrees Fahrenheit).  After consuming everything that was around them, the heat continue to melt the ash that had formed around them, vitrifying (turning to glass) the ash.  Thus the balls were surrounded by a glassy casing of melted and re-solidified ash.

Sodom is first mentioned in connection with Lot's choosing a pleasant place to live. But the warning is given that "the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly." Gen. 13.13

A list of six "abominations" are also given in Proverbs 6: 16 - 19: 
These six things doth the LORD hate:
yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,
feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies,
and he that soweth discord among  brethren.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 30, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> They are natural variations of Sexuality like all things in life and in living - VARIETY. Each has a good and real purpose(s).



The only purpose I can see homosexuality serving is keeping the population down, which to me is a good thing.

Do I think its natural? Yes, I think its ridiculous to think someone wakes up one morning and decides to go against the grain, risk being beaten to death, and become gay. Who would choose such a thing, certainly not every single gay person out there. We are part of nature and nature is not perfect, things happen.


----------



## John H. (Dec 30, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> So he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for the fun of it I guess?
> The balls themselves were composed of pressed pure powder sulfur.  Checking with volcanic experts around the world confirmed that no where else in the world, even around volcanic activity, were any balls of this composition found.
> When the balls had fallen from heaven, they were estimated to be around 5,000 degrees Celsius (or around 9,000 degrees Fahrenheit).  After consuming everything that was around them, the heat continue to melt the ash that had formed around them, vitrifying (turning to glass) the ash.  Thus the balls were surrounded by a glassy casing of melted and re-solidified ash.
> ...


 Hi Dg. We are still learning about the Universe. There is little we actually know compared to what is out there to know. It is very possible that something catastrophic happened such as a meteor and people at the time did not understand what was happening much like the things we today do not understand - yet. People were not as knowledgeable in many ways 2,000 years ago. One thing is for sure - there were those who wanted to control others and they have always done their very best to do just that - even today. ALWAYS consider ALL INFORMATION FROM ALL SOURCES very objectively and with an open mind. And keep asking and questioning. Take Care, John H.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 30, 2003)

I guess we could argue that the Greek males were "gay" by social-choice.

As for having an open mind, that is like saying that we should question God which is a no-no IMO. The problem is, how do you know what to believe when your only accounts are left by mankind, hence my seat of the pants method.


----------



## vegepygmy (Dec 30, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> Homosexuality was not a word that was coined until 1869.  Depending on what version of the bible you read, it is not ever used.


 


> 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
> 
> Our second New Testament text is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers ??? none of these will inherit the kingdom of God."





> The remark is specifically against male prostitues, not homosexuals in general or all same sex relationships in general.  This is of course the KJV (after the New Testament was translated into greek fromhebrew, to latin , then the vulgar languages (french, spanish, italian) and finally, english.  There is still alot of room for misinterpretation.


???This is incorrect. The majority of New Testament was written in Greek. The Letters to the Corinthians, who lived in the Greek city of Corinth, are in the Greek language.  

The key word in question in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10  is ???arsenokoitai??? or ???abusers of themselves as men??? (King James)  It is a compound word consisting of Arseno ??????man or having to do with man??? and Koitai ??????coitus or sex/to bed ???. This is a basic translation, but it is helpful to look for confirmation as to the meaning in  non Christian texts.  

The term ???Arsenokoitai??? is not a new creation.  It appears in the Septuagint,  which contains the first Greek translation of  the Jewish Books of Law. These books were written by Jewish scholars  prior to the birth of Jesus, and it is quite likely that the author of letters to the Corinthians was familiar with them. The Septuagint version of Leviticus 20:13  uses the phrase ???arseno koitai??? when describing ???If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a women??????  (King James)

The books of law are very explicit and exact in this matter. Because of the clarity of the text, there is general agreement among early Jewish commentators that Leviticus 20:13 in the original Hebrew refers to sexual activity between men, and is not specifically limited to male prostitution. As a result, there is very little evidence to suggest that Corinthians has undergone misinterpretation in this matter.      

 I am unsure if this is a social/political  discussion or it is an actual debate on the correct translation of New Testament Greek???.anyway it does good to warm up before going back to school.


----------



## vegepygmy (Dec 30, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi Pepper. And "scripture" IS WRITTEN BY MEN - over 40 with over 40 different points of view. The Old Testament is nothing more than the old Jewish law books. The New Testament came after the Time of Christ. If God has something to say HE - HE - will say and NEVER ALLOW others to speak for Him.


So let???s follow the logic of this???The prophets of the old testament claimed to speak for God. Since God would never allow others to speak for him, these prophets were false and they have misled generations of people to the present day. Now hypothetically??? if God actually did appear and spoke to a group of people???could they tell others or would God not allow that? 


> Same applies with Christ. Remember this too, Christ was on this earth for 32 years and NEVER SAID ONE WORD HIMSELF EVER about Homosexuality or BiSexuality being wrong. If they were wrong HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO FOR SURE - HE NEVER DID - EVER. He said a lot of other things but NEVER said a WORD about these being wrong.


How do you know that Christ did not say anything about homosexuality? You???ve previously stated that Christ would never allow anyone to speak for him. That would include all the disciples and apostles. So you would have to discount the entire contents of the New Testament.


> Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality DO EXIST and ALWAYS HAVE in Nature and the Natural World of which we all are a part.



Many things exist in the natural world. The simple act of existence means little in determining value.


----------



## maniclion (Dec 31, 2003)

Why force someone to go against their natural feelings?  If it brings harmony to their lives then let it be.  They were born with an anomally the same as someone with a cleft palate or diabetes it's not their fault.  Men and women share the same genetic makeup, it's not uncommon for one to have attributes of another be it physical or mental.  My girlfriends brother is gay, but he appears to be very much a man he collects sports memoribilia, goes to games all of the time loves sports cars, doesn't know how to dress hell I dress better than him  Yet he knew in his early teens something was different it tore at him for years as he fought the truth about himself.  Why would "Christians" wish that pain on someone?  He loves his husband, there is love there, relationships go a lot deeper than sex.  

One other thing, do you realize how many children living in orphanages would have good homes right now if gay couples could marry and adopt?  How would you feel if your lover died suddenly and because you were never officially "together" you had no legal say so in the funeral, were left without their social security, his/her company never viewed you as a pair so the life insurance was void, etc.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 31, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by vegepygmy *_
> ???This is incorrect. The majority of New Testament was written in Greek. The Letters to the Corinthians, who lived in the Greek city of Corinth, are in the Greek language.
> 
> The key word in question in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10  is ???arsenokoitai??? or ???abusers of themselves as men??? (King James)  It is a compound word consisting of Arseno ??????man or having to do with man??? and Koitai ??????coitus or sex/to bed ???. This is a basic translation, but it is helpful to look for confirmation as to the meaning in  non Christian texts.
> ...




Very informative vege.  But once again, depending on what erudite scholars, biblical anthropolgists etc. you ask, you get a different answer...so we get back to the same circle of reasoning that all this may just be an overinterpretation.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/hom_bibh.htm


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 31, 2003)

> ???This is incorrect. The majority of New Testament was written in Greek. The Letters to the Corinthians, who lived in the Greek city of Corinth, are in the Greek language.



True, I  probably should have clarified both OT and NT, since I lump them together as * both* were mainly translated  in the 4th century by the singular work of one man ST. Jerome (although he did not translate it to english) which came later.  My main point is, there is alot of room for mistranslation in the OT just translating it from the extra step from Hebrew, to Greek, then the vulgar languages and latin (due to the efforts of one man) , in the New Testament, the concern is also that the written language (greek) was a far cry from the oral tradition (Arameic) of Jesus and his followers.   This translation from a very different oral tradition to a another written language can only be wrought with error.  I'm no greek, arameic, latin, expert but as someone whos had to learn six languages (mandarin, hindi, malay, foukien etc.) before immigrating here to America, I can tell you there are words and phrases that are totally untranslatable between many Asian and Romance languages.


----------



## John H. (Dec 31, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> I guess we could argue that the Greek males were "gay" by social-choice.
> 
> As for having an open mind, that is like saying that we should question God which is a no-no IMO. The problem is, how do you know what to believe when your only accounts are left by mankind, hence my seat of the pants method.


 Hi Mudge. I have to disagree with you somewhat Mudge. I would think God WOULD WANT us to question Him. How else would someone TRULY AND ACCURATELY KNOW about Him? He made us and He certainly understands that we would have questions. Any TRUTHFUL person or thing would WANT someone to question their truthfulness and their existance. To just "accept" is VERY DANGEROUS and VERY WRONG. After all in the end what you are really saying (meaning anyone here) is that you are willing to jusst accept what someone else just tells you without really KNOWING that what is said is truthful yourself. I go to the source whenever possible. I question everything. That IS a REAL and HONEST part of learning about anything or anyone. FIND OUT YOURSELF. NEVER allow someone else to DO your work. Here is an example, I change my own oil and filter and grease my own truck. I CAN have someone else do it for me but the ONLY way I can TRULY KNOW it was done right is to do it myself. I would like to know that I can trust people and I sure wish I could but the more I live the more I realize you have to be careful about trusting others in any way. I sure wish that was NOT the case but I am VERY WELL AWARE of what is REAL. This sounds paranoid perhaps but I can tell you I never leave up to others what I really should DO myself. I go by "gut" feelings myself - intuition I guess you can call it. It is a part of the survival of any Human Being. Something we all are given but many times do not always listen to or pay attention to and we sometimes get "burned" in that lack of focus....  Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Dec 31, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by vegepygmy *_
> So let???s follow the logic of this???The prophets of the old testament claimed to speak for God. Since God would never allow others to speak for him, these prophets were false and they have misled generations of people to the present day. Now hypothetically??? if God actually did appear and spoke to a group of people???could they tell others or would God not allow that?
> 
> How do you know that Christ did not say anything about homosexuality? You???ve previously stated that Christ would never allow anyone to speak for him. That would include all the disciples and apostles. So you would have to discount the entire contents of the New Testament.
> ...


Hi Vegepygmy. I feel that God (Whoever you or anyone else perceive Him to be) as the Creator of Man would certainly KNOW Man and Man's strengths and weaknesses and desires - especially with regard to the control of others and desire of power over others and Man's ablity - or even inability - to tell the truth. If I were God I can tell you I WOULD NEVER trust Man to speak FOR me. You can say that is my opinion but given the past practices of Man in general and to what extent Man will harm others I would think it common sense that God would NEVER allow someone else to do His talking for Him and that He WOULD SPEAK for Himself. You also must remember that before roughly 2,000 years ago this world existed for MILLIONS of years at the very least - we know that. How is it that God would choose to make His existance known for only such a relatively short time ago compared to the history of the earth and life as we know it? And to just a "few Men".... I believe God shows us everyday His existance at least in Nature and the Natural World. I believe there is more truthfulness there than anything Man has created or is "responsible for" or "not"...  The Old and the New Testament are a collection of literature - essays, poems, prose, etc. - written BY MEN - over 40 and over a long period of time with each having their thoughts on whatever. Some things written are fine some are very suspect. As is Man himself. Look at the harm that has been as a result of the Bible itself since its appearance - it was printed around 1350 AD when the printing press was invented. Look at all the bad that can be attributed to the Bible itself and those that would have others believe ALL it says is absolute. People have been murdered, killed, harmed, etc. over what people THINK the Bible "says" or "tells them is so".... God WOULD NEVER HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THAT. NO Father I know of would do that to any of His children. Not if He TRULY LOVED them. Also remember that there are THOUSANDS of religions in this world and each one has their own "ideas" about what is or is not right... RELIGION has been the very SOURCE of a lot of the BAD with regard to Man.... (Don't believe me? LEARN from its history yourself and see for yourself - sure it can be good but too often it is NOT!) You ask me how I know Christ did not say anything about Homosexuality - well I can TELL YOU that IF He DID we CERTAINLY WOULD KNOW THAT WITHOUT QUESTION given the attention "RELIGIONS" like to give this one subject. They certainly do not pay anyway near the attention to the abuse of children for whatever reason and in any capacity that they do with regard to the subject of Homosexuality. To me what two people do that are capable and agree and can give that consent freely  IS ENTIRELY UP TO THEM AND NO ONE ELSE. I really wonder why it is that religions give only lip service to the abuse of children - I am speaking of abuse in ANY FORM BY ANY ONE. But they sure have a lot to say with regard to Homosexuality - Male Homosexuality - NOT FEMALE Homosexuality. Also you speak things that exist in Nature and the Natural World and that THAT very existance means relative nothing - I TOTALLY DISAGREE. It certainly goes to its "NATURALNESS" as "religion" likes to say it is not. And that is just the "tip of the iceberg".... I FULLY APPRECIATE people wanting answers to the most important things of life and living but those who seek those answers MUST make an HONEST, SINCERE, ACCURATE, COMPLETE, etc. EFFORT and utilize ALL SOURCES FOR ALL INFORMATION and that is a life-long persuit. RELIGION certainly by itself doesn't even come close to answering much - at least NOT TRUTHFULLY AND ACCURATELY. Religion more often than not just gives "convenient" answers that do not have much in the way of fact or accuracy - mostly just "thoughts of some" or even "whim".  I am NOT trying to be disrespectful to any in any form their past practices are what earns them anothers respect or not.  Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Dec 31, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> True, I  probably should have clarified both OT and NT, since I lump them together as * both* were mainly translated  in the 4th century by the singular work of one man ST. Jerome (although he did not translate it to english) which came later.  My main point is, there is alot of room for mistranslation in the OT just translating it from the extra step from Hebrew, to Greek, then the vulgar languages and latin (due to the efforts of one man) , in the New Testament, the concern is also that the written language (greek) was a far cry from the oral tradition (Arameic) of Jesus and his followers.   This translation from a very different oral tradition to a another written language can only be wrought with error.  I'm no greek, arameic, latin, expert but as someone whos had to learn six languages (mandarin, hindi, malay, foukien etc.) before immigrating here to America, I can tell you there are words and phrases that are totally untranslatable between many Asian and Romance languages.


Hi Bandaid. You "hit the nail right on the head" - MAN WROTE,  MAN TRANSLATED. ANYONE MUST CONSIDER the background of those Men. WHO they actually were and what kind of Men they REALLY WERE. That goes to the heart of anything they would subsequently do or not and how truthful and honest and sincere and accurate they would be. Anything MAN is involved in MUST BE SUSPECT because MAN IS SUSPECT. MAN does have alterior motives for anything he does. Some things good some things not so good. Look at and learn from the history of Man you will see why and what I speak of. Man does not have a very good track record with regard to treating his fellow Man very well at all.... RELIGION more often than not is BEHIND IT ALL. The desire of some to control all others - it IS the money, position and power - just like politics.... Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Dec 31, 2003)

*Intelligent DISCUSSION*

I want to THANK those that are adding their thoughts here INTELLIGENTLY and DISCUSSING this subject from all points of view and that so far this has not turned into just another "flame-fest". My intention IS DISCUSSION and hopefully UNDERSTANDING about each of these forms of Sexuality. UNDERSTANDING each of them TRUTHFULLY AND ACCURATELY without regard to prejudice, hatred, bigotry, etc. UNDERSTANDING. It is NOT MY INTENTION by posting this thread to "convert anyone"!!! That can never happen. YOU ARE WHO GOD MADE YOU - even with regard to your Sexuality which IS a PART of who you are and AS BORN. NO ONE "chooses" their Sexuality. No one "chooses" the color of their skin, etc. ... Thanks for being "adult" and thanks for being Men and Women in this discussion. THAT IS my purpose - DISCUSSION AND UNDERSTANDING - ACCURATELY AND HONESTLY AND COMPLETELY. Then maybe we can move on to other subjects. This is a basic subject which NEEDS HONESTY AND ACCURACY AND UNDERSTANDING.  Take Care, John H.


----------



## Pepper (Dec 31, 2003)

JohnH,

What is your basis for saying the God, the Creator, would want the created to question Him? I find many of the comments about God in this thread to be totally unsupportable and therefore nothing but opinion.

A religion based on what you or I think is simply NOTHING. These comments may sound reasonable but they are worthless because humans are just thinking them up.

The Scriptures tell us what God "thinks" and how we should live. This is a solid foundation for a system of beliefs. What I think is reasonable is irrelevant. I am the creature, the Creator sets the rules.


----------



## greekblondechic (Dec 31, 2003)

Hey guys.. I speak Greek, but not ancient Greek.. Sorry...

Bandaid is right tho, you cant always literally translate between two languages, I find myself having this problem all the time when I try to explain a Greek phrase to my American friends or vice versa.  Regardless, Ancient Greek is exactly as stated..Ancient.. nobody speaks it anymore, people just study it, so that makes defining the meanings even harder

Furthermore..as a communication student let me add that "meanings are in people" this means that words themselves do not mean anything until people attach meaning to them because they are simply symbols or representations of, you dont know DOG means dog unless somebody tells you, because there is nothing inherent about the three letter word which means dog, it is simply the commonly attached meaning.. Therefore, the word Dog can just as easily have another meaning
Just something to think about thats all...


----------



## Rocco32 (Dec 31, 2003)

My wife knows greek


----------



## Mudge (Dec 31, 2003)

No no, thats just woman talk, thats all. 

Do the dishes is not Greek!


----------



## Rocco32 (Dec 31, 2003)

LOL, funny man!

If I choose not to understand, it's greek to me!


----------



## Mudge (Dec 31, 2003)

I dont know if Russian uses the full Greek alphabet, but Russian alpha is Greek based and 33 friggin characters.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 31, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by greekblondechic *_
> Hey guys.. I speak Greek, but not ancient Greek.. Sorry...
> 
> Bandaid is right tho, you cant always literally translate between two languages, I find myself having this problem all the time when I try to explain a Greek phrase to my American friends or vice versa.  Regardless, Ancient Greek is exactly as stated..Ancient.. nobody speaks it anymore, people just study it, so that makes defining the meanings even harder
> ...



That is a very interesting post, greek....it made me think about the ways in which animals sounds are heard and reproduced in different cultures. For example, when we hear a dog bark, we translate that sound differently and reproduce it in a variation of how, say, a Chinese person would reproduce the same bark.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 31, 2003)

I used to think about that, an interesting point.


----------



## firestorm (Dec 31, 2003)

All I know about animal sounds...and this is a TRUE story is last night at work I walked outside to get some air.  I hear some birds whistling so I decided to speak to them in their native tounge with some whistles back at them.  Next thing ya know, one comes swooping down out of the trees and buzzed right by my head.  I suppose I must have called him something pretty damn bad in bird talk.  (notice no hahahahas after that post??)  True story.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 31, 2003)

Well damn, Firestorm...you were probably imitating a mating call and the bird was swoopin' on you for invading his territory!

Of course, you could have been answering the mating call too.....hehehehehe...

I'll have to dig around later tonight and see if I can find that web site...there's one for kids with a few animal sounds and how they are heard in a few different languages...

ahh...here's one of those sites...I should test it to see how it works..

http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ballc/animals/animals.html


----------



## firestorm (Dec 31, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> Well damn, Firestorm...you were probably imitating a mating call and the bird was swoopin' on you for invading his territory!
> 
> Of course, you could have been answering the mating call too.....hehehehehe...
> ...



Cool I'll check it out. not for kids only ya know I'd be out side trying them.


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 31, 2003)

That one kinda sux....here's a better one...well, more interactive for our forum level...hehehe...

http://www.flat33.com/bzzzpeek/html/bzzzpeek.html

This took a couple of minutes for me to load, but I'm on a dialup...it's pretty cool, actually - just click on an animal and it will give you sounds in different languages.


----------



## firestorm (Dec 31, 2003)

Thanks buddy!!!!
I can't wait to play


----------



## heeholler (Dec 31, 2003)

Cool!


----------



## firestorm (Dec 31, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> That one kinda sux....here's a better one...well, more interactive for our forum level...hehehe...
> 
> http://www.flat33.com/bzzzpeek/html/bzzzpeek.html
> ...



Oh man I thought there would be real animal sounds. There are people doing the sounds.  booo


----------



## kbm8795 (Dec 31, 2003)

oops..sorry about that...it's supposed to be people making animal sounds...using different languages! hahahaha...

The idea is that the same kind of animal will make the same sound in different cultures, but people who speak different languages process the sound and reproduce it differently. 

Sorry...I shoulda figured you were looking for some more mating calls to mimic....we'll have to start calling you "king of the New Jersey Jungle."


----------



## rburton (Jan 1, 2004)

Even though I agree with the Christian/Biblical view about homosexuality, many individuals do not consider that homosexuality is a genetic abberation, which means that with exceptions, it is a personal choice. That is, according to evolutionary theory, a species survives because of its ability to adapt to a given environment. Unless a genetic abberation (i.e., a genetic mutation), how is it that homosexuality exists, since homosexuals can not reproduce naturally (not withstanding contemporary medical science, which has existed for only the past 30-40 years)?


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 1, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by rburton *_
> Even though I agree with the Christian/Biblical view about homosexuality, many individuals do not consider that homosexuality is a genetic abberation, which means that with exceptions, it is a personal choice. That is, according to evolutionary theory, a species survives because of its ability to adapt to a given environment. Unless a genetic abberation (i.e., a genetic mutation), how is it that homosexuality exists, since homosexuals can not reproduce naturally (not withstanding contemporary medical science, which has existed for only the past 30-40 years)?




Although some homosexuality may be a choice most are not.  Most physicians ( who are privey to such personal histories ) will tell you most homosexuals knew they were homosexual at a very young age, many prepubescently.  

With that said, is there a genetic predispostion or some other physical factor that influences homosexuality?

  To isolate a gene for homosexuality is probably as fallacious as isolating a gene for intelligence, there probably is not one singular gene that affects such complex biological/social behavior.  

However, nature has provided us with a wonderful natural experiment called congenital adrenal hyperplasia where these women (depending on the study, have almost 60% homosexuality rate.)  These women produce high testosterone while in the womb due to a enzyme defect in their adrenal glands and sometimes long after birth if not detected in time.  Usually it is easily corrected with medicines..




http://www.boskydell.com/political/outlooks.htm
http://health.ftmaustralia.org/library/96/1200.pdf

general lecture in reproductive medicine on 
CAH http://home.epix.net/~tcannon1/Physioweek9.htm

Thus, it shows that the hormonal environment of the fetus may affect the sexual identity of a person.   We don't have such a natural experiment in men with the exception of something called complete androgen insensitivity syndrome where these are genetic males born with completely perfect external female genitalia and breast and develop into attractive females who can't reproduce of course.  Many go on to  marry men.  (technically they are gay?...genetic males having sexuall relationships with males.)  However, it really isn't fair because their male hormones don't work at all (because they lack all testosterone receptors).  


__________________


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 1, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Pepper *_
> This post...I have to say that I 100% disagree with it. Scripture was inspired by God. He speaks through the scriptures.



Sorry, I have to disagree too.  They actually found written text by Jesus, but the church won't put it in the bible because it is different than what is currently written.


----------



## vegepygmy (Jan 2, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> Very informative vege.  But once again, depending on what erudite scholars, biblical anthropolgists etc. you ask, you get a different answer...so we get back to the same circle of reasoning that all this may just be an overinterpretation.
> 
> http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/hom_bibh.htm


I have followed the link you provided to the world policy website. It seems to be primarily based on the writings of Boswell, of which numerous critiques exists.  I think it would be very safe to say  that  many Jewish scholars would strongly disagree with the website???s translation and interpretation of the books of law.


----------



## vegepygmy (Jan 2, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> True, I  probably should have clarified both OT and NT, since I lump them together as * both* were mainly translated  in the 4th century by the singular work of one man ST. Jerome (although he did not translate it to english) which came later.  My main point is, there is alot of room for mistranslation in the OT just translating it from the extra step from Hebrew, to Greek, then the vulgar languages and latin (due to the efforts of one man) , in the New Testament, the concern is also that the written language (greek) was a far cry from the oral tradition (Arameic) of Jesus and his followers.   This translation from a very different oral tradition to a another written language can only be wrought with error.  I'm no greek, arameic, latin, expert but as someone whos had to learn six languages (mandarin, hindi, malay, foukien etc.) before immigrating here to America, I can tell you there are words and phrases that are totally untranslatable between many Asian and Romance languages.


The question is not a general one about whether mistakes can occur in the act of translation. It is specific. Did mistakes in the translation occur in the old and new testament  and  if so what are they?  Manuscripts of  the old & new testaments in their original languages still exist. Comparative reference can be made to them. The weight of the evidence would suggest that there has been no mistranslation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10  (KJV).


----------



## vegepygmy (Jan 2, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi Vegepygmy. I feel that God (Whoever you or anyone else perceive Him to be) as the Creator of Man would certainly KNOW Man and Man's strengths and weaknesses and desires - especially with regard to the control of others and desire of power over others and Man's ablity - or even inability - to tell the truth. If I were God I can tell you I WOULD NEVER trust Man to speak FOR me. You can say that is my opinion but given the past practices of Man in general and to what extent Man will harm others I would think it common sense that God would NEVER allow someone else to do His talking for Him and that He WOULD SPEAK for Himself.


Hi John
You seem to be stating that you do not trust people and since you do not , you think it unlikely that God would trust people also. He would never allow any human to speak in his name.  Therefore if God (if he existed) had something to say, he would have to personal say it to you and every person on earth.  And since he has not, all the religions of the world are false. Resulting in there being no religious basis for criticism of homosexuality. 

 This seems to be a version of ???If I haven???t seen it or heard it, it does not exist???.  


> Also you speak things that exist in Nature and the Natural World and that THAT very existance means relative nothing - I TOTALLY DISAGREE. It certainly goes to its "NATURALNESS" as "religion" likes to say it is not. And that is just the "tip of the iceberg"....


The ???natural world??? is not a utopia. Incest, rape, slavery, and necrophilia occurs within nature. Should they serve as models for human behaviour?


----------



## Mudge (Jan 2, 2004)

Yep, Kuso posted the article about a duck who raped the carcass of a fellow male duck for over an hour.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 3, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by vegepygmy *_
> .  I think it would be very safe to say  that  many Jewish scholars would strongly disagree with the website???s translation and interpretation of the books of law.




Of course they do, they do it all the time, it's called the Talmudic tradition...the Talmud is hundreds of volumes of jewish scholars arguing about the intrepretaion of the books of law.   Even those most erudite in the language of Hebrew can't come up with a general consensus for what all the Hebrew laws mean.  In fact, it is this dissent of opinion that makes it so silly that they would be in any way threatened by a radical rabbi such as Jesus who came along and offered a different interpretation .  Once again, do we see the Jewish community rallying against homosexuality like the Christian community? No.  Perhaps it's because they understand what these laws in Leviticus, etc. mean to a greater extent than we do...afterall, Rabbinic , Talmudic tradition is to question and read these laws in their original language.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 3, 2004)

As for natural being good or bad, that is once again interpretation by humans.  I bring the natural argument (as well as the above post on congenital adrenal hyperplasia) to show that this is not a choice that most homosexuals make.  This is probably a behavior that has a biological basis.  Part of the condemnation of homosexuals seems to be based on this "other half" of the equation.

Let's also remember that it is not "natural"for man to fly, drive a vehicle at 80 mph, etc. etc.  We should all live like Mennonites.  


Is it  good to put faith in mankind as a recepticle of God's word?   because  we come back to which was the correct transmission of God's words and thoughts, the Old Testament, New Testament, or the Quran?  This infallibility of "God's word" is no less for those who follow the Quran.  Which half is right, the Judeao-Christian or Islamic?


----------



## John H. (Jan 3, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by vegepygmy *_
> Hi John
> You seem to be stating that you do not trust people and since you do not , you think it unlikely that God would trust people also. He would never allow any human to speak in his name.  Therefore if God (if he existed) had something to say, he would have to personal say it to you and every person on earth.  And since he has not, all the religions of the world are false. Resulting in there being no religious basis for criticism of homosexuality.
> 
> ...


 Hi Vegepygmy. I think I have damn good reason not to trust unless it is earned by others. I have lived long enough to learn what many people are capable of doing or not doing. If we can all agree that God made Man and that God is ALL knowing, powerful, etc. then we also must agree that God KNOWS Man and what Man is capable of doing or not doing. I can not see why God FOR ANY REASON would trust Man to speak FOR Him at any time. Certainly I would never allow someone to speak FOR me on matters I would feel are of ANY importance. I WOULD DO MY OWN TALKING. Religions ARE Man-made - each one. There are thousands of religions each with their own beliefs. All are, in an effort to come up with some kind of "answer" to the most pressing and important questions of life and living, suspect. When you involve Man in that with regard to people's NEED to KNOW many are very suspect and unscrupulous. To see the truthfulness in my statements STUDY the history of religions completely, accurately, honestly. And the people associated with them. I wish I did not have to say this but what I have said IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. Sure there are SOME people involved in religion that are good and fine but the sum total of them is NOT GOOD. For a "religion" to say that Homosexuality is wrong and for that "religion" to follow "God" and IF God NEVER SAID - and He NEVER DID EVER - then that religion is postulizing and diseminating information that is FALSE. "Religion" is claiming that Homosexuality is wrong and unnatural when IN FACT it exists in Nature and the Natural World and always has. If GOD NEVER SAID ONE WORD and CHRIST NEVER SAID ONE WORD - and THEY NEVER DID - then you MUST ask yourself WHY then would "religion" "say" it is wrong? WHERE is the BASIS for that conclusion? I can tell you that in my research that religions have always fought with each other - to the death of its members - over who's religion was the "right" "religion" and who's was not. There were religious "holy wars". Even today religions fight with each other - for money, position and power over others. In order to replenish the "supply of Men" to fight these wars they NEED Men to "procreate" other additional people - thus the ORIGIN of the prohibition of Homosexuality. That prohibition HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRUTHFULNESS AND RIGHTNESS of that VARIATION of Sexuality. Take Care, John H.


----------



## Mudge (Jan 3, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> Let's also remember that it is not "natural"for man to fly, drive a vehicle at 80 mph, etc. etc. We should all live like Mennonites.



It would certainly remove a great deal of distractions from life. Technology, both friend and foe.


----------



## firestorm (Jan 3, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> oops..sorry about that...it's supposed to be people making animal sounds...using different languages! hahahaha...
> 
> The idea is that the same kind of animal will make the same sound in different cultures, but people who speak different languages process the sound and reproduce it differently.
> ...



hahahaha  yea you got it. I was looking for pointers on how to talk to that damn bird out front!!!


----------



## firestorm (Jan 3, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi Vegepygmy. I think I have damn good reason not to trust unless it is earned by others. I have lived long enough to learn what many people are capable of doing or not doing. If we can all agree that God made Man and that God is ALL knowing, powerful, etc. then we also must agree that God KNOWS Man and what Man is capable of doing or not doing. I can not see why God FOR ANY REASON would trust Man to speak FOR Him at any time. Certainly I would never allow someone to speak FOR me on matters I would feel are of ANY importance. I WOULD DO MY OWN TALKING. Religions ARE Man-made - each one. There are thousands of religions each with their own beliefs. All are, in an effort to come up with some kind of "answer" to the most pressing and important questions of life and living, suspect. When you involve Man in that with regard to people's NEED to KNOW many are very suspect and unscrupulous. To see the truthfulness in my statements STUDY the history of religions completely, accurately, honestly. And the people associated with them. I wish I did not have to say this but what I have said IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. Sure there are SOME people involved in religion that are good and fine but the sum total of them is NOT GOOD. For a "religion" to say that Homosexuality is wrong and for that "religion" to follow "God" and IF God NEVER SAID - and He NEVER DID EVER - then that religion is postulizing and diseminating information that is FALSE. "Religion" is claiming that Homosexuality is wrong and unnatural when IN FACT it exists in Nature and the Natural World and always has. If GOD NEVER SAID ONE WORD and CHRIST NEVER SAID ONE WORD - and THEY NEVER DID - then you MUST ask yourself WHY then would "religion" "say" it is wrong? WHERE is the BASIS for that conclusion? I can tell you that in my research that religions have always fought with each other - to the death of its members - over who's religion was the "right" "religion" and who's was not. There were religious "holy wars". Even today religions fight with each other - for money, position and power over others. In order to replenish the "supply of Men" to fight these wars they NEED Men to "procreate" other additional people - thus the ORIGIN of the prohibition of Homosexuality. That prohibition HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRUTHFULNESS AND RIGHTNESS of that VARIATION of Sexuality. Take Care, John H.


*********************************

Soo I think we can safely assumet John H is a homosexual.  lol   
Not laughing at you JohnH just laughing because we never saw you before and your 1st post is a podium standing Gay proclomation.  I just found it amusing as a way to start on a bodybuilding board.

No matter, right or wrong, Gay or straight, I DO believe however that God loves everyone if that is of any consequence.  I love everyone too until they piss me off. lol


----------



## John H. (Jan 4, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by vegepygmy *_
> Hi John
> You seem to be stating that you do not trust people and since you do not , you think it unlikely that God would trust people also. He would never allow any human to speak in his name.  Therefore if God (if he existed) had something to say, he would have to personal say it to you and every person on earth.  And since he has not, all the religions of the world are false. Resulting in there being no religious basis for criticism of homosexuality.
> 
> ...


  Hi Vegepygmy. I forgot to add to your last paragraph my reply regarding incest, slavery, etc. - we are speaking about Homosexuality and BiSexuality - the LOVING of another honestly people who AGREE and are able to agree with any Sexual acts that may occcur because of that LOVE of each other. Incest, rape, slavery, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. IF you want to include these things then you MUST also remember that HETEROSEXUAL people are also guilty of incest, rape, slavery, etc. So does that then mean that ALL people are bad and horrible - no - it means SOME are. I am speaking to the subject(s) of Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality as VARIATIONS of Sexuality in LOVING relationships by people who are of age and ability of consent and freely give that consent that SINCERELY CARE ABOUT EACH OTHER. A person's personal life and who they choose to live that with ARE THEIR BUSINESS ONLY and NOT that of you, me, or anyone else, religion, government, etc. It IS PRIVATE AND PERSONAL - PERIOD. If God NEVER said and Christ NEVER said ONE THING about any of these variations - AND THEY NEVER DID - then NO MAN has ANY RIGHT WHATSOEVER to become involved in anyone's personal relationship. See what I am saying? Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Jan 4, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by firestorm *_
> *********************************
> 
> Soo I think we can safely assumet John H is a homosexual.  lol
> ...


  Hi Firestorm. No I am not a Homosexual. I am Bisexual. Each VARIATION is that - a variation of Sexuality. A Gift from God. Very natural and right as is the color of a person's skin. As to this being my first post, I think I wrote on something else before (can't remember right now what) and then saw this on the Board and thought I'd speak to this subject. I look at all things and whatever I feel like responding to at that moment I let my thoughts be known and move on to other subjects too. There seemed to be a lot of attention on this subject here so I put my "two cents" into the ring.... I hope I have not pissed you off for any reason - that IS NEVER my intention....  TDGC, John H.


----------



## John H. (Jan 4, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> It would certainly remove a great deal of distractions from life. Technology, both friend and foe.


 Hi Mudge. Boy isn't that the TRUTH!!!!!!!!  TDGC, John H.


----------



## firestorm (Jan 4, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi Firestorm. No I am not a Homosexual. I am Bisexual. Each VARIATION is that - a variation of Sexuality. A Gift from God. Very natural and right as is the color of a person's skin. As to this being my first post, I think I wrote on something else before (can't remember right now what) and then saw this on the Board and thought I'd speak to this subject. I look at all things and whatever I feel like responding to at that moment I let my thoughts be known and move on to other subjects too. There seemed to be a lot of attention on this subject here so I put my "two cents" into the ring.... I hope I have not pissed you off for any reason - that IS NEVER my intention....  TDGC, John H.



Piss me off?? Oh hell no man. If you knew me you would know my sense of humor.  I am harmless.  No man you post whatever suits your fancy.  That is the good thing about America they haven't banned free speech "yet".  But give them time they ban everything.  lol   Take care and your honestly is commendable even though it wasn't a question beckoning an answer regarding your sexuality.  Nobodys business but your own.  I was only beeing me,,,,goofy.  
Fire


----------



## Mudge (Jan 4, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi Mudge. Boy isn't that the TRUTH!!!!!!!!  TDGC, John H.



I work with technology and I still believe in this. We stupid enough to not see how we ruin things except in hindsight, and yet we are smart enough to create things to ruin our lives with 

Technology itself isn't bad of course, but humans are weak, and look what has happened to us today. Now of course many people dont see anything wrong with todays life, nor our population numbers - but I think with what we have done to the planet it shows we are too numerous for the good of earth.

I'm no hippy, and I love cars and other stuff too, but I still dont think too highly of humans at large.


----------



## John H. (Jan 5, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by firestorm *_
> Piss me off?? Oh hell no man. If you knew me you would know my sense of humor.  I am harmless.  No man you post whatever suits your fancy.  That is the good thing about America they haven't banned free speech "yet".  But give them time they ban everything.  lol   Take care and your honestly is commendable even though it wasn't a question beckoning an answer regarding your sexuality.  Nobodys business but your own.  I was only beeing me,,,,goofy.
> Fire


 Hi Firestorm. It is really refreshing to have people you can talk to and have them actually listen to what you have to say without any bull or flaming or childishness. You are an adult and very mature and have an open mind and think very objectively. That IS DAMN GOOD!!! Too bad more people are not like you. As for America, I feel many are thinking that ONLY what THEY have to say is what "is allowed" to be said - see other Boards and see the bigotry and hatred that exists - and more often than not from people who would have you or I believe they are "christian". DAMN GLAD to know ya in some way.... TDGC, John H.


----------



## John H. (Jan 5, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> I work with technology and I still believe in this. We stupid enough to not see how we ruin things except in hindsight, and yet we are smart enough to create things to ruin our lives with
> 
> Technology itself isn't bad of course, but humans are weak, and look what has happened to us today. Now of course many people dont see anything wrong with todays life, nor our population numbers - but I think with what we have done to the planet it shows we are too numerous for the good of earth.
> ...


 Hi Mudge. AMEN!!!!!!! I'd like to go back to the pioneer days - but I would like to have a washer and a dryer (for clothes) (I like being clean - Oh I can get very dirty working construction and farming but I NEED clean clothes after)  and a refrigerator. And even a stove - and a furnace to heat the house - but other than that I would like to live back then... Today there ARE too many people and the land is being ruined just to mention a few things....   TDGC, John H.


----------



## firestorm (Jan 5, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi Firestorm. It is really refreshing to have people you can talk to and have them actually listen to what you have to say without any bull or flaming or childishness. You are an adult and very mature and have an open mind and think very objectively. That IS DAMN GOOD!!! Too bad more people are not like you. As for America, I feel many are thinking that ONLY what THEY have to say is what "is allowed" to be said - see other Boards and see the bigotry and hatred that exists - and more often than not from people who would have you or I believe they are "christian". DAMN GLAD to know ya in some way.... TDGC, John H.


Pleasure is all mine. I also enjoy open adult communication even if 2 people cannot agree.  It's all good my man.  You are who you are and I applaud your openess and ability to excercise your right to freedom of speech.  Good for you and I have nothing but respect for you.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jan 5, 2004)

Well, I'll have to kick my two cents here too, John - I really admire you for sticking your neck out like this....and, for what it's worth, it's sure made me look at some stuff about what the Bible says and doesn't say, so it's helped me along as well. Fact is, many of the things you say I tend to agree with, mostly because what I find is that the biblical whining is so centered on one kind of behavior that it can't, in my mind, be something that is straight from God. 
I tend to think people prefer latching onto hate when it concerns something they have always known they aren't - it's much easier to point fingers than to look in the mirror, despite numerous biblical verses that remind people to think about their own "sins." 
I'm sure it's been hard enough for you to handle the reality of your own feelings, especially with so much of that hate out there, but it makes you a bigger man then those who jump on any bandwagon in order to cover up their own insecurities.

I've seen some degree of suffering among people who have been ostracized, lost their homes or jobs, and have been physically or verbally abused. Of course that doesn't come from certain groups of Christians, but I don't think they realize how easily they expose their own sinful nature when those statements have harmed someone.  It's a very big world out there, and it's difficult as it is to be fortunate enough to love anyone at all. And in my mind, God's eyes have to be more plased that you find that rather than to live in misery and self-fear. 

There was one website I looked at...a series of remarks and observations written by the wife of a conservative Christian minister. She is the first one I've seen who actually questioned the way people are treated about sexuality. If you'd like to look at those (some are long, but very nice personal narratives), they are located at: 

http://www.musingson.com

The second one was very touching - it concerned an online friend of hers who died. He was a conservative Christian, and even though he had made his life celibate because of the depth he believed his sin to be, other members of the Church still attacked him. It's a very moving narrative..but the author used his story to raise very good questions about the overzealous, political attitudes of the Church. 

By the way, thank you for the kind words about my friends in the gay marriage thread....I still think of them often, and I still get angry about the way they were treated by others. If the truth be told, that kind of treatment of others by "christians" is one reason I've stayed away from church. I dont' need a minister to rage political dogma at me - God never intended for any particular Church to regulate the state (a basic foundational principle of our nation) but to celebrate and keep the covenant each of them makes with Him for the hereafter. I believe that I read somewhere that Jesus walked with the harlots and the downtrodden and often frowned upon public officials who sought to instill their own interpretation of righteousness.

Geez....and to think I've spent years avoiding reading much of this stuff...lol.


----------



## firestorm (Jan 5, 2004)

I think it is safe to say that KMG is also gay. hahahahaha   Just kidding man I just said that to John so I said it to you too for posting that little book of yours above. hahahahahaha

After reading your book one thing stood out "to me":

"it's much easier to point fingers than to look in the mirror, despite numerous biblical verses that remind people to think about their own "sins."

That basically sums up a hell of alot about people.  Take me for example.  If I were to say, I hate homos, dikes queers gays homosexuals whatever,,,, and said I did so because my religion says it's a sin.  I would in turn be "sinning" within the rules of my own religion because Catholics are not to hate others or to be cruel with such name calling as I used above.  so one sin justifies another??  Not where I come from.   
I have said I believe homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church but I have never prejuduced myself from a homosexual.  In doing so and knowing I break one of the 10 commandments almost every day of my life expecially the   "thou shalt not use the lords name in vain" would make me one dumb ass hypocrite don't ya think?   
In closing it is my belief People HAVE THE RIGHT TO JUDGE as long as the person being JUDGED is themself.   Now...can I get an Amen?  lol


----------



## Mudge (Jan 5, 2004)

John, what is that saying - "idle hands do the devil's work" ?


----------



## Pepper (Jan 6, 2004)

Yes, Jesus walked with all sorts of people, but He did not condone their behavior.

Homosexuality is clearly a sin. All sex outside of marriage is a sin and marriage is defined to be between a man and a woman. Identifying behavior as sin is not being judgemental. I have PLENTY of sin in my life. I am in no position to judge.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jan 6, 2004)

ahh...now firestorm, ya shouldn't have made that statement about homosexuality....hahahaha. I can tell ya that once, when I stood up for this effeminate little guy when I was working at the phone company (he was constantly being humiliated and called names - the kid was treated like some pariah, and this was back in the early 1980's.) I started getting called the same thing. ...the guilt by association complex. The second person who made that remark happened to be a manager, and when he made an off-the-cuff nasty remark directed at me, I calmly took out the company's human resources guide and picked up the phone (right in front of him) and told the head of human resources I was prepared to file a complaint and seek civil redress. Right in front of that asshole, I quoted his remark, told the shocked H.R. person that failure to provide a safe working environment meant an additional state complaint regarding ability to provide service to all customers in the community (utilities were regulated monopolies then). That manager's face got real pale....real fast. His sorry butt was dragged to the state corporate headquarters...and he never said another degrading word about that kid. Funny how "open minded" some people can get when they are faced with losing something themselves.  

I think it's just generally in my nature to look at situations a bit differently, partly because of my own history as a journalist and my own experiences watching the politicization of some christian churches. There isn't anything wrong with christians participating in the political process, of course, but that isn't supposed to be their spiritual focus, in my opinion...though this nation has had a history of involvement by religious sects in everything from the civil rights movement to the current "culture wars." At the same time, their influence has helped this nation develop a sense of consciousness about many things, including providing some foundation for social and moral philosophy. They have also been destructive and philosophically competitive.

But it doesn't mean that those who aren't members of their Church can't be equal citizens of this country, or that true religious practices are limited to some self-defined "semi-official" dogma directed by one particular religious belief. I always get suspicious of groups who conveniently skirt and minimize punishment and education about "sins" that they themselves commit. 

I just think that the whole "sexuality by choice" argument is about the stupidest thing I've heard some churches crow about. I've never heard heterosexual men recount the day that they made a "choice" to be aroused by a woman, and none of them refer to biblical verses as the motivation that made them make such a "choice" when they reached puberty. 

Images of reality are fluid. Slavery was justified and supported by some churches for years, and some were against providing any civil rights to women, all using biblical quotes to support the policies. Just the other day, I watched a conservative minister on television rail about how we were founded as a "Christian" nation, recounting the settlement of America and the references to God in the English charters granting the right to settle here. What he didn't dwell on was that there were already indigenous people here, though he dismissed them as "people who lived in darkness." And since this wasn't England, I'm sure the native humans didn't think we were so christian by taking over their lands. Of course, then there is Pat Robertson, who immediately blamed 9/11 on homosexuals and feminists, claiming that God was punishing America. And how about that amazing display of christian love by Rev. Fred Phelps, who not only picketed Matthew Sheperd's funeral but has threatened lawsuits because he wants to erect a "memorial" to the kid in a public park with the guys face and the statement of the date he entered "hell" for not heeding God's "warning" about being homosexual. (This was the young college student who was murdered and tied to a fence in Wyoming a few years ago.) Even when John Kennedy ran for President back in 1960, Protestant groups in this country aired fears that he, because of his Catholic faith, would be beholden to the Pope in making American policy. 

One would think, that after so many religious lectures about the historical persecution of Christians in Rome, that they would have learned a few things about persecuting others. The real crime to me are those who use God and Christianity as an excuse to gleefully harm others and spread fear and paranoia. They end up giving other Christians a bad name, obstruct the mission of bringing God to those who haven't learned that it's not all about hatred, and, in my opinion, make Satan awfully happy.


----------



## John H. (Jan 6, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by firestorm *_
> Pleasure is all mine. I also enjoy open adult communication even if 2 people cannot agree.  It's all good my man.  You are who you are and I applaud your openess and ability to excercise your right to freedom of speech.  Good for you and I have nothing but respect for you.


 Hi Firestorm. Thanks A LOT!!! I see absolutely nothing wrong with TALKING to each other (meaning anyone) about ANYTHING - afterall, we all ARE Adults aren't we - if we can not talk about "whatever" WHO CAN? Do we have to have someone's "permission" to even attempt to speak? I AM a MAN - a REAL MAN in the REAL SENSE. BIGTIME. NOT bragging, just saying. I work with other Men all the time all day long in construction and in farming. People that KNOW me KNOW me and have nothing against me. When I have tried to BE HONEST and SINCERE and COMPLETE on another Board I got banned without any explanation or even any warning as to what it was I was supposed to be doing wrong. I thought I was speaking to and with MATURE people but if you read what is said about me you will see their is a real lack of any maturity in their posts... I do not slam or disrespect others - UNLESS they really get me pissed off and I will eventually respond to that if I feel it would be of any help to straightening them out - NOT that I am "so perfect"... I sincerely hope we will always be able to speak to each other MAN TO MAN about ANYTHING. I look foreword to speaking to you about "whatever" in the future!! MOST SINCERELY, John H.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jan 6, 2004)

Pepper, I'm a bit unclear about this.....since marriage isn't an institution created by God, but by the Church. I might be wrong, since I'm not a biblical scholar, but it seems to me that, according to creationists, woman was created as a companion, not a sexual object. Procreation became a punishment for sin committed in the Garden of Eden, and pain multiplied for the woman (thus being assigned childbirth). Does this mean that heterosexuality was itself born from sin? 

I honestly don't have any problem with your interpretation of the Bible regarding homosexuality. What I do have a problem with is how religious groups demand social punishment for those people that are compounded way beyond any institutional punishment administered to those who, for example, commit heterosexual "abominations". Marriage in many churches is defined as being between a Man and a Woman and is currently sanctified by state law. Many, by the way, does not mean ALL. 

Even then, if we take teachings literally, those same churches cannot re-marry a Man or a woman who has been divorced unless it was because of adultery. In fact, historically, the institution of marriage in some religious cultures, didn't involve individuals making choices, but "arrangements" by families and communities that were sanctioned by the Church. Other churches refused, for many years, to allow marriage, for example, between a White woman and a Black man. That belief was thrust into many state laws. 

Obviously, there are practical reasons why the State performs marriages outside of the religious community and some churches, in turn, refuse to "recognize" those marriages. If the State chooses to recognize a same-sex couple in marriage, how does that affect the Church? Can no one ever be married unless it is recognized by every Church in the country? Of course they can - the interest of the State in promoting marriage has similarities but also practical differences than the motivation of certain religious doctrine.

I'm not sure where the Bible makes any reference to monogamous relationships between committed same-sex couples. It makes sexual behavioral references, but not in the context of relationships, and they appear to be (from my own limited reading) comparative to similar behavior by heterosexuals outside of relationships. I thought, actually, there were descriptions of many close relationships between persons of the same sex but nothing that indicates those included sexual intimacy. Given my limited study of the Bible, does this mean there are erotic, involved descriptions of sexual intimacy expressed by monogamous heterosexual relationships beyond statements of procreation?

There are about a dozen or so negative passages referring to homosexuality in the Bible....and dozens of passages referring to other sins committed by the rest of us every day. The difference is in the level of social condemnation, the denial of rights in employment, housing and other areas, and verbal and physical abuse and punishment on a much larger scale than say, certain heterosexual sins.  

I think you are right that Jesus' walking with harlots and the downtrodden didn't alleviate their sins, but then, it didn't absolve the sins of the "righteous" who condemned those people, either.


----------



## Mudge (Jan 6, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> I just think that the whole "sexuality by choice" argument is about the stupidest thing I've heard some churches crow about. I've never heard heterosexual men recount the day that they made a "choice" to be aroused by a woman, and none of them refer to biblical verses as the motivation that made them make such a "choice" when they reached puberty.



Talk about ridiculous, and further, people dont need to grow up being called FREAKS all thier f#cking lives. Wether they dont have an arm or wether they prefer to sleep with people of the same sex, leave them the f#ck alone.


----------



## John H. (Jan 6, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> Well, I'll have to kick my two cents here too, John - I really admire you for sticking your neck out like this....and, for what it's worth, it's sure made me look at some stuff about what the Bible says and doesn't say, so it's helped me along as well. Fact is, many of the things you say I tend to agree with, mostly because what I find is that the biblical whining is so centered on one kind of behavior that it can't, in my mind, be something that is straight from God.
> I tend to think people prefer latching onto hate when it concerns something they have always known they aren't - it's much easier to point fingers than to look in the mirror, despite numerous biblical verses that remind people to think about their own "sins."
> I'm sure it's been hard enough for you to handle the reality of your own feelings, especially with so much of that hate out there, but it makes you a bigger man then those who jump on any bandwagon in order to cover up their own insecurities.
> ...


 Hi Kbm. Thanks for writing!!! I speak as accurately and completely - being a Human Being we all make mistakes from time to time - and honestly as possible. Maybe this is what gets me in trouble with some.... I BELIEVE VERY STRONGLY in HAVING an OPEN MIND and BEING VERY OBJECTIVE and considering ALL INFORMATION FROM ALL SOURCES and never just "accepting" anything said by anyone - even the President or the Pope. ALL MUST be very willing and welcoming of QUESTIONING by ANYONE - otherwise I feel they have something to hide and are NOT truthful at the very least... ALL I ask others is TO BE THEIR - THEIR - VERY BEST. The BEST THEY can be. DO for themselves. BE who they CAN BE. BE HONEST - most definitely with themselves FIRST - and all others too. Do this in Bodybuilding - BE YOUR VERY BEST HONESTLY. And in ALL other things in life and in living. Sure we will make mistakes but we MUST learn from them and make adjustments when necessary. I consider Nature and the Natural World to hold the answers to a lot of things. I am with the outdoors all the time and I OBSERVE, LISTEN, LOOK, THINK, etc. about all I see.... Actually in everything. I help others best I can. People that KNOW me personally KNOW who I am and who I am not. I AM NOT PERFECT by any stretch of the imagination. And am NOT saying I am  EVER. Just trying my best is all about all things.... TDGC, John H.


----------



## John H. (Jan 6, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> John, what is that saying - "idle hands do the devil's work" ?


 Hi Mudge. I can tell you that my hands are NEVER "idle"... And the "devil" has absolutely nothing to do with "my work"...  TDGC, John H.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 6, 2004)

I am swamped at work right now, so don't have much time to provide details but...

1. Marriage was created by God for Man.
2. I totally agree that imposing Biblical penalties or even shunning homosexuals is wrong. We are to love them, but we still must call sin, sin.
3. My denomination does enforce the Biblical teachings on divorce and I have always been troubled by that. In fact, officers have been voted out of office b/c of an un-biblical divorce. It is just one example of how Christians have extreme difficulty in applying God's word to an incredibly secular society.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jan 6, 2004)

Wow, Pepper....thank you for responding to my long soapbox statements....and I learn something from you every time you post about this, so I really appreciate that. I'd be interested in reading more whenever you have the time to share that...


----------



## John H. (Jan 6, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Pepper *_
> Yes, Jesus walked with all sorts of people, but He did not condone their behavior.
> 
> Homosexuality is clearly a sin. All sex outside of marriage is a sin and marriage is defined to be between a man and a woman. Identifying behavior as sin is not being judgemental. I have PLENTY of sin in my life. I am in no position to judge.


 Hi Pepper. Marriage was created by Man actually. You have to study its history to see that. Homosexuality is NOT a "sin" at least according to God and Christ - They BOTH NEVER SAID ONE WORD about it or BiSexuality being wrong - EVER. Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality DO EXIST and ALWAYS HAVE in Nature and the Natural World of which Human Beings ARE a part whether we like it or not. The "sin" of Homosexuality as nearly as I have seen comes from RELIGIONS desire for Men to procreate in order to have replacement people to fight the religious wars that were being fought over whose religion was the "right" religion. People killed each other over this and still do. Relgion needed MORE people to be born so that there would be more people to fight. When Man would not listen and did as they had always done - whether it be with a Female or with a Male - religions got pissed and thus the prohibition against same-sex Sex. Remember Christ was on this earth, for example, for 32 years and at NO TIME DID HE EVER SAY HIMSELF ONE WORD about Homosexuality being wrong. Surely He did not forget to mention something "religion says" is so "very wrong". He WOULD HAVE SAID SO HIMSELF and MANY TIMES. HE NEVER DID. Procreation IS NOT the only reason for Sex. LOVING someone HONESTLY AND SINCERELY - regardless of the Gender of each - is what is important. The use and / or abuse of another is what is wrong. Marriage is actually a created institution by Man and religion. I say these things NOT to harm or upset anyone but to TELL IT AS IT TRUTHFULLY AND ACCURATELY IS. Any REAL religion MUST BE truthful totally, be VERY WILLING to be QUESTIONED by ANYONE ANY TIME ON ANY SUBJECT and HAVE HONEST, SINCERE, ACCURATE, COMPLETE answers - and WELCOME COMPLETELY that questioning... To do otherwise IS VERY SUSPECT at the VERY LEAST. I completely understand people's NEED to have answers to the most important questions of life and living. I FULLY UNDERSTAND that need and desire to know. But that MUST BE VERY HONEST, COMPLETE, ACCURATE, SINCERE, etc. Relgions many times - and there ARE THOUSANDS of religions each with their own "beliefs" - just put something forth as a way of somehow answering the unanswerable just to placate.... I AM NOT perfect and NEVER want others to think AT ANY TIME that I am or that I think I am. NOTHING could be further from the truth. I am a Human Being and I certain DO NOT know it "all" and never will. I consider ALL INFORMATION FROM ALL SOURCES and QUESTION EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE. I am not paranoid. Just have a great desire to learn honestly and accurately and know as much as I can about everything..... It is fun actually.... TDGC, John H.


----------



## vegepygmy (Jan 6, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> Of course they do, they do it all the time, it's called the Talmudic tradition...the Talmud is hundreds of volumes of jewish scholars arguing about the intrepretaion of the books of law.   Even those most erudite in the language of Hebrew can't come up with a general consensus for what all the Hebrew laws mean.  In fact, it is this dissent of opinion that makes it so silly that they would be in any way threatened by a radical rabbi such as Jesus who came along and offered a different interpretation .


I have never thought that the Jewish view of Jesus was silly. After all, the followers of Jesus are now quite numerous.  



> Once again, do we see the Jewish community rallying against homosexuality like the Christian community? No.  Perhaps it's because they understand what these laws in Leviticus, etc. mean to a greater extent than we do...afterall, Rabbinic , Talmudic tradition is to question and read these laws in their original language.


I shall be more specific in my criticism of the website. Some of the translations of Leviticus that it offers are unattributed. A historical book such as the Mishnah has much more credibility in the interpretation of Leviticus than a website with unattributed translations.


----------



## vegepygmy (Jan 6, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> As for natural being good or bad, that is once again interpretation by humans.


This could very quickly turn into a discussion on the possible existence of good and evil. 


> I bring the natural argument (as well as the above post on congenital adrenal hyperplasia) to show that this is not a choice that most homosexuals make.  This is probably a behavior that has a biological basis.  Part of the condemnation of homosexuals seems to be based on this "other half" of the equation.
> 
> Let's also remember that it is not "natural"for man to fly, drive a vehicle at 80 mph, etc. etc.  We should all live like Mennonites.


I was unaware that most homosexuals had a detectable biological difference that was the basis for their homosexuality. Is this theory or fact? If it is fact, might there not be other natural acts (such as rape) that have a biological basis, and are also not an issue of choice for the individual? 


> Is it  good to put faith in mankind as a recepticle of God's word?   because  we come back to which was the correct transmission of God's words and thoughts, the Old Testament, New Testament, or the Quran?  This infallibility of "God's word" is no less for those who follow the Quran.  Which half is right, the Judeao-Christian or Islamic?


Faith in mankind is not required for a translator. Nor is faith in God.  It is not necessary to consider whether the inspiration of the author was divine or not. What is important is the accurate translation of a historical text. It would be poor scholarship to do otherwise.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 6, 2004)

> I have never thought that the Jewish view of Jesus was silly. After all, the followers of Jesus are now quite numerous.



My fault since I did not make myself very clear. Regarding how the Talmudic tradition allows for a healthy dose of dissenting opinions within the Jewish traditiion makes it so unlikely that the Jews during Jesus time would feel so threatened that they held a trial to persecute him on their day of sabbath.  This exonerates the Jews as the guilty party behind Jesus' court persecution.  Remember,  about a century or so later, 80,000 Jews were slaughtered in one day by Antiochus the IV, because they refused to bear arms on their day of Sabbath.  Why would they bother holding a trial on the day of Sabath and defile their sabbath over a radical Jew but watched their own children and wives slaughtered before they would defile sabbath?   

These two points, a strong tradition of allowing contrary and dissenting opinions and the Book of Macabees I and II, makes it so preposterous that the Jews had any real important role in the famous trial that sent Jesus to crucifixion.  This is what enrages the Jewish community about the New testament's implication of guilt towards the Jews.  In fact, as I stated before, a jesuit priest believes the Book of Macabees never got cannonized into the bible because it would have absolved the jews of any persecutory role in Jesus's death.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 6, 2004)

John H.

You are simply incorrrect. Marriage is an institution create by God for man. Simply read the Bible, assuming you accept it as an authority.

All you have to do is read the Bible and you will see that homosexuality is a sin, just as pre-marital sex is. I don't say so in a judging fashion, as stated, I have my own issues. 

I can't really debate the Bible with you because I don't get the impression you accept it as an authority. You seem to be making up your religion. On that premise, I will never be able to make a point you will accept.


----------



## vegepygmy (Jan 6, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi Vegepygmy. I forgot to add to your last paragraph my reply regarding incest, slavery, etc. - we are speaking about Homosexuality and BiSexuality - the LOVING of another honestly people who AGREE and are able to agree with any Sexual acts that may occcur because of that LOVE of each other. Incest, rape, slavery, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. IF you want to include these things then you MUST also remember that HETEROSEXUAL people are also guilty of incest, rape, slavery, etc. So does that then mean that ALL people are bad and horrible - no - it means SOME are. I am speaking to the subject(s) of Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality as VARIATIONS of Sexuality in LOVING relationships by people who are of age and ability of consent and freely give that consent that SINCERELY CARE ABOUT EACH OTHER.


I was unaware that  love was required in the sexual act.  I thought we were discussing natural acts that occurred in the natural world. 


> A person's personal life and who they choose to live that with ARE THEIR BUSINESS ONLY and NOT that of you, me, or anyone else, religion, government, etc. It IS PRIVATE AND PERSONAL - PERIOD. If God NEVER said and Christ NEVER said ONE THING about any of these variations - AND THEY NEVER DID - then NO MAN has ANY RIGHT WHATSOEVER to become involved in anyone's personal relationship. See what I am saying? Take Care, John H.


I???m sorry John. I find it quite difficult to follow your reasoning. Your use of capital letters make your messages interesting, but somewhat hard to read. Take it as a failing on my part.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 6, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by vegepygmy *_
> 
> 
> I was unaware that most homosexuals had a detectable biological difference that was the basis for their homosexuality. Is this theory or fact? If it is fact, might there not be other natural acts (such as rape) that have a biological basis, and are also not an issue of choice for the individual?




Their are more and more studies that suggest it.  The most famous was Simon Lavay's studies on the preoptic nucleus in the hypothalamus which differs in homosexual men from the heterosexual.   I find his research methodology without good controls but he is a famous frontier researcher in this field.

http://www.fieldherpers.com/lawandpolitics/messages/2745.html



> a snip In 1991, Simon LeVay, a researcher at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California, published a three-page preliminary study (LeVay, 1991). 41 subjects were chosen for the study who had died of various causes. Of those 41, there were 19 homosexual males who had died of complications due to HIV, 16 presumed heterosexual men of whom 6 had died from HIV complications, and 6 women who had died of various causes.
> 
> The subject of the study was the size of the INAH3 nucleus of the hypothalamus, so that after tracing and sectioning, it was found that homosexual men have an average size INAH3 nucleus compared to the women, which was smaller than the INAH3 nucleus size for the heterosexual men (LeVay, 1991).
> 
> The reason for choosing the INAH3 nucleus for study is that the hypothalamus is the part of the brain that develops at a young age, and any differences that exist between nucleus size would arise from causes that present at early development and would most likely be the result of genetic factors rather than environmental factors (Bailey and Pillard, 1991). It is therefore a reasonable conclusion to make that any difference in size of the INAH3 nucleus is because of the expression of genes that are responsible for sexual orientation.




My point is that part of the condemnation seems to arise from the fact that gays "choose" their lifestyles, when in fact, there are numerous reasons why there seems to be a biological and therefore, "non choice" reason for their sexual oreintation.


----------



## John H. (Jan 6, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by vegepygmy *_
> This could very quickly turn into a discussion on the possible existence of good and evil.
> 
> I was unaware that most homosexuals had a detectable biological difference that was the basis for their homosexuality. Is this theory or fact? If it is fact, might there not be other natural acts (such as rape) that have a biological basis, and are also not an issue of choice for the individual?
> ...


  Hi Vegepygmy. Please read this book with regard to the natural world and Sexuality: BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE, by Bruce Bagemihl (St. Martin's Press). Also for those that think it is so wrong and that no one would actually even consider "being Homosexual" see FORBIDDEN FRIENDSHIPS, by Michael Rocke (Oxford University Press) - it discusses Florence, Italy - one town in Europe between 1350 - 1450 and what happened in just ONE town in Europe - so I would think it happened throughout the world actually. Nearly one of every two Men was involved in a BiSexual or Homosexual relationship. IF it was so very wrong HOW did SO MANY MEN feel it was actually VERY RIGHT then? This book is very well written and has sources listed also. Let me know what you think AFTER you read them. TDGC, John H.


----------



## John H. (Jan 6, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by vegepygmy *_
> I was unaware that  love was required in the sexual act.  I thought we were discussing natural acts that occurred in the natural world.
> 
> I???m sorry John. I find it quite difficult to follow your reasoning. Your use of capital letters make your messages interesting, but somewhat hard to read. Take it as a failing on my part.


 Hi Vegepygmy. I am only using caps to emphasize - not yell. I hope you understand that. I usxe them to be sure my statements are understood accurately... I am not trying to make them hard for anyone to read actually. If we could speak face-to-face - see what I am saying. This method (typing letters to each other) is not perfect and the only way we are able to communicate. 
As for "Love" being a requirement for a "Sexual act" I am saying that I believe that to be truthful and honest that if you have a Sexual relationship with someone else - regardless of Gender - that you CARE ABOUT and LOVE that person HONESTLY and not just use them like a "trash can" to deposit your "waste" - see what I mean? That each CARES about each other and that Sex be a form of showing that CARE physically and emotionally and spiritually speaking even...  Take Care, John H.


----------



## vegepygmy (Jan 9, 2004)

hmmm???my university dialup has been down for a while, and this thread seems to have died. Ahh well???   


> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> My fault since I did not make myself very clear. Regarding how the Talmudic tradition allows for a healthy dose of dissenting opinions within the Jewish traditiion makes it so unlikely that the Jews during Jesus time would feel so threatened that they held a trial to persecute him on their day of sabbath.  This exonerates the Jews as the guilty party behind Jesus' court persecution.
> Remember,  about a century or so later, 80,000 Jews were slaughtered in one day by Antiochus the IV, because they refused to bear arms on their day of Sabbath.  Why would they bother holding a trial on the day of Sabath and defile their sabbath over a radical Jew but watched their own children and wives slaughtered before they would defile sabbath?


1 Maccabees chapter 2 records the death of 1000 (not 80,000)  Jews who refused to fight on the Sabbath against King Antiochus, and it also notes the subsequent decision of their surviving friends to fight on the Sabbath.  

There is a record of Jewish military activity on the Sabbath in the Old Testament. Joshua chapter 6 is a description of the  Israelites???  seven day siege of the city of Jericho.  


> These two points, a strong tradition of allowing contrary and dissenting opinions and the Book of Macabees I and II, makes it so preposterous that the Jews had any real important role in the famous trial that sent Jesus to crucifixion.  This is what enrages the Jewish community about the New testament's implication of guilt towards the Jews.  In fact, as I stated before, a jesuit priest believes the Book of Macabees never got cannonized into the bible because it would have absolved the jews of any persecutory role in Jesus's death.


In the  Talmud, the Baraila  states that Yeshu (of Nazareth) was hung on the eve of the Passover after being found guilty of sorcery, beguiling and leading Israel  astray.

The Amoa ???Ulla??? comments that as a beguiler, Yeshu of Nazareth  did not deserve to be spared from death.   

This is a Jewish and not a Roman indictment of Jesus??? actions. The traditional Jewish method for dealing with blasphemy was death by stoning. This is might be seen as a rather harsh tradition of dissent.

???I am unsure if you have accidentally interchanged the terms  Sabbath and Passover? The New Testament  accounts say that Jesus taken on the first day of Passover and his body was removed from the cross prior to the Sabbath, while the Baraila says he was killed on the eve of Passover.


----------



## vegepygmy (Jan 9, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> Their are more and more studies that suggest it.  The most famous was Simon Lavay's studies on the preoptic nucleus in the hypothalamus which differs in homosexual men from the heterosexual.   I find his research methodology without good controls but he is a famous frontier researcher in this field.
> 
> http://www.fieldherpers.com/lawandpolitics/messages/2745.html
> ...


A theory should not be presented as true until it has been proven. Simons Levay???s study does not prove a genetic link to homosexuality. He was apparently unable to eliminate significant variables, such as confirming the sexual orientation of all of the autopsy subjects in his small sample group.

In London a study of the brains of  black cab drivers revealed that they had abnormally large hippocampus. Was this a result of a genetic trait that left them with no choice but to become black cab drivers? Or was it a product of  their environment?  

If sexual orientation is genetic and not a matter of choice, why would identical twins have different sexual orientations? This question has not yet been adequately explained by the scientific community.


----------



## vegepygmy (Jan 9, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi Vegepygmy. Please read this book with regard to the natural world and Sexuality: BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE, by Bruce Bagemihl (St. Martin's Press). Also for those that think it is so wrong and that no one would actually even consider "being Homosexual" see FORBIDDEN FRIENDSHIPS, by Michael Rocke (Oxford University Press) - it discusses Florence, Italy - one town in Europe between 1350 - 1450 and what happened in just ONE town in Europe - so I would think it happened throughout the world actually. Nearly one of every two Men was involved in a BiSexual or Homosexual relationship. IF it was so very wrong HOW did SO MANY MEN feel it was actually VERY RIGHT then? This book is very well written and has sources listed also. Let me know what you think AFTER you read them. TDGC, John H.


Thank you John for your reading suggestions. I will see if the library has them.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 10, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by vegepygmy *_
> A theory should not be presented as true until it has been proven. Simons Levay???s study does not prove a genetic link to homosexuality. He was apparently unable to eliminate significant variables, such as confirming the sexual orientation of all of the autopsy subjects in his small sample group.
> 
> In London a study of the brains of  black cab drivers revealed that they had abnormally large hippocampus. Was this a result of a genetic trait that left them with no choice but to become black cab drivers? Or was it a product of  their environment?
> ...




Like I stated, I had a problem with levay's work because he did not have good controls and there weren't enough subject matters.  The same can be said for the black cab drivers, but it suggests we need to look further into why the differences exist.

   To use the twin  argument is fallacious.   As for twins, we are finding out that epigenetic material is as important as inheritance of a gene in terms of psychiatric diseases and other physical diseases as it  expresses itself .      Other "physical diseases" don't have 100% accordance and expression  between identical twins as well.  

Remember, we do not have to isolated a gene to prove it is a biological phenomenom.  We still have not isolated the gene for male pattern baldness!


A better example of the biological basis of homosexuality can be found with congenital adrenal hyperplasia..  Up to 40-60% of these women have bisexual or homosexual tendencies, suggesting that the in utero (the hormonal environment during gestation ) can and may play a role in sexual orientation.  


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1438641&dopt=Abstract

http://www.boskydell.com/political/outlooks.htm
http://health.ftmaustralia.org/library/96/1200.pdf

general lecture in reproductive medicine on 
CAH http://home.epix.net/~tcannon1/Physioweek9.htm

These women are exposed to high levels of testosterone during their time in the uterus, many times it is corrected early and medications suppress the overactive adrenal glands.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 10, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by vegepygmy *_
> hmmm???my university dialup has been down for a while, and this thread seems to have died. Ahh well???
> 
> 1 Maccabees chapter 2 records the death of 1000 (not 80,000)  Jews who refused to fight on the Sabbath against King Antiochus, and it also notes the subsequent decision of their surviving friends to fight on the Sabbath.
> ...




It depends on where you look. http://biblia.com/bible/maccabees1.htm
http://jacksonsnyder.com/arc/Midrash/20.htm


You are right, my details are obscure since I am recalling all this from my years in highschool and college over 15 years ago when I went to jewish services with my friends.     (I jot these replys of in the few minutes I have between patients.)  


All told, 80,000 jews were destroyed for refusing to violate laws of sabbath, eating pork (one of the famous macabbees female watched all her 7 kids get slaughtered for not eating pork.) etc.  Perhaps not in one day as I had mistakenly recollected.    Thus the war did initiate the new "rabbinic" tradition as you stated.  

Once again, I don't know the specifics, but rabbinic and talmudic scholars still argue about the times and dates and meanings of some of the apparent contradictions, so these exceptions I'll leave to them.   (If only christians realized how contrary the bible can be.)  Wether it was passover or sabbath, any orthodox jew will tell you that it was ridiculous the jews would have gone through the effort they did to persecute a rogue jew, there were others during jesus time who also claimed to be the messiah.   In fact, one of the main Jewish  players was a high priest that was appointed by the Romans, not a descendant of Aaron as Jewish law at the time required.   For  many Jews, this was an indication of a brilliant political move by the institutions and government  at the time of Jesus and this was one of the many  examples of how the events surrounding Jesus were once again, contrary to the prevailing Jewish Laws.    


  It would be interesting to find out the specifics of why the catholic church in 1965 officially exonnerated the Jews regarding this specific issue.  If anyone knows, I'd like to hear it.  

Here is alink with one of the many critiques about the supposed jewish trial against jesus http://www.historicaljesusghost.com/


----------



## John H. (Jan 10, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Pepper *_
> John H.
> 
> You are simply incorrrect. Marriage is an institution create by God for man. Simply read the Bible, assuming you accept it as an authority.
> ...


 Hi Pepper. You must remember that the Bible is written by Man - over 40 - and over a long period of time. Each has their own viewpoint when writing. There was no Bible in the Time of Christ or even right after He existed. It was not published until the invention of the printing press about 1350 AD. I was not trying to get into a debate using the Bible as a source since it is a collection of literature - essays, poems, prose, etc. - of MAN. God speaks FOR HIMSELF. Since He knows Man and He created Man I find it impossible to accept that He would "allow" Man to SPEAK FOR HIM. I would think that if He had or has something important to say HE WOULD SAY IT HIMSELF. Given the corruption possibilities of Man IN ALL AREAS including and especially religion I would think God would NEVER allow Man to put words into the Mouth of Himself or speak FOR Him. I know I personally would NEVER allow someone to do MY talking FOR me if I had something really important to say. I would do it MYSELF. See what I am saying? The Bible is a religious article of ONE religion and there are thousands of religions each with their own "ideas" and "thoughts" and religious articles of which the Bible is just one. How does anyone "decide" "which religion" is the "right and truthful and accurate religion" and which is not? I consider ALL INFORMATION FROM ALL SOURCES. I keep an open mind and am very objective about ALL things. I look to Nature and the Natural World and find much is really answered there. I am no one's enemy all I am trying to do is FIND what IS actually TRUE or not. I do not just "accept" anything just because someone tells me I am "supposed to" - in fact if that is what I am told I feel that is the VERY FIRST SIGN to NOT ACCEPT but to check out thoroughly and accurately as is Humanly possible the truthfulness and accuracy of what is said. See what I am saying? Take Care, John H.


----------



## vegepygmy (Jan 13, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> Like I stated, I had a problem with levay's work because he did not have good controls and there weren't enough subject matters.  The same can be said for the black cab drivers, but it suggests we need to look further into why the differences exist.


If Simons Levay???s study was so poorly constructed, why was it provided as an example? 
Quote from Levay:
"It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.???




> To use the twin  argument is fallacious.   As for twins, we are finding out that epigenetic material is as important as inheritance of a gene in terms of psychiatric diseases and other physical diseases as it  expresses itself .      Other "physical diseases" don't have 100% accordance and expression  between identical twins as well.


What is the source of the epigenetic material? Are you referring to viruses?


> Remember, we do not have to isolated a gene to prove it is a biological phenomenom.  We still have not isolated the gene for male pattern baldness!
> 
> 
> A better example of the biological basis of homosexuality can be found with congenital adrenal hyperplasia..  Up to 40-60% of these women have bisexual or homosexual tendencies, suggesting that the in utero (the hormonal environment during gestation ) can and may play a role in sexual orientation.
> ...


----------



## vegepygmy (Jan 13, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> It depends on where you look. http://biblia.com/bible/maccabees1.htm
> http://jacksonsnyder.com/arc/Midrash/20.htm
> 
> ...



Military activity on the Sabbath was not a new tradition, it existed at the time of Joshua. 


> Once again, I don't know the specifics, but rabbinic and talmudic scholars still argue about the times and dates and meanings of some of the apparent contradictions, so these exceptions I'll leave to them.   (If only christians realized how contrary the bible can be.)  Wether it was passover or sabbath, any orthodox jew will tell you that it was ridiculous the jews would have gone through the effort they did to persecute a rogue jew, there were others during jesus time who also claimed to be the messiah.   In fact, one of the main Jewish  players was a high priest that was appointed by the Romans, not a descendant of Aaron as Jewish law at the time required.   For  many Jews, this was an indication of a brilliant political move by the institutions and government  at the time of Jesus and this was one of the many  examples of how the events surrounding Jesus were once again, contrary to the prevailing Jewish Laws.
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to find out the specifics of why the catholic church in 1965 officially exonnerated the Jews regarding this specific issue.  If anyone knows, I'd like to hear it.
> ...



What is your contention? That observant Jews do not kill other Jews for religious reasons? This is not supported by the historical record. The Orthodox Jews of today might be seen as somewhat more liberal than those of the past of who advocated the stoning of blasphemers to death.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 13, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by vegepygmy *_
> If Simons Levay???s study was so poorly constructed, why was it provided as an example?
> my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.???




Because noone has come up with a good answer for the physical differences he found between gay and heterosexual men!

  You cannot ignore that kind  of data.

  As a true scientist,  I concede to poor control sample size but that does not negate his findings and render it superfluous. I consider myself objective about data, even if it is data that may help or may not help my hypothesis.  

It's interesting that noone has been able to attack the data on congenital adrenal hyperplasia and its associtation with homosexuality.  




> What is the source of the epigenetic material? Are you referring to viruses?




see link on explanation of epigentic material.  Remember the science of genetics is still in its infancy.  http://www.mcmanweb.com/epigenetics.htm
http://cnx.rice.edu/content/m11532/latest/



> Epigenetic processes *do not change the information contained within the genetic material itself*, the ACTGs, but *modulate gene expression* through modification of meta-genetic information. However, epigenetic changes can be stable and passed on through mitotic cell divisions.




For more detailed research papers on epigentic material..http://www.biotech-info.net/632.pdf
http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/sample/g01-118.pdf

As for the rest of jewish law, I'm tired of arguing about it so I will let that go.  My expertise is in the field of science so I will continue with that.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 13, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by vegepygmy *_
> If sexual orientation is genetic and not a matter of choice, why would identical twins have different sexual orientations? This question has not yet been adequately explained by the scientific community.




Harking back to the twin studies: although not 100% accordance (except in one study) the percentages are impressive beyond the regular 2-5% of the general population.


> AGE  REPORTED CONCORDANCE
> STUDY DATE  RANGE  MALE MZ TWINS   MALE DZ TWINS SAMPLE SOURCE
> Kallmann 1952          >20 37/37 *(100%)*       3*/26 (12%) Psychiatric, correctional and charitable agencies, plus direct contacts
> Heston & Shields 1968 20-52  3/7 *(43%) *1/7 (14%)  Hospital Twin Register
> ...



MZ stands for monozygotic twins, and DZ dizygotic twins. (the former shares 100% of genetic material, the latter, 50%)


More on physical differences:



> Inner Ear Difference In Lesbians
> Researchers at the University of Texas, Austin found that the cochlea (a structure of the inner ear) in lesbians differs from the cochlea of heterosexual women. The findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (March 1998).
> 
> The difference was detected using a test that measures a very slight sound that the cochlea makes when responding to a soft clicking sound. Results indicate that lesbians have click responses that are significantly weaker than those of heterosexual women, and are more similar to those of men. Generally, the cochlea in women is more sensitive than that of men.
> ...




Although none are conclusive, these are the the latest in a growing scientific literature suggesting that sexual preferences may not be  simply a matter of personal preference but part of our ingrained biology.  The causes may be mutiple, ie: genetic, hormonal, epigenetic and there may not be one single determinant, but the data continues to accrue that many  homosexual behavior has a biological basis.   Personally, the best data comes from the hormonal influences such as the congenital adrenal hyperplasia since large numbers and epidimeological data can be harvested.  The twin studies, etc. all are still limited mainly by the size (, as in numbers,) of the study subjects.


----------



## GFR (Oct 8, 2005)

Bump....for bio-chem


----------



## GFR (Dec 31, 2009)

John H. said:


> Hi Pepper. You must remember that the Bible is written by Man - over 40 - and over a long period of time. Each has their own viewpoint when writing. There was no Bible in the Time of Christ or even right after He existed. It was not published until the invention of the printing press about 1350 AD. I was not trying to get into a debate using the Bible as a source since it is a collection of literature - essays, poems, prose, etc. - of MAN. God speaks FOR HIMSELF. Since He knows Man and He created Man I find it impossible to accept that He would "allow" Man to SPEAK FOR HIM. I would think that if He had or has something important to say HE WOULD SAY IT HIMSELF. Given the corruption possibilities of Man IN ALL AREAS including and especially religion I would think God would NEVER allow Man to put words into the Mouth of Himself or speak FOR Him. I know I personally would NEVER allow someone to do MY talking FOR me if I had something really important to say. I would do it MYSELF. See what I am saying? The Bible is a religious article of ONE religion and there are thousands of religions each with their own "ideas" and "thoughts" and religious articles of which the Bible is just one. How does anyone "decide" "which religion" is the "right and truthful and accurate religion" and which is not? I consider ALL INFORMATION FROM ALL SOURCES. I keep an open mind and am very objective about ALL things. I look to Nature and the Natural World and find much is really answered there. I am no one's enemy all I am trying to do is FIND what IS actually TRUE or not. I do not just "accept" anything just because someone tells me I am "supposed to" - in fact if that is what I am told I feel that is the VERY FIRST SIGN to NOT ACCEPT but to check out thoroughly and accurately as is Humanly possible the truthfulness and accuracy of what is said. See what I am saying? Take Care, John H.


Great point John, happy new Year I hope You Meat Many MEn in 2010.


----------



## BigBackGrips (Dec 31, 2009)

*Only guy-on-guy is forbidden is the old Testament, gal on gal is not mentioned.*

Probably because the *guys *who wrote the bible were, well, GUYS. They had their own tastes in mind. 

Oddly, the old testament _specifically forbids gal-on-animal shenanigans_ but again, the dudes get a pass.

And the bible never mentions age because, well, the guys probably wanted to keep that avenue open too. I'm sure they liked them young back then.

It gets funny with drag. It's outlawed not in the sex laws section, but in a section that is essentially the civil code, dealing with lost farm animals and home construction. The last translation i read says, "A man shall not wear a woman's clothes and woman shall not wear a man's. God finds this a disgusting perversion."

Do they really think God can't drag? God can handle drag. It's the dudes who wrote the bible that didn't like it.


----------



## BigBackGrips (Dec 31, 2009)

*Oh, and homosexuality was probably a necessary evolutionary invention.*

An extended family with a few extra functional and fully contributory aunts and uncles and no kids of their own had a clear advantage over a group in which everyone had kids.

Imagine living in a place where _everyone _had kids. yikes!


----------



## Lone Wolf (Dec 31, 2009)

I am getting a little concerned with all these homo threads lately
WTF! is going on what happened to  men being men,  in my opinion you queers need to stay in the closet.


----------



## BigBackGrips (Dec 31, 2009)

these are intellectual discussions, not personal.


----------



## Lone Wolf (Jan 1, 2010)

BigBackGrips said:


> these are intellectual discussions, not personal.



Gotcha yea research


----------



## BigBackGrips (Jan 1, 2010)

When we're done here, we can start on the origins of the universe. After that the origin of lats, glutes and delts.


----------

