Changing Sexual Orientation Is Possible, New Research Says

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by bob x

for myself, I am satisfied that Juan wasn't aiming to be hurtful when he revived the thread that made me swear to leave this board for good

And I have such a shockingly bad memory that I completely forgot all about that, so I said "let's merge!" To be honest, all these moldy-oldie topics kind of get congealed into one big blob in my mind.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Hi, Chris-

I agree with what you say (though I had a good laugh about the list and found myself nodding). I think it is more that this particular issue rarely has some great benefit to anyone reading. It hurts those in our community who are homosexual or bisexual and anything scientific or otherwise we bring in is typically ignored by those in the "they're all sinning, let's take notice" camp. It also is a primary reason why many non-Christians are turned off by Christianity (not because they are gay, but because it then appears that Christians are obsessed with other people's sex lives rather than looking at the planks in their own eyes).

Yeah, the other topics sometimes get old, but they don't hurt anyone.

That's just my 2 cents. I'm not saying to make any rule or whatnot; I'm against most rule-making. Just saying why this topic is more of an issue than the others.

I agree. Some things are hopelessly tiresome. I don't know any Christians who are looking to debate about homosexuality. Everyone gossips and everyone has prejudices, but outside of the really nutty fringe, ala Rev. Phelps and ilk, most people just don't want to talk about it at any depth.

What I was trying to explain earlier in this thread is that I think it's entirely understandable that a person of Christian orientation might feel compelled to state the biblical point of view in a debate setting simply because of their self felt obligation to stand up for their faith. I can empathize with that, particularly when the conversation takes place on the Christianity Board. Conversely, it shouldn't be difficult for the Christian standing up for her beliefs to empathize with we others who also feel compelled to stand up against what we see as bigotry and injustice against fellow humans.

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by bob x

ChinaCat never suggested that anybody "get rid of" new threads on the golden-oldie (or moldy-oldie?) topics. She was just asking why this particular one was treated in a unique fashion (dredging up the old thread and merging the new one into it) when that hasn't been done with any of the other often-recurring topics. Juan and Path have explained their motives; not being a mind-reader, I can't say whether China is satisfied as to why those motives apply here but wouldn't apply in other cases; for myself, I am satisfied that Juan wasn't aiming to be hurtful when he revived the thread that made me swear to leave this board for good (in hindsight, that was just rash petulance on my part; if you will recall, Q, I also swore never to speak to you again, but I think enough time has passed).

She, is a he. As for the rest, I'm inclined to agree. None of us are aiming to hurt. But we do have willful personalities (just like you). And that can cause pain when head butting begins. As far a dredging and merging, I just did the same thing with the JW and Who are we threads. Saves band width...

Leaving the board for good, I'm glad you didn't. We'd both lose out. So would a lot of other folk...

Take care,

v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I agree. Some things are hopelessly tiresome. I don't know any Christians who are looking to debate about homosexuality. Everyone gossips and everyone has prejudices, but outside of the really nutty fringe, ala Rev. Phelps and ilk, most people just don't want to talk about it at any depth.

What I was trying to explain earlier in this thread is that I think it's entirely understandable that a person of Christian orientation might feel compelled to state the biblical point of view in a debate setting simply because of their self felt obligation to stand up for their faith. I can empathize with that, particularly when the conversation takes place on the Christianity Board. Conversely, it shouldn't be difficult for the Christian standing up for her beliefs to empathize with we others who also feel compelled to stand up against what we see as bigotry and injustice against fellow humans.

Chris

In other words, one self righteous Christian, and turn away 100 potential conversions. I believe C.S. Lewis' wife said words to the same effect...(wise lady).

v/r

Q

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

She, is a he.

My apologies, Cat.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Leaving the board for good, I'm glad you didn't. We'd both lose out. So would a lot of other folk...

You were one of the prime reasons I wanted to leave.
If you will recall, at the time you were telling me that it was "intolerable" for me to say that teachers should not be allowed to bully their gay students. I'm a teacher myself, and have strong feelings against Islam, and have a lot of Muslim students-- so, I just don't talk about that in math class, since it is no part of my job and would be very unprofessional.
In general, you were opposing the whole concept that someone who serves the public ought not to pick and choose which of the public to serve, based on personal likes and dislikes. I should not have to worry that the police will refuse to protect me against the violent. I rarely go out on a boat, but it would not have occurred to me before I met you to worry whether Coast Guard officers would "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".
And you went way over the line when you tried to guilt-trip me by saying you used to be all in favor of protecting everyone, until you met me. I don't know if you were being dishonest with yourself, as well as with me, but you were spewing your specious arguments about why we should be denied the protections that you and everyone else take for granted before I had ever spoken a word to you.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hey Bob,

Part of what I want to do is force people to accept the implications of their positions. The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality. People who accept the Bible have to decide where to draw the line on literality. It's a slippery slope. The commandments overlay each other. To obey them all destroys zealotry, that's my analysis.

Chris

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Hey Bob,

Part of what I want to do is force people to accept the implications of their positions. The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality. People who accept the Bible have to decide where to draw the line on literality. It's a slippery slope. The commandments overlay each other. To obey them all destroys zealotry, that's my analysis.

I'm not Bob, nor do I play him on TV, but...

I appreciate what you are trying to say here, and it goes way beyond sexual sin per the Bible. I think you are getting at the root nature of sin. Yes, the commandments overlay and I will add reinforce one another. But as with anything that gets carried away to the exclusion of other considerations, also known as extremism, what I find in the course of my travels is that any given person will tend to focus on certain issues to the exclusion of others. Lip-service might or might not be paid, but there seem to be a handful of issues that form the focus of the average joe or jill.

So you get a group with extreme attitudes regarding abortion that pretty well ignore the caustic results of adultery and divorce. You end up with a group that focuses on fidelity and who sugar coat the impact of abortion. You get others who focus on linsey-woolsey but ignore the teachings regarding usury. Etc, etc, etc...

I disagree about when one obeys all of the commandments it destroys zealotry...I will go so far as to say being zealous is not a bad thing in and of itself. Jesus taught a middle ground, moderation, of avoiding extremism of *all* kinds. Zealotry is kind of like amperage, it is latent and looking for a way to vent. Its not the volts that can kill a person, its the amps. Misdirected zealotry is dangerous, but zealotry properly directed is a very powerful force for good.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by bob x

My apologies, Cat.

You were one of the prime reasons I wanted to leave.
If you will recall, at the time you were telling me that it was "intolerable" for me to say that teachers should not be allowed to bully their gay students. I'm a teacher myself, and have strong feelings against Islam, and have a lot of Muslim students-- so, I just don't talk about that in math class, since it is no part of my job and would be very unprofessional.
In general, you were opposing the whole concept that someone who serves the public ought not to pick and choose which of the public to serve, based on personal likes and dislikes. I should not have to worry that the police will refuse to protect me against the violent. I rarely go out on a boat, but it would not have occurred to me before I met you to worry whether Coast Guard officers would "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".
And you went way over the line when you tried to guilt-trip me by saying you used to be all in favor of protecting everyone, until you met me. I don't know if you were being dishonest with yourself, as well as with me, but you were spewing your specious arguments about why we should be denied the protections that you and everyone else take for granted before I had ever spoken a word to you.

You have me mistaken of someone else Bob. I never said a teacher should bully any student on anything, let alone a personal preference. Where I come from, "don't ask, don't tell" is the motto, and it is strictly adhered to, especially by me. I too am a teacher. Probably started teaching students shortly after you did if not at the same time.

And I do not have a bias against Islam, only against idiots that would destroy everything of everyone else's, including their own, in the name of Islam. And I grew up with Muslims my whole life.

In the Coast Guard we pick and choose no one Bob. We go out when mayday crosses our radio frequencies. We have go out, but we don't have to come back...I fail to see the pick and choose in that philosphy of service. As far as whether you run out of fuel, and we call a salvage and tow company on your behalf (and your dime), well, you can thank your fellow citizens who took advantage for decades on that. Used to be we'd come out and bring five gallons of fuel to the idiot that was too drunk to drive a boat let alone see to having enough gas to go out and get home.

I never said any of the such. However, you are an angry sort, and I do pick up on such anger, and can return it back home. As I recall, I tried offering you avenues for insurance that you were lacking...

No, I think you have mistaken me for someone else.

Interesting none the less, how you "let byegones be byegones"...by picking right back up with the critical nature. Kind of like husband and wife arguing then going to bed, thinking it was over...only to have one wake up the next morning with "Oh, and another thing..." coming from their mouth for a "Good Morning"...

v/r

Q

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I'm not Bob, nor do I play him on TV, but...

I appreciate what you are trying to say here, and it goes way beyond sexual sin per the Bible. I think you are getting at the root nature of sin. Yes, the commandments overlay and I will add reinforce one another. But as with anything that gets carried away to the exclusion of other considerations, also known as extremism, what I find in the course of my travels is that any given person will tend to focus on certain issues to the exclusion of others. Lip-service might or might not be paid, but there seem to be a handful of issues that form the focus of the average joe or jill.

So you get a group with extreme attitudes regarding abortion that pretty well ignore the caustic results of adultery and divorce. You end up with a group that focuses on fidelity and who sugar coat the impact of abortion. You get others who focus on linsey-woolsey but ignore the teachings regarding usury. Etc, etc, etc...

That's a very astute observation, Juan! Men, especially as they get older, seem to choose a particular obsession to pursue. My grandfather became obsessed with works and outer holiness. He became such a pain in the butt about it that the members of his own church asked him to leave. I have an uncle who's obsessed with masonic conspiracy theory stuff. My cousin is obsessed with abortion. Rev. Phelps is obsessed with homosexuality. Other people I know are obsessed with some area of eschatology and related prophecy. It seems to be mostly the men who really get really obsessive. I remember my aunts gossiping about the other church members after church, but I never remember them, or any of the other women get all worked up about it like the men.

I disagree about when one obeys all of the commandments it destroys zealotry...I will go so far as to say being zealous is not a bad thing in and of itself. Jesus taught a middle ground, moderation, of avoiding extremism of *all* kinds. Zealotry is kind of like amperage, it is latent and looking for a way to vent. Its not the volts that can kill a person, its the amps. Misdirected zealotry is dangerous, but zealotry properly directed is a very powerful force for good.

Having zeal for things is good. Being zealous is good. Zealotry in that sense isn't negative. Even good zealots are a pain in the butt, though!

Chris

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

That's a very astute observation, Juan! Men, especially as they get older, seem to choose a particular obsession to pursue. My grandfather became obsessed with works and outer holiness. He became such a pain in the butt about it that the members of his own church asked him to leave. I have an uncle who's obsessed with masonic conspiracy theory stuff. My cousin is obsessed with abortion. Rev. Phelps is obsessed with homosexuality. Other people I know are obsessed with some area of eschatology and related prophecy. It seems to be mostly the men who really get really obsessive. I remember my aunts gossiping about the other church members after church, but I never remember them, or any of the other women get all worked up about it like the men.

I agree men typically display obsessive behavior outwardly in public, and I could go into what I feel are a list of psychological reasons why; ego, chest thumping, saber-rattling, that type of thing. Women are more discrete (sp?), but I would hardly say they are not (or cannot be) every bit as obsessive; and I could give a list of psychological reasons why there too...

Bottom line is that nobody is happy unless momma is happy. It doesn't take much to connect the dots.

Patriarchy isn't all its cracked up to be.

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Even good zealots are a pain in the butt, though!

It's nice to be noticed! I, ummm, ermm, uhhh, agree.

[greymare]

yeah, mums rule.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by greymare

yeah, mums rule.

See! Even Greymare agrees women can be overly obsessive, especially later in life.

<tiptoes quickly away, but not before dodging the heavy object hurled in his general direction....>

[greymare]

oh man, you are sooooo gonna get it.

[China Cat Sunflower]

What momma don't know won't hurt us!

Chris

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

You have me mistaken of someone else Bob. I never said a teacher should bully any student on anything, let alone a personal preference.

Again, you are not being honest here. We were discussing California's recent codification of the rule that teachers should not make disparaging or demeaning remarks about their students' religion, ethnicity, sexuality, or handicaps. Blattz was apparently sucked in by some lying propaganda about what the statute was really about, and bowed out of the discussion when I posted the actual statute. You, however, attacked that statute, ranging over a couple of threads to stress your views that it is totally "natural" to have contemptuous attitudes towards us, and "outrageous" and "intolerable" to expect anyone to refrain from openly expressing contempt, and hoping that good Christians will abandon the public schools rather than put up teachers being told not to gay-bash in class.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

And I do not have a bias against Islam

I didn't say you did. I said *I* did. I was making an example: I do not have biases against homosexuals (duh!), but I do have attitudes that some would certainly call biased (ask Muslimwoman), yet I do not find it in the least bit "intolerable" that I am expected to keep that out of the classroom.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

In the Coast Guard we pick and choose no one Bob.

That is good to hear. You were putting a lot of stress, again spilling over several threads, that those who serve the public should be allowed to refuse service to anyone at any time. So, you don't think this applies to the Coast Guard; but you do think it applies to the health-care industry. What is the scope of the discrimination you think proper? Should landlords refuse to rent to me? Should restaurants refuse to feed me? Should grocery stores refuse to let me purchase?

Originally Posted by Quahom1

As I recall, I tried offering you avenues for insurance that you were lacking...

I told you that no such avenues were open to me. You and your kind foreclosed the possibility of me being treated like anyone else.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Interesting none the less, how you "let byegones be byegones"...

??? I did not say "let bygones be bygones"; what made you think I had forgotten any of the things that offended me? I would not have abandoned this board just because there was one troll on it, but you are not just any troll: you have some "moderator" role here.
I would rather have hoped that you would either explain that what I took you to be saying was not what you meant to say, as you have begun in the case of "we refuse the right to serve anyone" and the Coast Guard, or apologize. Dishonestly pretending you didn't even say some of the things you said is not helpful.