Changing Sexual Orientation Is Possible, New Research Says

[AndrewX]

juantoo3, there is such a thing as a lost cause.

Conversation between juantoo3 and Andrewx, for example.

A lost cause

In keeping with what I've posted just now, on another thread --

there is also a difference between repeating the same old, identical mistakes, or perhaps repeating them ad infinitum ... vs. making a mistake, maybe even two or three times, then realizing that this is a famliar pattern, and an unpleasant one, and then taking ACTION to redirect this energy (into something healthier, more constructive, more SOULful).

-- I will do the only thing an intelligent, sane and reasonable person can do.

I'm going to leave you with your thoughts and feelings about gay people and homosexuality ... and trust in God to Guide you.

I hope you will do the same - and since your snappy answer is already on the tip of my mind ("That's exactly what I've been doing, always have!" - or some such) ... I will add, Wonderful! Then more power to ya!

~andrew

[Saltmeister]

Hello and greetings, peoples.

I've seen some rather interesting rhetoric on this thread regarding the identity of homosexuals, and seeing the conflicts and disagreements, have decided to dive into the swimming pool with the rest of you!!!

Originally Posted by Doug

I'm new and I've read this thread with great interest. I'm gay. When I first came out a few years ago I thought sexuality was etched in stone. But since I've come into contact with more people over the last few years I tend towards the opinion that there can be some flexibilty on that score but that most people are comfortable on one side of the fence or the other.

On the actual statisitcs of the report-that 15% of the gay people who went to see these evangelicals were "turned"-I just don't know. I'd like to see a similar study where straight people learned to convince themselves they were gay and see if we get a similar percentage rate. Then we can have a comparison. But do you know, I just don't see that study coming about

At some stage in my life I wondered what it would be like if I was attracted to the same sex (as I was not already). Is it possible to change your sexual orientation? I think even if it were possible, the dynamics would be different for different people. Some will manage to make the transformation more successfully than others. Some (perhaps most) will fail. I didn't find it too hard to imagine being attracted to the opposite sex. I just needed to focus my mind on seeing aspects of a masculine personality attractive (ie. try to think like a woman). Men are attracted to women because they have an emotional need for something feminine, and likewise for women needing something masculine. The idea I think, then, is to just change your emotional needs. If you need something masculine, you will more naturally find yourself attracted to a man. If you need something feminine, you will find women attractive. The matter may be somewhat complicated by people who display qualities normally expressed by the opposite sex.

Although fantasy doesn't confirm one's ability to transform one's sexual orientation, I think it's enough just to be able to imagine what it might be like. It may not be as simple as knowing what women want lol.

I have, however, imagined what it might be like to be one of those people who faint when they see needles and syringes. All I had to do was imagine how awful it would be to have those pointy things inserted into your body and what potential damage it would do to your body if it punctured an artery, or if you walk into a room, slip, fall over and . . . oh no . . . your eye gets poked out. Or what if, you go to sleep at night . . . and find that there's a needle embedded in your blanket or mattress after some sewing you did . . . meanwhile playing soppy games with your girlfriend, wife, or whatever significant other . . . and accidentally land on one. The idea grew more and more disturbing, to the point where I thought that if I continued imagining what needles and syringes could do to my body, I might actually faint next time when I see one.

The psychology of thinking about needles and syringes and what they can do to your body is dangerous . . . and speaking of psychology, what if psychology did have a part to play in sexuality? What do you look for in a member of the opposite sex? Does she have to be blonde? Brunette? Race? European, Caucasian, Scandinavian, Asian?

This, of course raises questions, particularly regarding the new research. If the new research suggests that people can change their sexual orientation, what does that mean? Some have interpreted it as anti-gay. I don't exactly see it that way. This of course is about what is "natural" or "unnatural." I think we have to be careful with what we mean by "natural" or "unnatural" as this can mean a whole lot of different things, depending on the identity of the object or concept to which you are attaching the word "natural." The reason why homosexuality is seen as "unnatural" is because it appears most people are heterosexual. Homosexuals, therefore, are seen as going against the norm. Furthermore, homosexuals can't reproduce without technology -- another reason why it's seen as unnatural. However, if homosexual attitudes come from the mind, this has nothing to do with the need for technology to have kids.

I saw a documentary recently about transsexuals: people born in bodies of the opposite sex and their sexual identity. Imagine if you had the mind of a man and were born in a woman's body or vice versa. Is it natural? Well, why not? It is not your body, but your mind that determines your behaviour. You are attracted to a particular sex because of your mind, not your body. By "body" I am not referring to the physiology or biochemistry of a person that may affect their behaviour. I am excluding such aspects from what I mean by "body." A person does not say "I have a penis, therefore I must be attracted to something feminine" or "I have a vagina, therefore I must be attracted to something masculine."

Trans-sexuality is attraction of a personality distinctly of one sex to the other. The individual has simply been born in a body of the opposite sex. Homosexuality, however, is an attraction of a personality distinctly of one sex to the exact same sex. Trans-sexuals may be seen as "functioning correctly" (ie. naturally) in terms of having a personality attracted to the opposite sex, but what do we say about homosexuals? Is it natural?

I said a while back that we have to be careful about what we describe as "unnatural." Just what are we labelling as "unnatural?" Is it the mind? The personality? The mind is something that observes an individual's surroundings, has a memory and makes decisions based on what it sees now, has seen in the past and what it remembers of the past. A personality is more than that. A personality is something that has emotions and feelings. It is a mind with attitude. Quite obviously, we are talking about a personality. A mind doesn't have to be natural. A computer program that plays chess has a mind but no personality. It's a mind that doesn't have an attitude. It's a mind that is calculative but unfeeling.

So what constitutes a natural personality? Well here's a word or two: innocence and spontaneity. A person is innocent if either they are free from guilt, free from the knowledge or awareness of evil, or if they don't commit to an attitude of judging right and wrong all the time. You are also innocent if you are down-to-earth, open-minded and take a fresh look at the world every day. It is said that kids are more open-minded than adults (and therefore more innocent) because their beliefs are more deep-rooted. There is a difference between being innocent and being brainwashed and indoctrinated. Little kids do get indoctrinated to some extent. Innocence just means that you have your eyes open. The door is open for new ideas to come in. You are brainwashed and indoctrinated if you close your mind later to new ideas.

Spontaneity? Your beliefs aren't fixed, and you don't listen to the politicians and religious leaders. You don't subscribe to ideologies or creeds. You either do things your way, or if you are religious and believe in God you see yourself as unique in God's world. No-one has the right to judge you except either yourself or God.

Another aspect of a natural personality has to do with the natural course of your life. We all have to make decisions and choices. Many choices are either forced, or are the only option considering that we all have particular goals in life and dreams about what we want to become. With decisions and choices, nobody gets it right the first time. So what do we say when people make the wrong decision? Have we sinned? Have we done a boo boo? I don't see it that way. My philosophy is that mistakes, sins, boo boo's were always meant to happen. You were put in that situation.

While all that is happening, our attitudes, beliefs and emotional needs change. While I believe we do have some ability to change the way we think, the rest of our lives (and therefore the rest of our personality) is influenced by forces outside our control. I see all this as part of a natural process as we are all victims of nature, victims of the circumstances.

What I see as unnatural is subscription and conformity to creeds, ideology and politics. Ideological and political systems take a structured view of the world and seek to classify and apply labels, bumper stickers, protocols and semantics to people. This is impersonal. Anything impersonal is unnatural. It's impersonal and unnatural because it's got nothing to do with the person. It has to do with changing external factors.

Considering all this, I would have the following views.

So what's this got to do with homosexuals?

My response: What I have done here is present a different concept of what constitutes "a natural personality" as opposed to the one many of our religious leaders promote. If we take this view, it will now appear that it is not homosexuals, but religious leaders themselves that have an unnatural personality. That's because religious leaders that promote such views have lives driven by rules. They are machines and slaves of ideology. Their lives are confined to the structural boundaries of their ideology.

But the question remains, are homosexual attitudes natural?

My response: Consider being born a trans-sexual. You are a heterosexual born in the body of the opposite sex. Nature put your mind in the wrong body. Nature got your mind and body mixed up.

Now consider being born a homosexual. You are quite capable of distinguishing between the sexes, except that you are attracted to the sex opposite to that normally sought by a masculine (or feminine) personality. Nature gave you the wrong mindset. If it's naturally possible for nature to get your attitudes mixed up then it is also possible to be naturally homosexual.

It really doesn't matter if God originally designed us to be heterosexual. As the story goes, Adam ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. We are supposed to be a tainted, malfunctioning creation. It is not immoral to malfunction. It is immoral to hate and think evil thoughts. We are allowed to be faulty. There are some attitudes we can't control, and others that we can control. Let's do something about the latter. We can't blame Nature for what it does with our minds and bodies.

Can you change your attitude?

My response: Everyone's got a life story. Our life story is our history and it's a part of who we are as a person. Nobody can judge us based on what we've done in life because a lot of what we do is influenced by what happens around us which is beyond our control. Most of the time we're victims of nature, victims of the circumstances. In the greater scheme of things, we are victims of what Adam did.

If you had to become a heterosexual, that would take time. But consider how your life has played out. Did you manipulate yourself to become homosexual? Did you become homosexual because you were following rules? Were you motivated by ideology, creeds or politics? If not, you are homosexual by nature. Your sexual orientation wasn't ideologically inspired.

If you "become" heterosexual because you were taught by some ideology that you had to be heterosexual, I would actually regard that as unnatural as that is a choice incompatible with your own personal feelings and would not have been the natural course of your life if you had not encountered that ideology. A natural transformation would be one inspired by some recent emotional experience that made you feel like you wanted to be heterosexual. You could then take a roller coaster ride on the feelings you develop as you progress toward heterosexuality.

You can't be heterosexual if you don't have the right feelings or emotional needs. If your emotional needs are that of a homosexual then you are, naturally a homosexual. We can't criticise or condemn nature. Nature is nature. Plants need water and sunshine in order to grow.

Is the new research anti-gay?

My response: If homosexuality is a choice, then heterosexuality is also a choice. If a choice to change one's sexuality is unnatural, then being heterosexual is also unnatural and choice-driven. The logic that being heterosexual is natural would then be contradictory. Those who are anti-gay want you to think that it's natural to be heterosexual, but if they tell you that you have a choice, then that logic contradicts itself.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by bob x

There are two very different pictures of who "Christ" was, and what he taught, in the New Testament. There is the synoptic Christ, who taught a morality of "reciprocity", based on the principle of treating others as if they were people like yourself (which they are). Then there is the Christ in the Pauline epistles and the gospel of John, whose morality is based on "faith" (believe the right things about him) and "faction membership" (join the in-group fellowship). The latter has always been dominant. An in-group, of course, needs an out-group to define itself against: traditionally, this role was played by the Jews (because they don't believe), but since Auschwitz, that has become unfashionable (Christians leave it to the Muslims to define themselves by murderous hatred of the Jews), so gay is the new Jewish. Christians believe, by an act of "faith", absurd things about us, starting with the notion that we "choose" what we find sexually attractive, because it is impossible for us to share that belief (we know, as directly as Descartes knew cogito ergo sum, that it just isn't so), and so we can be demonized as the people who just won't believe.

The idea that homosexuality is unnatural is not the so-called "cornerstone" of Christianity, as the Cornerstone is Christ/Jesus himself.

Christ/Jesus was meant to be a symbol of liberation and emancipation from oppression, slavery and persecution. He came not to enslave, but to set people free from slavery by the rules taught by religious leaders and their impersonal creeds, doctrines, ideologies and semantics. Jesus upheld the idea that there was no barrier between us and God, that nobody could be a barrier between us and God. We had direct access to God. This, I believe, was the Truth Jesus wanted us to believe. The Truth Jesus spoke of was not himself, but the idea that you had direct access to God and you were not to be anyone's slave, but belonged primarily to God.

This, I believe is the Truth for which Jesus died. He died for those needing freedom from slavery by religious leaders and the semantics they taught. 2,000 years later, I think that we have once again become enslaved by rules and semantics and have forgotten the true meaning of Christianity.

We say that you can't be Christian if you don't believe you need to be forgiven by God, and that Jesus "died for our sins." The trouble is, that may not actually be the precise purpose for which Jesus died. Sure, the New Testament, which records the experiences and struggles of the early Christians, has a lot to say about forgiveness, but that does not mean that forgiveness by God is what was so important to the early Christians.

Now let's think. If Jesus was defending people against oppression, persecution and slavery by the religious leaders, why would forgiveness be a dominant idea? Does God need Jesus to die in order to forgive sinners? Who is it that can't forgive? The answer is simple: the religious leaders.

The religious leaders spread the idea that God couldn't accept them because they were so incapable of being holy, so incapable of following their rules. It was not actually about God not being able to forgive. God was quite happy to accept the people that the religious leaders enslaved, oppressed and persecuted. God already accepted these people, even before Jesus was martyred.

The reason why I believe forgiveness is such a prominent theme is to emphasise, highlight and give people assurance that no, you don't have to listen to those religious leaders. They don't understand God. God accepts you even if you can't follow their rules. Jesus death was a political act through which God expressed His support for the oppressed and persecuted. It was society, not God, who couldn't accept or forgive.

Yes it was a sacrifice. But not a ritual sacrifice. Jesus was dying for his beliefs, dying for what he stood for and represented to the people he helped. There is a point where a soldier that wants to protect and defend his country must die when those he is defending have been threatened. Otherwise he'd be a traitor or coward to the cause that he represents. Imagine if a guy so passionate at defending and vindicating you all of a sudden ran off when things got difficult. Imagine if he did that to homosexuals.

Back then, it was about Judaism. The people of Israel forgot the importance of a relationship with God and introduced semantics into their faith. They introduced semantics into the Law. Rather than a Natural Law, it became a dogmatic Law. Jesus affirmed that he didn't come to do away with the Law. The Law wasn't the problem. It was what the people did with the Law that was the problem. The people made the Law impersonal and put a barrier between themselves and God.

For Jews, it's about staying true to the Law. For Christians, it's about staying true to the Gospel. Jews study and preserve the Law for the benefit of those who are not Jews. Christians study and preserve the Gospel for the benefit of those who are not Christians. Christianity, I believe, was never meant to be about discarding Judaism, but giving a group of people a new identity and purpose. God rescued the Jews from slavery by the Egyptians and he rescued the Christians from slavery by semantics.

What happened 2,000 years ago to Judaism is happening again to Christianity. Just as the Jews lost touch with the true spirit of Judaism so Christians today have lost touch with the true spirit of Christianity. I believe Jews have since rediscovered that spirit, but for us Christians we may need to emancipate ourselves from some semantics. Fail that and we are traitors to our own cause.

The idea that you have to believe you must be forgiven by God and that Jesus died for our sins might be seen as an example of semantics. It's good when that's how you feel as a person, but not good if we insist that others conform to a concept to which they cannot relate.

For a long time we've been saying that Jesus died for Christians, that he died for a group of people conforming to a particular system of semantics, a particular philosophy. As they say, a man's love for a woman is not in the words, but by what he does. Emotions and feelings are independent of human languages, independent of logic or semantics. Much of Christianity is enforced in languages and the use of words. Maybe the trouble is that we don't actually feel what we express using words.

In a sense, yes Jesus did die for homosexuals, but also for Christians, but not for the same reason. He died for homosexuals because of the way they are persecuted and oppressed today. He died to free Christians from slavery by the semantics of today's Christianity and its ideologies. I used to be a slave (a Christian) but now I'm free (a Christian).

Do you see what angle I'm coming from? This is a paradigm shift.

I think you are, in a sense, right. There are indeed two different images of Christ projecting out of the Bible. I wouldn't say, however, that Paul and John projected, exclusively, the second image. I think we have given Paul too much credit and put too much emphasis on his ideas, but I don't see his ideas as invalid. Paul had a legalist background and therefore tried to justify the beliefs of the early Christians to legalists. John depicted Jesus as a legendary figure. Not exactly incompatible with the first image. I see both images as that of a "legend."

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by bob x

"Your "hang-ups" are blaming Christianity and taking an endless victim attitude. "
I was ASKED if I had been victimized, and I answered. A little while ago, you were taking me to task for not wallowing endlessly in the matter by pursuing useless lawsuits-- and now you are taking me to task for honestly mentioning what occurred?

IF what you say about the crime is true, the law (and the Lord) is on your side, even if the police are not. Perhaps you are looking for a scapegoat?
“Useless lawsuits?” hmmm… maybe you are “wallowing.”

but then, I think very little of the New Testament has much resemblance to what Jesus had in mind).

Please list chapter and verse, and don’t make any type of blanket statement. I want specifics. Context problems are rampant.

However, I need a generic word

We have already covered this: People who commit crimes are criminals.

for "members of that prominent two thousand year old movement that now has about two billion members"

- You possess a cookie-cutter mentality.

and like most speakers of the English language, I call such people "Christians".

You are not alone in your problem. But your statement about Christians is very wrong.

And they got the notion that we deserve death from the Bible, not from the Bhagavad Gita.

The entire Bible concerns all of human life, warts and all. Do you know anything about Christianity? btw The Bhagavad-Gita is Arjuna’s god Krishna telling him how he should be.

You, as an insider to the movement, would like to reserve the word "Christian" (in a version of the "No true Scotsman..." game) for your own particular subtype, but I have no interest in your private definitions.

I am a Christian, you are completely mistaken if you think that I am sub-categorizing myself, playing games, or applying private definitions.

It is, as I use the word, analogous to "Cub fan": anyone who says they are a Cub fan is, just by saying they are rooting for the Cubs, by definition a "Cub fan".

Maybe you would understand the term, “front-running phony.”

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

For a long time we've been saying that Jesus died for Christians

i dont know who told you that, or who is the "we", but christianity teaches that christ died for everyone; jew, gentile, man, woman, free, and slave. for we all fall short of the glory of god, but thru christ we can find forgiveness and salvation.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Bob!

I want to begin by apologizing to you if anything I said seemed untoward. I am very much aware that paedophilia and homosexuality are two completely different issues, and I can see where what I wrote could be taken out of context, as it was deliberately by Andrew.

Not all gays are paedophiles, not all paedophiles are gay. In point of fact I used the term paedophile for the shock value, because such behavior is generally viewed as reprehensible by the majority of western civilization, both gay and straight.

Originally Posted by bob x

They are "Christians" every bit as much as Palestinian "freedom fighters" or Iraqi "insurgents" are Muslims.

If my memory serves me correctly, this was about equating Christians with criminals, specifically the criminals that attacked you? Let me be clear, what those people did was reprehensible. It was not something I encourage, it is not something I advocate, it is something I find disgusting and morally reprehensible.

I can understand why you feel the way you feel, and it is certainly not my place to try to change that. But may I remind that when an organization such as NAMBLA exists, is it then correct and fair for anybody to assume that gays equivocate with paedophiles? It would seem to me just as unreasonable to equate Christians with criminals.

Originally Posted by bob x

If you want to tell me they have little resemblance to what Jesus had in mind, I would agree with you (but then, I think very little of the New Testament has much resemblance to what Jesus had in mind).

Would you find surprize that I agree with this?

Originally Posted by bob x

However, I need a generic word for "members of that prominent two thousand year old movement that now has about two billion members", and like most speakers of the English language, I call such people "Christians". They didn't get this notion that we are all child molesters from the Buddhists: they got it from "good Christians" like Juan here. (if only… -jt3) And they got the notion that we deserve death from the Bible, not from the Bhagavad Gita.
You, as an insider to the movement, would like to reserve the word "Christian" (in a version of the "No true Scotsman..." game) for your own particular subtype, but I have no interest in your private definitions. To me it is a "faction membership" word, for anyone who considered "Christ" (however they conceptualize "Christ", and however much or little their concept of "Christ" has to do with the historical Jesus) central to their world-view. It is, as I use the word, analogous to "Cub fan": anyone who says they are a Cub fan is, just by saying they are rooting for the Cubs, by definition a "Cub fan".

OK, I understand. Even though I think labelling individuals collectively is not a proper way to conduct a valid assessment, as it tends to lead to gross errors with all kinds of civil rights implications…

Juantoo, when you say that I am the same kind of person as a child molester,

With all due respect, if you go back and read without an emotional veil, I think you will find that is not what I said at all, and I can assure it is not what I meant in spite of the livid accusations by Andrew. Like I said earlier, I used it for the shock value considering Andrew was doing his best to get my goat. He loves to antagonize me, it’s an old game we play with each other.

The point there was that anybody can get along with those they agree with…but he wanted me to get along with those I disagree with (which I make sincere effort to do in real life) but that he by his own admission was apparently completely and evidently unwilling to do himself. Where I come from, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Do not ask of me what you are unwilling to do yourself. Do unto others, and all that jazz… If you want respect, you must be willing to give respect. Respect, the genuine kind, is earned. You can take or buy false respect all day long, but it is worthless. Earned respect is priceless. I respect you Bob, and I respect your opinions on many things. And there are times we have disagreed, the one time was to make a specific point. In this instance, I have no ulterior motive, just a simple choice of lifestyle that does not conform to yours.

that is not at all being a friend. It is foul, and utterly uncalled-for. I do not understand how you can fail to see how profoundly you are my enemy when you speak in such a way. Accusing us of being child molesters is the customary way to incite our murder (the equivalent of "Jews bake their Passover matzohs with Christian babies' blood"). You want to pretend you have nothing to do with the thugs, but the words you utter are the very air they breathe.

Once again, to you and others except Andrew, I apologize if what I said was read otherwise than what was actually meant.

One more time, I didn't get to DECIDE. It's my life, that's all.

On the one hand, I am not standing in your shoes. On the other, all I have to go by is the genetic research I have looked at, research lead by such as Craig Ventor and Francis Collins. Research that indicates that there is no direct genetic link to behavior…in other words, there is no “gay” gene. I would not be surprised if you disagree, and that is your right, but I am of the opinion that the vast majority of our behaviors are internally willed. We choose to become addicted to nicotine, we choose to become addicted to alcohol, we choose what way we prefer to get our rocks off.

There are two very different pictures of who "Christ" was, and what he taught, in the New Testament. There is the synoptic Christ, who taught a morality of "reciprocity", based on the principle of treating others as if they were people like yourself (which they are).

And this is that to which I have been constantly pointing in this thread.

Then there is the Christ in the Pauline epistles and the gospel of John, whose morality is based on "faith" (believe the right things about him) and "faction membership" (join the in-group fellowship). The latter has always been dominant. An in-group, of course, needs an out-group to define itself against: traditionally, this role was played by the Jews (because they don't believe), but since Auschwitz,

Scapegoating is not unique to Christianity nor even monotheism, even though it is a formal rite in Judaism in antiquity. I also believe your assessment is a bit simplistic, the truth is a bit more complex. Need I remind that along with the Jews who died at Auschwitz and elsewhere, were gays, Poles, criminally insane and retarded persons? It is also a matter of fierce debate whether or not Hitler was attempting to represent the Christians…I for one do feel he was being groomed as the next Holy Roman Emperor. But to lay the entire of Christianity at his feet? Perhaps that is something Christianity is not willing to look at, perhaps like gays are less than willing to consider the ramifications of free will on their behavior?

since Auschwitz, that has become unfashionable (Christians leave it to the Muslims to define themselves by murderous hatred of the Jews), so gay is the new Jewish. Christians believe, by an act of "faith", absurd things about us, starting with the notion that we "choose" what we find sexually attractive, because it is impossible for us to share that belief (we know, as directly as Descartes knew cogito ergo sum, that it just isn't so), and so we can be demonized as the people who just won't believe.

I see what you are saying even if I see it differently…does this position then justify unecessary and unwarranted aggression toward innocent bystanders?

Matthew Shepherd, as I recall (didn’t look it up, going by memory here, so the spelling may be off), was the name of the young man in Wyoming that was brutally treated by a couple of idiots. It was a tragic thing that happened, and the gay political lobby has turned this senseless tragedy into a billy club and young Matthew into a martyr. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but let us consider in context…how many other tragic murders took place that year, and how many people remember any of their names?

How many people remember the name of a middle aged dirt poor Mexican who was beaten to a bloody pulp with a baseball bat, then had his throat slit from ear to ear…in his own living room? They caught the murderers who killed young Matthew, the powers that be hardly tried to catch the murderer who killed an otherwise ignored socially worthless old man. I remember that man’s name though, and so do my brothers. That old worthless man meant the world to me…it was my step father. To this day some 15 or so years later the perp that killed him is still roaming the streets. What overarching prejudicial presumptions should I make in vengeful hatred??? I choose not to hate a group, only that specific individual for what he stole from my stepfather.

Tragic losses happen all the time, not to trivialize, but the proximity is what makes them relevant. It is sad what happened to Matthew, but I didn’t know him. On the other hand I would gladly kill the son of a bitch that took my stepdad’s life, even if it meant rotting in hell for eternity. I have little doubt you feel much the same about the idiots that attacked you, and I would not dissuade you. It is one thing to disagree, a point I tried desperately to make to Andrew. It is quite another to take disagreement to the level of hatred that causes one to harm or kill. Cannot a father or mother still love a child that behaves in complete opposition to what they have tried to instill? They may show dismay, but they would not kill their own. That is about how I feel on the matter, I disagree with certain behaviors, but I don’t live your life for you, I don’t live his life for him, I don’t live her life for her, and I damn sure ain’t gonna let Andrew live my life for me.

[bob x]

"You can't be heterosexual if you don't have the right feelings or emotional needs."
Exactly. I am not a Kinsey-scale "6" (utterly impotent with women) but a "5", capable of mechanical sex with females but not capable, apparently, of getting any emotional response to go with it. Among gay men I think 5's are much more common than 6's, although I have met some; and I suspect at the other end that a "2" (capable of "situational" homosexuality, if stuck in prison or at sea for long enough) is more common than a "1" (utterly and thoroughly repulsed at the very thought). What seems to be rarest among males, however, although more common among females, is the true "bisexual" ("3" or "4", depending on a slight lean one way or the other) with attractions both physical and emotional in both directions: but for those who are built that way, that is not something they "chose" about themselves either, although it gives them more choices about how to lead a fully satisfying life.

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Would you find surprize that I agree with this?

May I have chapter and verse?

[bob x]

patti:

IF what you say about the crime is true, the law (and the Lord) is on your side, even if the police are not.

"The law is not what men should do; the law is not even what judges should do; the law is what judges DO... Let us clarify this by viewing it from the perspective of our old friend, the bad man: he does not care whether it says in the law books that he should not do something, or even whether it says in the law books that a judge should put him in prison for doing it, but only about whether, in fact, a judge actually will put him in prison for doing it." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

“Useless lawsuits?” hmmm…

It is thoroughly useless to sue "John Doe" defendants whom I cannot identify, and thoroughly useless to expect to identify them without co-operation from law enforcement: it would probably be hopeless to track them down, even if I had such co-operation, but without it, the case is quite moot.

but then, I think very little of the New Testament has much resemblance to what Jesus had in mind). Please list chapter and verse, and don’t make any type of blanket statement. I want specifics.

The entirety of the gospel of John, and the epistles of Paul. Not specific? "No man comes to the Father except through me" and "Let it be on our heads, ours and our children's" are the verses in John I find most repugnant.

However, I need a generic word We have already covered this: People who commit crimes are criminals.

The word I need is for those who follow the Biblical ideology, in some variant; particularly when their crimes are motivated by that ideology.

and like most speakers of the English language, I call such people "Christians". You are not alone in your problem. But your statement about Christians is very wrong.

A definition can't be "wrong": I am explaining to you my word-usage, which you ought to be familiar with (even if you yourself use words differently) since it is the standard usage in the English language, which I believe you are a native speaker of.

And they got the notion that we deserve death from the Bible, not from the Bhagavad Gita. The entire Bible concerns all of human life, warts and all.

Do you consider the death sentence passed on me in Leviticus to be one of the "warts" in life, or to have been written by God?

juan:

I am very much aware that paedophilia and homosexuality are two completely different issues, and I can see where what I wrote could be taken out of context

I read it WITHIN context. It was pretty f***ing ugly.

Let me be clear, what those people did was reprehensible. It was not something I encourage

You DO encourage it, by the way you speak.

But may I remind that when an organization such as NAMBLA exists, is it then correct and fair for anybody to assume that gays equivocate with paedophiles?

No. The members of NAMBLA are not gays, they are paedophiles. There you go again.

It would seem to me just as unreasonable to equate Christians with criminals

SOME Christians are criminals. Other Christians supply them with their motivation.

With all due respect, if you go back and read without an emotional veil, I think you will find that is not what I said at all

Yes it is.

I have no ulterior motive, just a simple choice of lifestyle that does not conform to yours.

And there you go again. You did not make a "choice" to find women attractive, any more than I chose to find men attractive. It is just who you are, which is different from what I am. Did you make a "choice" to be male rather than female?

On the one hand, I am not standing in your shoes. On the other, all I have to go by is the genetic research I have looked at, research lead by such as Craig Ventor and Francis Collins. Research that indicates that there is no direct genetic link to behavior…in other words, there is no “gay” gene.

I do not know what the mechanism is. I am not committed to any particular theory (but you are making an unjustifiable link from "absence of evidence" to "evidence of absence" here).
All I CAN tell, with the same absolute personal knowledge as Descartes telling you cogito ergo sum, is that your "choice" theory is utterly false. You can call me a liar, if you want to, but don't be so metaphysically absurd as to tell me what is in my own head.

It is also a matter of fierce debate whether or not Hitler was attempting to represent the Christians…

Hitler did not, personally, kill any of those people. The interior lunacies of his head are less interesting to me than the question of why the German nation as a whole believed in murdering Jews, gays, and "inferiors". Two thousand years of Christian history had everything to do with that.

I see what you are saying even if I see it differently…does this position then justify unecessary and unwarranted aggression toward innocent bystanders?

I don't consider you "innocent".

That old worthless man meant the world to me…it was my step father. To this day some 15 or so years later the perp that killed him is still roaming the streets. What overarching prejudicial presumptions should I make in vengeful hatred??? I choose not to hate a group, only that specific individual for what he stole from my stepfather.

What if there was a large and powerful movement, only a few of whose members actually turned to violence mind you, constantly talking about how old Mexicans are worthless? Would you fight against that group?

I would gladly kill the son of a bitch that took my stepdad’s life, even if it meant rotting in hell for eternity. I have little doubt you feel much the same about the idiots that attacked you, and I would not dissuade you.

Those guys? They, personally, are not important to me. I do want to prevent, so far as I can, others from being poisoned by such idiocy.

[AndrewX]

juantoo3, I for one, hope that others on this thread will not let you off the hook the way I did. They can see as well as I, what you are up to, and why. You are shoveling the **** pretty heavily at this point, and with every shovel-full it's getting a little bit harder to smell the roses.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

juantoo3, I for one, hope that others on this thread will not let you off the hook the way I did. They can see as well as I, what you are up to, and why. You are shoveling the **** pretty heavily at this point, and with every shovel-full it's getting a little bit harder to smell the roses.

I think part of what happens between Christians and homosexuals (who may also be Christian) is a vicious cycle. Nobody likes the idea of being seen as sick-minded. When one is vilified as "sick-minded" one feels like a victim. When Christians are taken to task for beliefs unfavourable to homosexuals, they feel like the victims, that they've been wrongly vilified. Their response is an attempt to vindicate themselves.

The problem is that in the end, even if one is vindicated for one's views about homosexuals, and even if that person was misunderstood and felt like a victim because of their beliefs, there is still a residual victim: the homosexual. Even if we were to defend ourselves by saying that we are not one of the people involved in their persecution, and that we've been wrongly placed in that category, the problem is still there.

The vicious cycle starts all over again. This is what I saw in the earlier posts.

The homosexual feels that the problem is being ignored. It's like his/her personal feelings don't matter. Someone else was vilified, victimised and their problem was resolved. They were vindicated. Someone else had been rescued. The homosexual was left behind.

Originally Posted by pattimax

“Useless lawsuits?” hmmm… maybe you are “wallowing.”

When homosexuals assert themselves, it sounds like they're self-absorbed and self-centered, that's it's a group of people thinking they're so important. To me it's reasonable behaviour. They're missing out on what the rest of society enjoys: acceptance and normal healthy relations. It just sounds unfair. From my own personal life experiences, I think I understand now why people sue for emotional damage.

Bob_x's case isn't entirely emotional. He was robbed. Assaulted. What if it happened again by someone else's hands? His point is this: everyone else gets justice. Why does he miss out?

Originally Posted by bob x

No. The members of NAMBLA are not gays, they are paedophiles. There you go again.

I see what you mean . . . NAMBLA = North-American Man/Boy Love Association. "Man/Boy" implying "not necessarily man-to-man"

[bob x]

"When Christians are taken to task for beliefs unfavourable to homosexuals, they feel like the victims, that they've been wrongly vilified."
Conservative Christians insult us foully, and don't even notice that they are doing so, because they take it for granted that we deserve to be foully insulted. Then they blame us for reacting to it. If Juan had just said "I'm sorry for what I said, I didn't mean it to come out like that", as he started out, I would have accepted that (I am not God, so I cannot know what he means, only what he says), but then he goes on to claim that what he said was not terrible, and asks me to read it without emotion.
Well Juan, try reading this without emotion: "Do you know why I don't care what happened to that old Mexican? The best analogy I have is this: how would you feel if a filthy garbage-covered rat was in your living room? Wouldn't you wish it dead?" Notice that, of course, I didn't say your stepfather was a rat, no no, I wasn't saying anything like that at all... You come out with "pedophile" with your first analogy, and then go on to compare us with criminals, because that is what conservative Christians just about always come out with (when they aren't telling us that what we do is just like screwing dogs), and you have come to think that such a way of speaking is perfectly normal and acceptable.


" "Man/Boy" implying "not necessarily man-to-man" "
Meaning, NOT AT ALL man-to-man. About half of all pedophiles, and apparently all of the members of NAMBLA (although it is, of course, difficult to get the full facts on that now-defunct organization), are "obligate pedophiles", which is to say, they have no attraction to adults at all; most of these have no gender preference, so that whether they molest boys or girls is a matter of opportunity rather than a decision on their part. Those pedophiles who have adult relationships as well as an attraction to children are overwhelmingly heterosexual (regardless of whether or not their victims include boys as well as girls); the proportion of gays among pedophiles is too small to measure, under 1% (though we are not as under-represented among pedophiles as women are: pedophiles are almost all male).

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by bob x

patti:

"The law is not what men should do; the law is not even what judges should do; the law is what judges DO... Let us clarify this by viewing it from the perspective of our old friend, the bad man: he does not care whether it says in the law books that he should not do something, or even whether it says in the law books that a judge should put him in prison for doing it, but only about whether, in fact, a judge actually will put him in prison for doing it." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

He also said:

"While the courts must exercise a judgment of their own, it by no means is true that every law is void which may seem to the judges who pass upon it, excessive, unsuited to its ostensible end, or based upon conceptions of morality with which they disagree. Considerable latitude must be allowed for difference of view as well as for possible peculiar conditions which this court can know but imperfectly, if at all. Otherwise a Constitution, instead of embodying only relatively fundamental rules of right, as generally understood by all English-speaking communities, would become the partisan of a particular set of ethical or economic opinions, which by no means are held semper ubique et ab omnibus." (what has been believed always, everywhere and by all)
[QUOTE]

It is thoroughly useless to sue "John Doe" defendants whom I cannot identify, and …
[/quote]
Now you wouldn’t suppose you are thoroughly useless as a lawyer? (just blame Christianity, just like all your other friends- Oh, woe is me! What a cop out!)
Have you ever thought of going after those who won’t cooperate? I’m sure you can identify them.
That is, IF you have a case.

The entirety of the gospel of John, and the epistles of Paul. Not specific? "No man comes to the Father except through me" and "Let it be on our heads, ours and our children's" are the verses in John I find most repugnant.

I never asked what you found repugnant; I asked what Jesus didn’t teach. I should think there is a lot in the bible you don’t like. Nor understand.
Here is one of the Pauline epistles you probably have a problem with:

Romans 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
Just because YOU don’t like it doesn’t mean much.

The word I need is for those who follow the Biblical ideology, in some variant; particularly when their crimes are motivated by that ideology.

I shall never tire of making my point, crimes are motivated by criminal minds.

A definition can't be "wrong"

Wrong definitions can be wrong.

Do you consider the death sentence passed on me in Leviticus to be one of the "warts" in life, or to have been written by God?

You are not dead yet, and God definitely does not consider you a wart. More like a challenge.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, BobX!

Took a little time to respond to your concerns, I hope you will receive them as peaceably as they are sent.

My philosophy is formed by my knowledge and understanding. My knowledge is formed by my scholarship, which I cannot allow to be held hostage to politics or emotion (to genuinely be considered scholarship). Funny, how employment contracts and grant monies can sway the interpretation of data, would you not agree? The suggestion that my only source on this matter is a sacred text is not correct, although on a personal level it does have an influence (certainly *not* to the point of violence!). My arguments are not metaphysical, or at least not solely metaphysical; my arguments are ultimately philosophical, the only gross presumption on my part being that of mind over matter. Even so, I hold no illusions of changing any minds one way or the other. Perhaps the foolishness on my part is in daring to tap dance in a minefield without a flak jacket or an umbrella.

I realize this is a sensitive subject, but even sensitive subjects need to be looked at with forthright reality, even brutally if necessary. Perhaps not always so, perhaps tinting the findings to assuage those of tender sensibilities is proper, I don’t know. That is not my forte, and certainly not one of my strong points. When I write academically, I suppose I näively expect to be received academically. Emotional blackmail is not in my mind an appropriate academic response.

I find it interesting how I am lumped with Christians and painted with a huge brush by “others” when on the outs, when to the Christians I am far too often an “other” myself. Once again I am too Christian to be other, and too other to be Christian. I live my life between a rock and a hard place. By now I’m used to it. To be sure, there are matters with the Christians I have been lumped with which I agree, and there are matters with which I disagree.

I looked back at what I wrote, I am sorry if you see what I wrote as equating homosexuality with paedophilia, but the truth is I did not mention them together earlier, and made no such equation. Look again, without a jaundiced eye. I made no such equation. Even in bringing up NAMBLA, the point was (as usual, I’m afraid) avoided in favor of seeing insult where none existed nor was intended. The point there was that if Christians are criminals because of an organization, then what kind of presumptions should be made when an association such as NAMBLA exists? I could dare go so far as to mention the victimization of young boys by clergy, so are all clergy paedophiles? These are unfair presumptions to make on all sides…including that of Christians being criminals. The suggestion that the Christian institution teaches such criminality on a wholesale level bears some degree of merit, but only when in close cooperation with the political machinations along with political expediency. I do agree with you that what the teacher commonly known as Jesus taught is not the type and kind of violent cultural isolation that led to such as the Crusades or the witch hunts. That agreement however does not preclude Jesus’ disagreement with the behavior of some who sought his favor. I’m sorry if the terminology of “love the sinner, hate the sin” holds some contrary meaning, and I do agree it is discouraging among other things that there are some who take license to emphasize the term “hate.” But the essential concept bears some merit in my mind, even though I do not like and seldom use the term “hate” myself. Therefore, until now, you have not seen me specifically use this term, in spite of what has been attributed to me.

This really is about freedom. You want it, I want it. I am not denying you yours, why deny me mine? I am denied because I view things differently? Oh my! What a world this would be, if only we all agreed…with whom? You have no desire to live in my world, I have no desire to live in yours. I have said all along since I arrived here over 3 years ago, “live and let live.” Now, I am to be denied that because I disagree? Shall we carry that philosophy out into the “real” world? I thought all “enlightened” people were moving away from that paradigm, of forcing others into the popular mold or forcing them out as an “other.”

There are obviously matters and nuances with which we will not find agreement, you prefer to see things your way and I mine. You seem to feel there is absolutely no control, from my research I am inclined otherwise to believe that I do have control over my body and I have choice in how to guide myself. Perhaps I am predisposed to nicotine addiction, but I will not surrender my will in order to use that as excuse to continue smoking cigarettes. One day I will quit, then again perhaps not. I drift back and forth like a yo-yo sometimes. And I am fully aware a person’s sexuality is not equal to an addiction, but there are so few examples that can rightly be contrasted with sexuality (I also think it unfair when trying to hold an intelligent conversation that the first knee-jerk reaction is an explosive emotional diatribe). How about simply considering what point is however feebly trying to be made, rather than taking exception to every letter of text? It tends to promote the underlying feeling that the gay political lobby feels so threatened as to shout “prejudice!” because they have nothing more intelligent really to be said in response. If we are going to be on about emotionally charged perceptions, then that is the opposite emotionally charged perception.

Back to the cigarette: so I’ve been smoking for far too many years now. Does that imply I am genetically predisposed? I don’t think there is a smoking gene, according to the genetic researchers I have looked into there is no smoking gene. I am of the opinion, for all that is worth, that I may have some epi-genetic predisposition to smoking, as well as “training / indoctrination” from my father and other significant people in my life. But it was my choice to light up that first cigarette, and every cigarette since. My choice has been to cut down drastically, and for several years now I have been able to get by with 1 or 2 a day (occasionally more) and it is my choice to deal with the genes I have been dealt and the life I have been born into.

I’m not saying “right or wrong.” I feel the need to make that explicit. One person interprets life through one set of lenses, the next person through another set, and no two lenses are identical. Gay people and straight people have the same “feel good” nerve endings in the same places (gender specific). I cannot account for personal appreciation of “beauty” anymore than you can other than it is a random proclivity. I can appreciate the beauty of a goat, but that doesn’t mean I wish to sleep with it. Perhaps there may be some underlying motivator that inclines us toward our proclivities, but the choice to act upon it is another matter altogether, and I sense that cultural and social taboos weigh heavily in that influence. I might have overwhelming thoughts of taking an AK47 and blowing away the staff at the local IRS office (I don’t!), but I don’t because it is socially and morally not the right thing to do. We all have to make these decisions; about what is right and wrong, and we make these decisions based on what we know and how we are raised and how we choose to interpret the data.

In my view, a “gay act” if that can please be accepted as a polite term (or please offer one more acceptable) is no more or less a “sin” in Christian parlance, than fornication (unmarried sex). I don’t see many people getting stoned to death for unmarried sex unless they happen to be married to someone else. Historically though, there is merit to your concerns and fears, because there is a disproportionate weight placed upon this historically by others (not all of them Christian). Yet, the 10 Commandments of my chosen faith do not say “Thou shalt not have sex with one of the same gender,” but it does say “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Curious, I also do not see Christians rushing out to stone adulterers to death, although there are times in historical past where this too is true. Regardless, (and I am sure you are aware there are other verses often pointed to, predominantly Paul’s *suggestions*), Jesus himself taught to treat others as we wish to be treated. At the same time he also taught that we should be wise (or at least try to be) in our earthly and bodily affairs. I can disagree with the gay lifestyle, and simultaneously disagree with an adulterous lifestyle, and to further complicate matters I can freely forgive! Obviously you do not see the gay lifestyle as sinful, and that is between you and G-d, but to me it is *for me*, and that is what G-d has laid on my heart in my attempt to walk in wisdom. Likewise, smoking cigarettes for some Christians is sinful, and in their eyes because I smoke I’m sinning. But I do not answer to them, any more than you answer to me. Their attitude and point of view in the end is meaningless, it is between me and G-d to work it all out. In short, I do not *hate* because I disagree, I simply disagree. I cannot speak for others, and I do feel it to be unjust to imply that I do, or that others speak for me. My attitudes have no bearing on what some young idiot does elsewhere, he is responsible to G-d and society for his own idiotic interpretation.

I want to go on, but I guess this is more than enough. Hopefully this will be received in the manner it is sent, if not I don’t know what else to offer. I am merely me, I will not pretend to be anybody else.

[bob x]

Patti:

"Now you wouldn’t suppose you are thoroughly useless as a lawyer? "
I burned my license to practice years ago. This was after a police beating case, in which judges took the pure fascist position, that whatever the police do is legal by definition, and my client committed suicide. My license came up for renewal, and I would have had to take an oath to support the laws of that state, which I did not feel I could do in good conscience.
"Have you ever thought of going after those who won’t cooperate? "
Ask judges to go against the police? See above.

"I never asked what you found repugnant; I asked what Jesus didn’t teach. "
I do not believe that Jesus taught such things. If you did persuade me that Jesus said them, you would only destroy my respect for Jesus.
"I should think there is a lot in the bible you don’t like. Nor understand."
It is BECAUSE I understand what comes of it that I detest it.
"Here is one of the Pauline epistles you probably have a problem with:"
Note that Paul does not teach the absurd modern-Christian theory that we "choose" to be gay. He agrees that God *makes* us gay, but says it is a punishment for worshipping heathen idols. Well, we have some experimental evidence on that theory now: the Greek gods haven't been worshipped for many centuries, and yet there are as many gay people as ever.

"I shall never tire of making my point, crimes are motivated by criminal minds."
Christianity MAKES some minds criminal.

"Do you consider the death sentence passed on me in Leviticus to be one of the "warts" in life, or to have been written by God?
You are not dead yet, and God definitely does not consider you a wart"
Then you believe the author of Leviticus was not speaking for God? Do you believe that author was a hateful evil man?