Had a Vision...

[CraigBaugher]

I may have to leave these forums soon. The moderators delete a lot of my posts without giving any reason. Okay, I can be sarcastic, but only in response to offensive comments by others. And posts that I consider perfectly polite get deleted as well.
I have put in complaints about other people's offensive posts, but it seems nothing is going to be done about them. I have a sense of bias here.

Well first know, I was not offended by your post. You were trying to make a point and your point was received. I understand that it would be difficult, and stressful to some degree, to remain celibate, whether you are heterosexual or homosexual, and more so when you are young.

I also would agree with you that communicating on a Christian Website, as a non-believer would be difficult because of the bias. Nevertheless, I welcome your input, for I can see beyond the shock value.

I have to go exercise, but I will address any issue you may want to discuss.

 

[BAFRIEND]

I had a vision too, in it, the apostle Paul told us not to associate with the sexually immoral and the Bible called fornication and adultery a sin.

 

[CraigBaugher]

I had a vision too,

I just walked in, so I have to take a shower, but can you explain your post my Christian Brother? First your vision, or where you mocking me? I surely would hope not...

in it, the apostle Paul told us not to associate with the sexually immoral and the Bible called fornication and adultery a sin.

Paul is an excellent choice my brother... Do you remember what Paul says about sin & faith, Jesus & Salvation, and the Laws & Judgement?

The law is dead my brother, but not to be forgotten. Jesus and the Golden Rule lives!

 

[CraigBaugher]

Well, Craig, that is one interesting thread starting post. I'm not going to argue with someone's "vision" though it's never certain from where such things come.

There is of course no evidence that to be LGBT is at all sinful and certainly no reason for LGBTs to be celibate unless they choose to of their own accord. It is certainly no business of anyone else.

I believe the true mission of LGBTs is to give examples to the agents of intolerance as to how to treat others. Certainly right-wing Christians fall short of the mark when they in some cases advocate bullying and harm to LGBTs and their families. LGBTs are of course no magic saints but merely regular folks just like everybody else. All sin and fall short of the mark. It's just to be LGBT is not a sin.

Ok... you made me question what I was saying, so I looked it up, and then I read a few translations. Some varied a bit, so when I question the translations I go to the Original Greek - it doesn't get any better than looking at original text. So here is what is says:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Original Greek:
E ou eidO hoti adikos theos basileia ou klEronomeO mE planaO oute pornos oute eidOlolatrEs oute moichos oute malakos oute arsenokoitEs oute kleptEs oute pleonektEs ou methusos ou loidoros ou harpax basileia theos klEronomeO.

Which means:
OR NOT ye-are-aware that UN-JUST-ones OF-God KINGdom NOT SHALL-BE-enjoying-the-allotment-of NO BE-ye-beING-deceived! neither paramours nor idolaters nor ADULTERers nor catamites nor sodomites nor thieves nor greedy not drunkards not revilers not extortioners Kingdom of-God SHALL-BE-enjoying-the-allotment-of.

Yeah... it loses something in the translation. so... here is My Translation:

Are you not aware that unjust ones shall not enjoy the alloment of God's Kingdom? Be ye not deceived! neither paramours nor idolaters nor adulters nor catamites nor sodmites nor theives nor greedy, not drunkards, not revilers, not extortioners shall be enjoying the allotment of God's Kingdom.

Wow... I guess it doesn't change my OP, but it does change how I was thinking... For I was really thinking that once saved and baptized it would be like any other sin and be forgiven, and it may in the end, for while I was searching for that, I read some where (and I will have to find it again) that even those that have been saved and baptized but become immoral afterwards will die and be destroyed, but their souls will be saved again upon the return of Jesus.

 

[Kerwin]

If im perfectly honest you may well be correct in the fact I have co-dependancy issues, however a lot of these stem from the fact for a certain period of my life I felt (because of who I was) that I was worthless and didnt deserve to even speak to other people. However even if I do:- In general for most people we as humans have a desire for companionship usually involving a particularly close bond with someone else who may or may not be our sexual partner too.

I think its pretty bleak thought (for me at least) that homosexuals are not able to pursue a closeness with the person they love and who loves them when hetrosexuals (within a commited relationship context at least) are free to do so. It frustrates me no end when you get obviously married people on forums going "gays need to abstain!" etc.. when they wouldnt abstain themselves as they believe their relationship has got the "God seal of approval" stamp. I just couldnt accept a loving God would enforce homosexuality as a sin to leave so many of his children to suffer and be forced into celibacy if they want to go to heaven.

If every hetrosexual on this board in a relationship could happily abandon it this instant , never enter into sexual realtions with their partner again, never kiss her/him again, never hold him/her again then Id consider the "homosexuals should carry their cross and be celibate" an acceptable one.

You give me a tall order defending the actions of all heterosexuals when in truth many such couples are sinning against God in one way or another. According to God you must be abstain from sex or be married to a member of the opposite sex to be in line with his ethics and even then you need a loving low strife relationship. That is a tall order but your happiness with it depends on whether or not you believe God loves you and has a plan for you. I am well aware of the test maintaining that faith requires as I myself face that test every day and as I say sometimes I fail but Lord may I always get up to strive again. God loves you even though he tests your heart in many ways.

 

[Andreusz]

^ To me, this doesn't sound like love, but like a malicious kid tormenting something or someone.

 

[CraigBaugher]

^ To me, this doesn't sound like love, but like a malicious kid tormenting something or someone.

Actually it sounds like a parent wanting their kids to strive to be the best they possibly can be. Don't cheat on your husband or wife. Don't become involved with a married man or women. Don't commit a crime, and dont bully others. It is Ok to drink, but don't drink to the point you're drunk. Don't worship false Gods. Don't become greedy and put money and riches before me or your fellow man. Don't be a pedophile, and don't have oral or anal copulating (men, women, heterosexual or homosexual). Finally, don't be rude or put others down or belittle them. Love & treat other as you would yourself or better.

 

[Andreusz]

Actually it sounds like a parent wanting their kids to strive to be the best they possibly can be. Don't cheat on your husband or wife. Don't become involved with a married man or women. Don't commit a crime, and dont bully others. It is Ok to drink, but don't drink to the point you're drunk. Don't worship false Gods. Don't become greedy and put money and riches before me or your fellow man. Don't be a pedophile, and don't have oral or anal copulating (men, women, heterosexual or homosexual). Finally, don't be rude or put others down or belittle them. Love & treat other as you would yourself or better.

You see, everything on this list sounds fine, and if I had kids, I would want them to behave according to these precepts ... except the oral and anal copulating. Everything else is harmful to others, but those things don't harm anyone. But as has been pointed out, there is no answer to my question of why your god condemns these things. So that leaves me feeling that your god is an arbitrary tyrant.

 

[CraigBaugher]

You see, everything on this list sounds fine, and if I had kids, I would want them to behave according to these precepts ... except the oral and anal copulating. Everything else is harmful to others, but those things don't harm anyone. But as has been pointed out, there is no answer to my question of why your god condemns these things. So that leaves me feeling that your god is an arbitrary tyrant.

Well let me try... as when anytime I am faced with the unknown, I research the subject matter extensively to learn. Well after spending all day reading everything I could find from numerous medical and scientific websites, here is my conclusion:

While God creates and has created every thing that is seen and unseen. Things happen in nature to the mother that can change a developing fetus (stress, trama, illness, vitamin deficiency, caustic envirnoment, etc), which as a result, some are born blind, some deft, some without limbs, and the list goes on and on.

Scientist have looked for (since 1990), and continue to look for, but have not found "the Gay" gene. What they have found is that during the 16th-24th week of fetus development, the period of time when the baby goes through a hormonal wash of sorts to decide its sex, physically and mentally, something has occured with the mother so that this hormonal wash is incomplete - thus making some males feel & think more feminine, and some females more masculine. This however alone does not automatically make someone gay. So even if it was God's purpose to make some males have a better understanding of females, and some females to have a better understanding of men and how they think, that is the extent.

For in multiple studies conducted around the world with identical twins and fraternal twins it was determined that over 65% of sexual preference was determined by unique individual environmental influences. This is important, because both had the same hormonal influences. Other contributing factors were illnesses, parental (one twin being more mothered or fathered than the other), accidents (which puzzles me, but seen it listed several times), friendships, and first sexual encounter. But the bottom line is, Scientist say that less than 1.7% are genetically preconditioned to being Gay. That means 0.0765% of the population have absolutely no choice or 23,352 in the U.S. and 514,304 world wide. That means 13,707,308 Gays in the U.S., and 302,017,290 world-wide are gay by choice.

 

[gwdboi]

Well let me try... as when anytime I am faced with the unknown, I research the subject matter extensively to learn. Well after spending all day reading everything I could find from numerous medical and scientific websites, here is my conclusion:

While God creates and has created every thing that is seen and unseen. Things happen in nature to the mother that can change a developing fetus (stress, trama, illness, vitamin deficiency, caustic envirnoment, etc), which as a result, some are born blind, some deft, some without limbs, and the list goes on and on.

Scientist have looked for (since 1990), and continue to look for, but have not found "the Gay" gene. What they have found is that during the 16th-24th week of fetus development, the period of time when the baby goes through a hormonal wash of sorts to decide its sex, physically and mentally, something has occured with the mother so that this hormonal wash is incomplete - thus making some males feel & think more feminine, and some females more masculine. This however alone does not automatically make someone gay. So even if it was God's purpose to make some males have a better understanding of females, and some females to have a better understanding of men and how they think, that is the extent.

As a psychology student I have to take issue with a few points made above:
1. Feminine vs. masculine: as we study various cultures we see how traits deemed as "feminine" and "masculine" are not biologically based but culturally based. If a male child is told that characteristic x is feminine and the child identifies strongly with characteristic x while being told that characteristic y is also feminine, the child will have an increased chance of identifying with characteristic y. We can also see through research into development and psychopathology that people who tend to express androgynous gender characteristics tend to be more stable and experience less disorder ergo, it is difficult to conclude that feminine and masculine traits are biologically based. (Levant, R.F., Richmond, K. (2007) Research on Masculinity Ideologies Using the Male Role Norms Inventory. Journal of Men's Studies. 15. 130-146)

2. "Gay-gene": While scientists have not identified one preticular gene as a gene that causes homosexuality, we have done twin studies that show that there is some sort of genetic link in homosexuality. (Bailey, J.M., Pillard, R.C., Meale, M.C., Agyei, Y. (1993) Heritable Factors Influence Sexual Orientation in Women. Archives of General Psychiatry. 50. 217-223)

For in multiple studies conducted around the world with identical twins and fraternal twins it was determined that over 65% of sexual preference was determined by unique individual environmental influences.

Could you please cite these studies.

This is important, because both had the same hormonal influences. Other contributing factors were illnesses, parental (one twin being more mothered or fathered than the other), accidents (which puzzles me, but seen it listed several times), friendships, and first sexual encounter. But the bottom line is, Scientist say that less than 1.7% are genetically preconditioned to being Gay. That means 0.0765% of the population have absolutely no choice or 23,352 in the U.S. and 514,304 world wide. That means 13,707,308 Gays in the U.S., and 302,017,290 world-wide are gay by choice.

Unless you can provide citations I would be willing to wager that your information is either outdated or a poorly conducted study. The twin studies (as I cited above) showed that there was a strong positive correlation between homosexuality and genetics. Also, the ideas that parenting and first sexual encounter determine sexual orientation have been proven incorrect considering that many young males experience their first sexual encounter with other young males; however, we all know that the majority of males are not gay.

 

[CraigBaugher]

As a psychology student I have to take issue with a few points made above:
1. Feminine vs. masculine: as we study various cultures we see how traits deemed as "feminine" and "masculine" are not biologically based but culturally based. If a male child is told that characteristic x is feminine and the child identifies strongly with characteristic x while being told that characteristic y is also feminine, the child will have an increased chance of identifying with characteristic y. We can also see through research into development and psychopathology that people who tend to express androgynous gender characteristics tend to be more stable and experience less disorder ergo, it is difficult to conclude that feminine and masculine traits are biologically based. (Levant, R.F., Richmond, K. (2007) Research on Masculinity Ideologies Using the Male Role Norms Inventory. Journal of Men's Studies. 15. 130-146)

2. "Gay-gene": While scientists have not identified one preticular gene as a gene that causes homosexuality, we have done twin studies that show that there is some sort of genetic link in homosexuality. (Bailey, J.M., Pillard, R.C., Meale, M.C., Agyei, Y. (1993) Heritable Factors Influence Sexual Orientation in Women. Archives of General Psychiatry. 50. 217-223)

Could you please cite these studies.

Man... I knew I should have written them down, but, I looked at so much stuff. Going through my history links, some where:

Bailey and Pillard (1991)
Bearman and Bruckner (2002)
Hershberger (2001)
Niklas Långström, Qazi Rahman, Eva Carlström, Paul Lichtenstein, 7 June 2008, doi 10.1007/s10508-008-9386-1

But my conclusion was based on a recent summary doc that took into account all the above, plus several more, and drew a conclusion or summary, and it is not in my history links... so give me a little bit to try and find it. I think it was a Chicago Journal pdf file.

 

[gwdboi]

Man... I knew I should have written them down, but, I looked at so much stuff. Going through my history links, some where:

Bailey and Pillard (1991)
Bearman and Bruckner (2002)
Hershberger (2001)
Niklas Långström, Qazi Rahman, Eva Carlström, Paul Lichtenstein, 7 June 2008, doi 10.1007/s10508-008-9386-1

But my conclusion was based on a recent summary doc that took into account all the above, plus several more, and drew a conclusion or summary, and it is not in my history links... so give me a little bit to try and find it. I think it was a Chicago Journal pdf file.

Bailey and Pillard (1991)
A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation
Abstract:

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Homosexual male probands with monozygotic cotwins, dizygotic cotwins, or adoptive brothers were recruited using homophile publications. Sexual orientation of relatives was assessed either by asking relatives directly, or when this was impossible, asking the probands. Of the relatives whose sexual orientation could be rated, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities were substantial under a wide range of assumptions about the population base rate of homosexuality and ascertainment bias. However, the rate of homosexuality among nontwin biological siblings, as reported by probands, 9.2% (13/142), was significantly lower than would be predicted by a simple genetic hypothesis and other published reports. A proband's self-reported history of childhood gender non-conformity did not predict homosexuality in relatives in any of the three subsamples. Thus, childhood gender nonconformity does not appear to be an indicator of genetic loading for homosexuality. Cotwins from concordant monozygotic pairs were very similar for childhood gender nonconformity. [/FONT]

Source: http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/48/12/1089

Bearman and Bruckner (2002)
Opposite Sex Twins and Adolescent Same Sex Attraction

Abstract:
The etiology of human same-sex romantic attraction is generally
framed in terms of (1) social influences, (2) genetic influences, or (3)
hormonal influences. In this article, we show that adolescent males
who are opposite-sex twins are twice as likely as expected to report
same-sex attraction; and that the pattern of concordance (similarity
across pairs) of same-sex preference for sibling pairs does not suggest
genetic influence independent of social context. Our data falsify the
hormone transfer hypothesis by isolating a single condition that
eliminates the opposite-sex twin effect we observe—the presence of
an older same-sex sibling. We also consider and reject a speculative
evolutionary theory that rests on observing birth-order effects on
same-sex orientation. In contrast, our results support the hypothesis
that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadoles-
cence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences.

Source: http://0-search.ebscohost.com.libra...rue&db=psyh&AN=2002-15745-002&site=ehost-live

Critique:

The problem with this study (Bearman and Bruckner (2002)) is that when reviewing their methods they didn't actually state what scales they used. In valid research the researchers will either tell what scales they used or give the validity of scales they have made themselves, since neither of these exist in the article it is impossible to know how they got their information. One very important fact that many people don't know is that in psychology we cannot just ask one question to determine one characteristic. Using multiple questions to determine a characteristic reduces the chance of answers based on social desireability.

Hershberger (2001)

??? Couldn't find that one ???

Niklas Långström, Qazi Rahman, Eva Carlström, Paul Lichtenstein, 7 June 2008
Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-sex Sexual Behavior: A Population Study of Twins in Sweden

Abstract:


There is still uncertainty about the relative importance of genes and environments on human sexual orientation. One reason is that previous studies employed self-selected, opportunistic, or small population-based samples. We used data from a truly population-based 2005-2006 survey of all adult twins (20-47 years) in Sweden to conduct the largest twin study of same-sex sexual behavior attempted so far. We performed biometric modeling with data on any and total number of lifetime same-sex sexual partners, respectively. The analyses were conducted separately by sex. Twin resemblance was moderate for the 3,826 studied monozygotic and dizygotic same-sex twin pairs. Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34-.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61-.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18-.19 for genetic factors, .16-.17 for shared environmental, and 64-.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.

 

[gwdboi]

Source for the last abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536986