Homosexuals "Returning" to Heterosexuality

[saysmydoctor]

I don't understanding this concept of therapy to homosexuals to rehabilitate them to be heterosexuals. I'm not sure what it entails, I'm not sure if it's possible. I'm really at a loss with this, and was looking for some outside opinions.

I personally feel that this is a kind of thing you can't overcome but at the same time, since it's genetic, we can cure other genetic 'irregularities'--so what makes this impossible? Maybe it's not therapeutic or something.

I'm not sure.

[Machu505]

It's merely suppressing a person's actual sexuality.

[Smash Adams]

You saw Richard Cohen on Madow huh? From what I've seen what he mostly does is aversion therapy, you associate homosexual impulses with pain so you avoid them and "act straight"

[ted is lying]

Well someone is doing god job, shouldn't the Christians not approve this too?

[sinkinginthesea]

I watched an episode of True Life where a straight guy was doing gay porn. Don't get it.

[GeeBee]

The mormon church funds "Evergreen", which claims to "fix" gays.

[cuzimlefthanded]

You saw Richard Cohen on Madow huh? From what I've seen what he mostly does is aversion therapy, you associate homosexual impulses with pain so you avoid them and "act straight"

That guy is ridiculous.

L2Pg22ow1e8

He basically fucked over all the homosexuals in Uganda.

[sleepyseanzzz]

I watched an episode of True Life where a straight guy was doing gay porn. Don't get it.

me too, "solely for the money" as it paid more for him to be in gay porn than straight porn. and he liked women, my question is how he is able to get it up with another man

[SlappedActor]

I watched an episode of True Life where a straight guy was doing gay porn. Don't get it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay-for-pay

[Max_123]

just watch Bruno

[Josh Weinstein]

I don't understanding this concept of therapy to homosexuals to rehabilitate them to be heterosexuals. I'm not sure what it entails, I'm not sure if it's possible. I'm really at a loss with this, and was looking for some outside opinions.

I personally feel that this is a kind of thing you can't overcome but at the same time, since it's genetic, we can cure other genetic 'irregularities'--so what makes this impossible? Maybe it's not therapeutic or something.

I'm not sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

Also, I haven't seen it, but I read that the film "But I'm A Cheerleader" takes a satirical look at a conversion summer camp.

I agree, sexual orientation is genetic, but some people are pressured to convert to sexual orientation, made to feel guilty about being gay and suppress any homosexual desire. Case in point, Ted Haggard. After the scandal that he was involved with male prostitutes, he was cured of any homosexuality after three weeks of therapy.

[sleepyseanzzz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay-for-pay

there is a big difference playing a role like willem dafoe (in the boondock saints) and the village people did. they acted gay. at the end of the day they arent. heterosexuals in gay porn do the same thing, they act gay but really aren't. it's harder to believe they aren't gay when they can get hard and give it to another man, as well as take it. like i said before, i can't even imagine he would be able to get it up with another guy. that's just gay.

"not that there's anything wrong with that!"

[SlappedActor]

there is a big difference playing a role like willem dafoe (in the boondock saints) and the village people did. they acted gay. at the end of the day they arent. heterosexuals in gay porn do the same thing, they act gay but really aren't. it's harder to believe they aren't gay when they can get hard and give it to another man, as well as take it. like i said before, i can't even imagine he would be able to get it up with another guy. that's just gay.

"not that there's anything wrong with that!"

Don't watch gay porn, don't really have an opinion on the issue. Just thought the link had some interesting info.

[Alaina <3]

I've seen the True Life episode about the straight guy working in gay porn. He takes those male enhancement pills beforehand.

[Charles777]

I watched an episode of True Life where a straight guy was doing gay porn. Don't get it.
I think I saw that too. I don't understand any of this either.

[Josh Weinstein]

I've seen the True Life episode about the straight guy working in gay porn. He takes those male enhancement pills beforehand.

According to Ron Jeremy, male porn stars, gay or straight, pop Viagra like they were Pez.

[Alaina <3]

According to Ron Jeremy, male porn stars, gay or straight, pop Viagra like they were Pez.
That doesn't surprise me at all. Oh, and I forgot to post my opinion about this.

God, this pisses me off. I honestly can't believe that people are still so ignorant that they think that homosexuality is a disease and a choice, and that everyone who "chooses" to be gay is immediately damned to hell. And Christians have the worst argument ever for hating gays: "The Bible says it's wrong." Yeah, well the Bible also says that eating shellfish is wrong, that you can stone your wife, and that it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery. Fucking ridiculous...

/Rant

[katyara]

That doesn't surprise me at all. Oh, and I forgot to post my opinion about this.

God, this pisses me off. I honestly can't believe that people are still so ignorant that they think that homosexuality is a disease and a choice, and that everyone who "chooses" to be gay is immediately damned to hell. And Christians have the worst argument ever for hating gays: "The Bible says it's wrong." Yeah, well the Bible also says that eating shellfish is wrong, that you can stone your wife, and that it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery. Fucking ridiculous...

/Rant
Agreed. The Bible also says that to be a good Christian you have to sell everything you own and give it to the poor...don't see too many people doing that.

[dddaniel]

I really respect Rachel. While she of course has a liberal bias, situations like this show she does truly know what she is talking about. The part in the book about race was indeed laughable.

[muchoawesomeo]

gay for pay doesn't sound too bad in this economy.

[cuzimlefthanded]

That doesn't surprise me at all. Oh, and I forgot to post my opinion about this.

God, this pisses me off. I honestly can't believe that people are still so ignorant that they think that homosexuality is a disease and a choice, and that everyone who "chooses" to be gay is immediately damned to hell. And Christians have the worst argument ever for hating gays: "The Bible says it's wrong." Yeah, well the Bible also says that eating shellfish is wrong, that you can stone your wife, and that it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery. Fucking ridiculous...

/Rant

I hate gays, don't eat shellfish, have stoned all my wives, and sold all my kids into slavery (sons included). Guess who's going to heaven?

[BrennanHickson]

I hate gays, don't eat shellfish, have stoned all my wives, and sold all my kids into slavery (sons included). Guess who's going to heaven?
You still can't. Left-handers don't go to Heaven.

[cuzimlefthanded]

You still can't. Left-handers don't go to Heaven.

HAHAHA that just made my night. Initially, I was weirded out wondering "how the hell does she know that I'm left handed?". Then I remembered my username.

[Josh Weinstein]

I hate gays, don't eat shellfish, have stoned all my wives, and sold all my kids into slavery (sons included). Guess who's going to heaven?

http://www.ajjacobs.com/books/yolb.asp

[MyNameIsRoss]

all that comes to mind is the christian gay camp on south park. Pray the Gay away haha. i think these places actually exist though. fucking crazy..

[AloneInTheDark]

I'm pretty sure that these camps would have some terrible after effects, I cannot imagine anyone being emotionally happy supressing their sexuality like that.

[x togepi x]

I'm not entirely sure it's genetic. I know it's not a choice. and I know that you can't change that shit, and that dude is just trying to sell inane books.

[cuzimlefthanded]

I'm pretty sure that these camps would have some terrible after effects, I cannot imagine anyone being emotionally happy supressing their sexuality like that.

Like dancing with a hot girl and trying to keep down a boner. Fucking terrible

[J.C.]

I'd be more impressed if they were having luck convincing straight dudes that they're actually gay.

[Cfw828]

Cohen: You took one little quote out of a 300 page book.

That's no different from taking lines out of the Bible and interpreting those as law.

[zion the lion]

My friend and brother went to a camp where they focused on reeducating people to be straight. One of my psychiatrists has touched on the subject and tried to turn me back into being 100% straight before, we didnt get too far though.

there is a big difference playing a role like willem dafoe (in the boondock saints) and the village people did. they acted gay. at the end of the day they arent. heterosexuals in gay porn do the same thing, they act gay but really aren't. it's harder to believe they aren't gay when they can get hard and give it to another man, as well as take it. like i said before, i can't even imagine he would be able to get it up with another guy. that's just gay.

"not that there's anything wrong with that!"

Is it really that hard for you to realize that male porn stars take pills to get erections that are bigger and last longer? They do it for gay and straight porn. I'm sure it's not hard to visualize someone more attractive when you're having sex with someone you dont consider attractive. Hell, if I had a penis, I'd probably get hard thinking about how much of a bigger paycheck that is.

[sjb2k1]

It's merely suppressing a person's actual sexuality.
this pretty much sums it up.

[brokenwings]

According to Ron Jeremy, male porn stars, gay or straight, pop Viagra like they were Pez.
yeah, that's not surprising at all. with all the pressure, people around you and the fact that you might not be attracted at all to the person you are supposed to fuck + the fact that you aren't 16 anymore...

[Smash Adams]

I'd be more impressed if they were having luck convincing straight dudes that they're actually gay.
Amanda Peet did that to Jack Black in Saving Silverman!In yo face Joseph

[abcdefghijake]

I watched an episode of True Life where a straight guy was doing gay porn. Don't get it.

Is this the one when the guy is just like, "I want to show you something." and then just goes to the website.

[sinkinginthesea]

Is this the one when the guy is just like, "I want to show you something." and then just goes to the website.
haha yeah that's the episode.

[sjb2k1]

i made the mistake of watching "but i'm a cheerleader" with a girl whose ex had been sent to reparative therapy. it was terrible. i guess her parents had threatened to send her too, and i had no idea. oops.

and on a related note, the one sent to reparative therapy is still a big lesbian. shit doesn't work, not that i know why you'd want to do that anyway.

[Un'Aria Ancora]

This ass hole knows he's helping to fuel that legislation. Taking that quote out of the next edition won't change anything. He plays the sympathetic outsider, but seriously, how can he live like that?

[bard]

the idea of "fixing" a homosexual is so backwards. i can't stand people who believe in/fund this kind of thing.

[sjb2k1]

the idea of "fixing" a homosexual is so backwards. i can't stand people who believe in/fund this kind of thing.
supposedly my friend's dad thought there was medication he (my friend) could take to straighten him out. i'm not sure if i believe the story or not, because the dad's a drunk, and also there was an SNL skit based on something like that. either way it's disgusting.

[bard]

the thing that is especially frustrating for me, is that i'm a christian, and this is one of the biggest "issues" that get people to hate christians.

i just wish people didn't lump me and/or other christians like me into groups with these other psychos.

[oncedarkness]

That doesn't surprise me at all. Oh, and I forgot to post my opinion about this.

God, this pisses me off. I honestly can't believe that people are still so ignorant that they think that homosexuality is a disease and a choice, and that everyone who "chooses" to be gay is immediately damned to hell. And Christians have the worst argument ever for hating gays: "The Bible says it's wrong." Yeah, well the Bible also says that eating shellfish is wrong, that you can stone your wife, and that it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery. Fucking ridiculous...

/Rant
Your researching skills regarding biblical context is impressive. The Old Testament (where these "laws" occur) were written to Jews thousands of years ago, not us. Yep, now this is going to be one of "those" threads.

[caveBEAR]

I'd be more impressed if they were having luck convincing straight dudes that they're actually gay.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

[Carlo Marx]

at the same time, since it's genetic,

uh... are you serious?

[peder458]

Your researching skills regarding biblical context is impressive. The Old Testament (where these "laws" occur) were written to Jews thousands of years ago, not us. Yep, now this is going to be one of "those" threads.

Your inconsistency is also impressive assuming that you think the New Testament is qualitatively more pertinent to our lives and less ridiculous when compared to the Old, which may or may not be what you believe. There are plenty of absurd statements in the New Testament as well, even ones condemning gays (depending on translation/interpretation). It is really not much better.

[saysmydoctor]

uh... are you serious?
Are you?

[boxingwithstars]

That doesn't surprise me at all. Oh, and I forgot to post my opinion about this.

God, this pisses me off. I honestly can't believe that people are still so ignorant that they think that homosexuality is a disease and a choice, and that everyone who "chooses" to be gay is immediately damned to hell. And Christians have the worst argument ever for hating gays: "The Bible says it's wrong." Yeah, well the Bible also says that eating shellfish is wrong, that you can stone your wife, and that it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery. Fucking ridiculous...

/Rant

i just watched For The Bible Tells Me So (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912583/) the other day and it made me hate this argument even more than i already did.

the idea that you can convert someone from homosexuality to heterosexuality is absolutely ridiculous. you can easily shame and ridicule someone into repressing their sexuality, but it's not a sickness and therefore it has no "cure." conversion therapy is terrifying... i don't understand it.

[SomedayTheFire]

I'm so glad I don't live anywhere near these people.

[xshady121]

Are you?

I was going to say something to this as well.

I've seen studies that say it is and isn't. If it was a genetic disorder, it would be assumed that you can fix it medically (eventually). That doesn't seem plausible.

I don't believe sexual orientation is a choice, but I haven't seen anything (more than a theory of...) that suggests that it's genetic.

Then again, I'm a polysci major and not a BNS major.

[Alaina <3]

Your researching skills regarding biblical context is impressive. The Old Testament (where these "laws" occur) were written to Jews thousands of years ago, not us. Yep, now this is going to be one of "those" threads.
Saying that my research skills regarding biblical context is impressive is a stretch, to say the least. I got all of those "laws" from my gay friend who's read more of the Bible than I have, and I don't go to church, nor have I read a Bible in I'd say about four or five years.

[xshady121]

Saying that my research skills regarding biblical context is impressive is a stretch, to say the least. I got all of those "laws" from my gay friend who's read more of the Bible than I have, and I don't go to church, nor have I read a Bible in I'd say about four or five years.

He was being sarcastic.

[JustAGirl01]

I don't understanding this concept of therapy to homosexuals to rehabilitate them to be heterosexuals. I'm not sure what it entails, I'm not sure if it's possible. I'm really at a loss with this, and was looking for some outside opinions.

I personally feel that this is a kind of thing you can't overcome but at the same time, since it's genetic, we can cure other genetic 'irregularities'--so what makes this impossible? Maybe it's not therapeutic or something.

I'm not sure.

A good friend of mine told me he was "looking for God in a man" and realized that no man would ever satisfy that criteria so, he decided he was not gay anymore and has devoted his life to God.

He also said "that every homosexual is looking for God in a man, obviously"

I don't really agree with his argument at all

[Alaina <3]

He was being sarcastic.
Hmm. I guess you don't understand the concept that sarcasm doesn't transfer well on the internet.

[Matthew Tsai]

I'm not entirely sure it's genetic. I know it's not a choice. and I know that you can't change that shit, and that dude is just trying to sell inane books.

From the research I've read, it also has a lot to do with growing up in broken or single-parent homes. It's probably some kind of combination of genetics and that.

[SomedayTheFire]

From the research I've read, it also has a lot to do with growing up in broken or single-parent homes. It's probably some kind of combination of genetics and that.
Eh what?

[Carlo Marx]

Are you?

yes, i am. sexual orientation is in no way genetically predetermined. your genes aren't coded in a way that makes you more attracted to a certain gender; that's something you only find out through living.

[saysmydoctor]

yes, i am. sexual orientation is in no way genetically predetermined. your genes aren't coded in a way that makes you more attracted to a certain gender; that's something you only find out through living.
No.

[FueledByFrodo]

Your researching skills regarding biblical context is impressive. The Old Testament (where these "laws" occur) were written to Jews thousands of years ago, not us. Yep, now this is going to be one of "those" threads.
Yeah, the Old and New Testament are on equal levels. Just because one is "Old" doesn't make it worthless. Sorry, try again.

[FueledByFrodo]

yes, i am. sexual orientation is in no way genetically predetermined. your genes aren't coded in a way that makes you more attracted to a certain gender; that's something you only find out through living.
Except from what I understand many people know by age 5. Which is generally as far back as most people can remember.

[Carlo Marx]

Except from what I understand many people know by age 5. Which is generally as far back as most people can remember.

it's not something you can "know" until you're old enough to have had romantic/sexual involvement with another person, regardless of gender.

[Carlo Marx]

No.

yes.

[saysmydoctor]

it's not something you can "know" until you're old enough to have had romantic/sexual involvement with another person, regardless of gender.

yes.
Explain that to homosexuals who claim with absolute certainty that they have felt they were gay since forever. You don't what the fuck you're talking about. Why are you saying people would choose to live a life where they are ostracized?

[SomedayTheFire]

it's not something you can "know" until you're old enough to have had romantic/sexual involvement with another person, regardless of gender.
You can know you're attracted to a certain gender whether or not you've had sexual/romantic involvement with anyone.

[IntoTheSun]

From the research I've read, it also has a lot to do with growing up in broken or single-parent homes. It's probably some kind of combination of genetics and that.

You can't be serious.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

yes.

Read and watch the youtube videos in this thread:

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=1233622&highlight=John+Barrowman

[Kurt Retenauer]

In no way, shape, or form is homosexuality a choice. No one would ever choose to subject oneself to being isolated in that sense. No one does it for "attention," and living doesn't teach you who you're more attracted to sexually. Life experiences don't affect your affections for the opposite sex. It's gotta be an instinct you're born with.

[Kurt Retenauer]

I think that bad experiences with the opposite sex would cause you to hate the opposite sex, not be physically attracted to the same sex as yourself. Same goes from broken families, and other situations like that.

[IntoTheSun]

In no way, shape, or form is homosexuality a choice. No one would ever choose to subject oneself to being isolated in that sense. No one does it for "attention," and living doesn't teach you who you're more attracted to sexually. It's gotta be an instinct you're born with.

Well said.

[SomedayTheFire]

I don't get that comment about broken homes at all haha is there serious research about that?

[xshady121]

Yeah, the Old and New Testament are on equal levels. Just because one is "Old" doesn't make it worthless. Sorry, try again.

Obviously someone has no idea on how differing religions view the old and new testament. Sorry, try again.

[Kurt Retenauer]

I hold the New Testament with much more regard than the Old. And they're most definitely not equal, at least by my standards.

[GeeBee]

Obviously someone has no idea on how differing religions view the old and new testament. Sorry, try again.

So sick of this. Either get rid of it, or abide by it. The OT is the ultimate source of cherrypick for Christianity.

[re7ard1337]

there is a big difference playing a role like willem dafoe (in the boondock saints) and the village people did. they acted gay. at the end of the day they arent. heterosexuals in gay porn do the same thing, they act gay but really aren't. it's harder to believe they aren't gay when they can get hard and give it to another man, as well as take it. like i said before, i can't even imagine he would be able to get it up with another guy. that's just gay.

"not that there's anything wrong with that!"

not if they call no homo. it makes everything okay.

[xshady121]

So sick of this. Either get rid of it, or abide by it. The OT is the ultimate source of cherrypick for Christianity.

Absolutely.

[Kurt Retenauer]

Absolutely.

I can see where it's relevant based on the fact that it led up to the New Testament and eventual coming of Jesus, and laid out basic foundations, and in a way it acts as a preface for the NT to me. But, I prefer to read the NT much more than the OT.

[GeeBee]

I can see where it's relevant based on the fact that it led up to the New Testament and eventual coming of Jesus, and laid out basic foundations, and in a way it acts as a preface for the NT to me. But, I prefer to read the NT much more than the OT.

But it's either entirely obsolete, or it's entirely in force. It can't be both simultaneously. I don't believe a word of what Christianity peddles, but either Christ did away with the old covenant, or he didn't. Too many moronic christians want to pick and pull as they please from the OT, not to mention the NT, and not to mention things that were never said, never happened, or were proven to be outright fabrications on the part of Josiah and the rest of the Bronze-age douchebags who invented the pagan religion that eventually was hijacked by "Christianity".

/rant.

[xshady121]

But it's either entirely obsolete, or it's entirely in force. It can't be both simultaneously. I don't believe a word of what Christianity peddles, but either Christ did away with the old covenant, or he didn't. Too many moronic christians want to pick and pull as they please from the OT, not to mention the NT, and not to mention things that were never said, never happened, or were proven to be outright fabrications on the part of Josiah and the rest of the Bronze-age douchebags who invented the pagan religion that eventually was hijacked by "Christianity".

/rant.

I think another thing that gets overlooked is that the bible is full of contradictions. It's already established that the book was composed by many different authors over a long period of time. If anyone wants to believe that it is 100% the word of God, that's nice to believe, but it's bullshit. It's a manmade creation. I don't think that is a bad thing though for religion-- they just have to see it like it really is-- a book that helps you in your faith, not a book that is meant to the the be all end all of religion.

[Kurt Retenauer]

But it's either entirely obsolete, or it's entirely in force. It can't be both simultaneously. I don't believe a word of what Christianity peddles, but either Christ did away with the old covenant, or he didn't. Too many moronic christians want to pick and pull as they please from the OT, not to mention the NT, and not to mention things that were never said, never happened, or were proven to be outright fabrications on the part of Josiah and the rest of the Bronze-age douchebags who invented the pagan religion that eventually was hijacked by "Christianity".

/rant.

In essence, I more or less agree with you that it can't be both simultaneously. Like I said, I think it was a predecessor for what was to come in the NT, in that it alluded to a coming of Jesus, and it's important to know that through these "dark ages" and "vengeful" series of God, that hope was on it's way. But, I don't think that people should look to it as much as they do for answers, in that a lot of Christian teachings come from the Gospels and so forth. It seems like when Christians want to lay down the line, so to speak, they refer to the OT that says "Though shalt not (whatever)," but when they want to think of their God in a different light, they refer to the NT. Hypocritical, it is, especially when it's so hard to pick apart what is meant to be taken literally and figuratively, (i.e. Noah was 943 years old, or something like that.) I think it would do Christians good to stick to the NT, and treat the OT as more of a preface to the NT, because the teachings of Christianity (Loving one's neighbor and so forth) are all brought upon by Jesus and NT scripture. The OT just comes off as a rule book at times, and is sometimes hard to take seriously with the extensive use of figurative language.

[FueledByFrodo]

Obviously someone has no idea on how differing religions view the old and new testament. Sorry, try again.

I hold the New Testament with much more regard than the Old. And they're most definitely not equal, at least by my standards.
Sorry guys you can't pick and choose which laws to hold with a higher regard. If they're all law, they're all law. If anything, the Old Testament is the entire basis of the formation of your religion, making it MORE important.

[Kurt Retenauer]

I think another thing that gets overlooked is that the bible is full of contradictions. It's already established that the book was composed by many different authors over a long period of time. If anyone wants to believe that it is 100% the word of God, that's nice to believe, but it's bullshit. It's a manmade creation. I don't think that is a bad thing though for religion-- they just have to see it like it really is-- a book that helps you in your faith, not a book that is meant to the the be all end all of religion.

Oh, for sure it's full of contradictions. I watched something on History Channel about how there were over thirty some Gospels written, and they chose Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because they wanted 1 writer from the North, South, East and West. So, who's to say that these four are correct, and the other thirty some are loads of BS? And yes, it was written by man, but based on by the word of God, and as I said, not meant to be taken literally in every instance. And you're right, the Bible will help you grow in faith, and it's surely the best place to get started on becoming/ knowing more about Christianity, but in terms of focusing solely on The Bible to understand Christianity, I wouldn't hold my breath. Just like anything, understanding it takes more than one book and one effort.

[Kurt Retenauer]

Sorry guys you can't pick and choose which laws to hold with a higher regard. If they're all law, they're all law. If anything, the Old Testament is the entire basis of the formation of your religion, making it MORE important.

I'm not picking which laws I hold with higher regard, I'm holding which sets of scripture I hold with higher regard, and you're not one to tell me which I should hold with higher regard. And, the OT is simply the groundworks, the NT is the infrastructure, and core of Christianity. The OT is the basis of Judaism, not Christianity. If it weren't for the NT, Christianity would not exist. It would still be a pagan religion, or Judaism.

[SomedayTheFire]

Oh, for sure it's full of contradictions. I watched something on History Channel about how there were over thirty some Gospels written, and they chose Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because they wanted 1 writer from the North, South, East and West. So, who's to say that these four are correct, and the other thirty some are loads of BS? And yes, it was written by man, but based on by the word of God, and as I said, not meant to be taken literally in every instance. And you're right, the Bible will help you grow in faith, and it's surely the best place to get started on becoming/ knowing more about Christianity, but in terms of focusing solely on The Bible to understand Christianity, I wouldn't hold my breath. Just like anything, understanding it takes more than one book and one effort.

I'm not picking which laws I hold with higher regard, I'm holding which sets of scripture I hold with higher regard, and you're not one to tell me which I should hold with higher regard. And, the OT is simply the groundworks, the NT is the infrastructure, and core of Christianity. The OT is the basis of Judaism, not Christianity. If it weren't for the NT, Christianity would not exist. It would still be a pagan religion, or Judaism.

You took the words right out of my mouth(or fingers? as the case may be)

[xshady121]

Sorry guys you can't pick and choose which laws to hold with a higher regard. If they're all law, they're all law. If anything, the Old Testament is the entire basis of the formation of your religion, making it MORE important.

Obviously someone has no idea on how differing religions view the old and new testament AND reading comprehension skills. I'm a little concerned for these Jersey high schools (or are you in middle school still?)

Different religions disregard the old testament, saying with Jesus came a new covenant. Why don't you go to those church's and say "nah brah, you can't just disregard something that exists, what are you thinking?!?"

Realistically, as a religious studies major (and NOT a theology major, they are two completely different things) I can't even begin to address the absurdity of your post. You have absolutely zero understanding how different religions view the texts.

While we're at it, I think I may go into the NBA thread and talk about how I think the nets can go win some games. Disregard the fact I don't know anything about basketball, never played in my life, and don't even know what the positions are. I mean, that's what we do here at AP.net right? Go into threads where we know nothing about the matter at hand, then talk out of our ass like we've got a doctorate in that subject?

Different religions consider the OT irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem lies when religions cherry pick stuff out of the OT and NT to believe it. They can't have it both ways. Or if you had it your way, they couldn't have anything at all.

[Kurt Retenauer]

You took the words right out of my mouth(or fingers? as the case may be)

Haha, well glad someone agrees with me. Are you a Christian too? I'm probably not coming off as much of a Christian right now, but it's just how I feel. I accept the fact that a lot of the OT's teachings are irrelevant to modern day society, or unreasonable. So many of the stories in it make it really difficult to know which are okay to accept as a "teaching," and which are meant to be taken literally. But, I do know that it's important to understand why it was written, and the effects it had on converting the Hebrews/Pagans, but to me, it's just a piece of the past of the story of Christianity, and the writings don't hold NEARLY as much value to Christianity as the NT does.

[Kurt Retenauer]

Obviously someone has no idea on how differing religions view the old and new testament AND reading comprehension skills. I'm a little concerned for these Jersey high schools (or are you in middle school still?)

Different religions disregard the old testament, saying with Jesus came a new covenant. Why don't you go to those church's and say "nah brah, you can't just disregard something that exists, what are you thinking?!?"

Realistically, as a religious studies major (and NOT a theology major, they are two completely different things) I can't even begin to address the absurdity of your post. You have absolutely zero understanding how different religions view the texts.

While we're at it, I think I may go into the NBA thread and talk about how I think the nets can go win some games. Disregard the fact I don't know anything about basketball, never played in my life, and don't even know what the positions are. I mean, that's what we do here at AP.net right? Go into threads where we know nothing about the matter at hand, then talk out of our ass like we've got a doctorate in that subject?

Different religions consider the OT irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem lies when religions cherry pick stuff out of the OT and NT to believe it. They can't have it both ways. Or if you had it your way, they couldn't have anything at all.

:appl:

I just wish more people accepted the fact that with Jesus coming, His covenant, comes a new set of scriptures. Based off of does not mean the same as the old, but improved. Christianity is based off of Judaism, not a form of Judaism. If it were a form, the OT would obviously be more relevant. But, seeing as the only sole scriptures that relate to Christianity are the NT ones, I'd hold my beliefs in those.

[SomedayTheFire]

Haha, well glad someone agrees with me. Are you a Christian too? I'm probably not coming off as much of a Christian right now, but it's just how I feel. I accept the fact that a lot of the OT's teachings are irrelevant to modern day society, or unreasonable. So many of the stories in it make it really difficult to know which are okay to accept as a "teaching," and which are meant to be taken literally. But, I do know that it's important to understand why it was written, and the effects it had on converting the Hebrews/Pagans, but to me, it's just a piece of the past of the story of Christianity, and the writings don't hold NEARLY as much value to Christianity as the NT does.
I am Christian, and I pretty much believe the same as yourself. It's too late for me to articulate my thoughts properly haha

[FueledByFrodo]

:appl:

I just wish more people accepted the fact that with Jesus coming, His covenant, comes a new set of scriptures. Based off of does not mean the same as the old, but improved. Christianity is based off of Judaism, not a form of Judaism. If it were a form, the OT would obviously be more relevant. But, seeing as the only sole scriptures that relate to Christianity are the NT ones, I'd hold my beliefs in those.
Okay since you guys are the experts I won't state, I'll ask. And I'm asking genuinely, and actually want to know your opinion.

If the God of Judaism and Christianity are the same, and he gave the Old Testament (in theory), why would it then become irrelevant?

[Kurt Retenauer]

I am Christian, and I pretty much believe the same as yourself. It's too late for me to articulate my thoughts properly haha

Haha, understandable, I was just curious. Didn't notice you were from Ireland, some serious time zone lagging between Ireland and Pennsylvania.

[oncedarkness]

Yeah, the Old and New Testament are on equal levels. Just because one is "Old" doesn't make it worthless. Sorry, try again.
I'm not trying to say the OT is worthless whatsoever.

[SomedayTheFire]

Haha, understandable, I was just curious. Didn't notice you were from Ireland, some serious time zone lagging between Ireland and Pennsylvania.
Yeah, I should be sleeping but I'm not in college tomorrow so I'm making the most of it. anyway most of what I'd say would be irrelevant as you have already stated much of it.

[xshady121]

Okay since you guys are the experts I won't state, I'll ask. And I'm asking genuinely, and actually want to know your opinion.

If the God of Judaism and Christianity are the same, and he gave the Old Testament (in theory), why would it then become irrelevant?

I answered this question previously.

You are assuming that Christianity is a mere extension of Judaism, which it isn't.

Just like Islam isn't an extension of Judaism, although the share similar texts.

[Kurt Retenauer]

Okay since you guys are the experts I won't state, I'll ask. And I'm asking genuinely, and actually want to know your opinion.

If the God of Judaism and Christianity are the same, and he gave the Old Testament (in theory), why would it then become irrelevant?

Because Christianity is not a continuation of Judaism. It's it's own religion, that happened as a result of Judaism, with "new" laws and "new" ideas and "new" beliefs. The OT was given to the Jews, and the NT was given to the Christians, respectively. The OT was written as a response of the Jews, and at a time for the Jews, just like the NT was written for the Christians.

[GeeBee]

Or we could all put down our bibles, hug a gay, and read some Bertrand Russell....

It's one idea.

[Alaina <3]

In no way, shape, or form is homosexuality a choice. No one would ever choose to subject oneself to being isolated in that sense. No one does it for "attention," and living doesn't teach you who you're more attracted to sexually. Life experiences don't affect your affections for the opposite sex. It's gotta be an instinct you're born with.
Agreed completely. I don't know if it's genetic or not, but I certainly think the broken home theory is bull, and that there's no way it's a choice.

[Kurt Retenauer]

That doesn't really answer the question though. If it's the same God, then all of his scriptures would have to be in effect.

Not necessarily. Like I said, the OT was written for the Jews as a belief system, when only the Jewish faith existed. However, when Christianity came around, the NT was written in reaction for the Christians, to distance themselves from the Jews. The fact that it's the same God is irrelevant, because when Jesus came, He was God in the flesh, and started to teach new things that God the Spirit did not teach. The new teachings were developed and accepted by the Christians, but denied by the Jews.

[xshady121]

Frodo, I like how you deleted your post.

You have no understanding about how religions work.

I'm going to add you to the ignore list. It's really better that way. I don't have time for ignorance.

Good luck dealing with this kid, Kurt.

[Kurt Retenauer]

Or we could all put down our bibles, hug a gay, and read some Bertrand Russell....

It's one idea.

Studied him in philosophy not too long ago, "The Value of Philosophy," so it was basically just a preamble to the class.

[Kurt Retenauer]

Frodo, I like how you deleted your post.

You have no understanding about how religions work.

I'm going to add you to the ignore list. It's really better that way. I don't have time for ignorance.

Good luck dealing with this kid, Kurt.

Hahaha, burned and banhammered. But hey, maybe he'll learn something. I mean, I was really confused with the differences of the OT and NT and which was relevant to Judaism vs. Christianity for a long time too. I went to a Catholic school from pre-school to 12th grade, and now go to a Catholic college. It wasn't until last year in a Biblical Ethics class that I finally understood the situation with the Testaments and their relevance. And, after all of those years of Catholic teaching, I still am no expert on them, just have a pretty good understanding of both.

[FueledByFrodo]

Frodo, I like how you deleted your post.

You have no understanding about how religions work.

I'm going to add you to the ignore list. It's really better that way. I don't have time for ignorance.

Good luck dealing with this kid, Kurt.
It's funny, since I was actually asking you about this, and then you ignore me.

[Kurt Retenauer]

It's best to go out on your own to find how a religion works to be honest. You'll never find an objective source of religions, aside from, well, The Bible, which is a catch twenty two in that we were just discussing how even that can't be viewed as a know-all to religions.

[samsara]

I dont know about all of this. You cant say its genetic, especially if you cant prove it. You cant prove that being straight is genetic either.

I dont understand how people believe that they can turn people straight, its like trying to suppress race or some other part of you.

[zion the lion]

Multiple pages of contributions in this thread, a lot having to do with religion, but has anyone talked about how the homosexuals (who participate in this kind of thing) feel about it?

[Alaina <3]

Multiple pages of contributions in this thread, a lot having to do with religion, but has anyone talked about how the homosexuals (who participate in this kind of thing) feel about it?
I have a feeling that most homosexuals who do these kinds of things are forced into them a very good percentage of the time. It's been said before in the thread, but all those conversion therapies and whatnot are just repressing their sexuality, and really can't lead to anything good in the long run. I'd like to ask a homosexual who's been through it or knows someone who's been through it...

[zion the lion]

I have a feeling that most homosexuals who do these kinds of things are forced into them a very good percentage of the time. It's been said before in the thread, but all those conversion therapies and whatnot are just repressing their sexuality, and really can't lead to anything good in the long run. I'd like to ask a homosexual who's been through it or knows someone who's been through it...

I have a feeling that there arent many people posting in this thread who have friends who have done it or who have done it themselves.

[Alaina <3]

I have a feeling that there arent many people posting in this thread who have friends who have done it or who have done it themselves.
Yeah, you're probably right. It would just be interesting to hear their viewpoint on it.

[Matthew Tsai]

You can't be serious.

Pretend I am serious against your superior wisdom for a second. Now gimme your "explanation."

[NeededYouMost]

when i was a kid i watched movies where a man impressed a girl and then won the girls heart...if no gay is around you, i don't see how someone can become gay. but i don't judge, that's his job.

[Tead42]

when i was a kid i watched movies where a man impressed a girl and then won the girls heart...if no gay is around you, i don't see how someone can become gay. but i don't judge, that's his job.
So how did homosexuality start? And by the way that is maybe the most ignorant statement I've ever read.

[NeededYouMost]

So how did homosexuality start? And by the way that is maybe the most ignorant statement I've ever read.
dont mean to offend. i don't know how it started nor care. Nor do i hate homosexuals. just saying

[zion the lion]

when i was a kid i watched movies where a man impressed a girl and then won the girls heart...if no gay is around you, i don't see how someone can become gay. but i don't judge, that's his job.

I didnt there was even a concept of homosexuality until I was almost 8, am I 100% heterosexual? Absolutely not.

[saysmydoctor]

Pretend I am serious against your superior wisdom for a second. Now gimme your "explanation."
Why don't you cite your sources? Nice try, attempting to avoid the burden of proof. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html)

[MyNameIsRoss]

when i was a kid i watched movies where a man impressed a girl and then won the girls heart...if no gay is around you, i don't see how someone can become gay. but i don't judge, that's his job.

LOL don't know who the fuck this kid is, bud dude's on a roll tonight :-d

[zion the lion]

Yeah, you're probably right. It would just be interesting to hear their viewpoint on it.

I'm really interested in hearing the viewpoint of someone who did this and wasnt forced to. I checked this thread out for that reason, I was greatly disappointed.

[Matthew Tsai]

Why don't you cite your sources? Nice try, attempting to avoid the burden of proof. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html)

http://www.narth.com/docs/hom101.html

This is evidently a "therapy" site for homosexuals, and I bring it up because homosexual "therapy" was brought up earlier in this thread. Believe in its cause or not (I don't, despite the fact that it isn't associated w/ religion whatsoever), the research it cites is still somewhat valid and should be considered when looking to discover the "cause" of homosexuality.

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.narth.com/docs/hom101.html

This is evidently a "therapy" site for homosexuals, and I bring it up because homosexual "therapy" was brought up earlier in this thread. Believe in its cause or not (I don't, despite the fact that it isn't associated w/ religion whatsoever), the research it cites is still somewhat valid and should be considered when looking to discover the "cause" of homosexuality.
You do realize most of these therapists are generally unlicensed because the 'therapy' they perform is not consider valid by the therapeutic community at large, right?

[Matthew Tsai]

You do realize most of these therapists are generally unlicensed because the 'therapy' they perform is not consider valid by the therapeutic community at large, right?

Yes, but how is this relevant to the research they're citing?

[macabre]

There have been studies on the fluidity of sexuality and some have found that sexuality in women is substantially more fluid than men. That is, females are more likely than males to switch from same-sex partners to opposite-sex partners and vice versa. What the research suggests is that bisexuality is a separate orientation, distinct from homosexuality and heterosexuality, at least in the case of women. I'm not sure what the implications are for males but I think that may be what's at play when you hear about the "success" of homosexual conversion therapy. Too often, people view sexuality categorically when it's more like a continuum.

[IntoTheSun]

Okay, I know this sounds kind of lame, but I didn't want to claim anything without pretty good proof of it, so I referred to my psychology textbook and actually found some interesting things:

These three questions are all considered false-

1. Is homosexuality linked with problems in a child's relationships with parents such as with a domineering mother and an ineffectual father, or a possessive mother and a hostile father?
2.Does homosexuality involve fear or hatred of people of the other gender, leading indivduals to direct their sexual desires towards members of their own sex?
3. As children, were many homosexuals molested, seduced, or otherwise sexually victimized by an adult heterosexual?

So, hopefully that answers your statement, drunkwithoutcoffee.

Other interesting things:

-Environmental factors influencing sexuality are still being determined, if any.
-Brains differ with sexual orientation. Sexuality is at least partly physiological.
-Studies of identical twin brothers have shown that 52% of the time, the gay person's twin is also gay.

[SuNDaYSTaR]

I'm not entirely sure it's genetic. I know it's not a choice. and I know that you can't change that shit, and that dude is just trying to sell inane books.I believe it has to do with hormones more than actual genes. Scientists have been able to change the sexual behaviours of mice by hormone injections.

[zion the lion]

Okay, I know this sounds kind of lame, but I didn't want to claim anything without pretty good proof of it, so I referred to my psychology textbook and actually found some interesting things:

These three questions are all considered false-

1. Is homosexuality linked with problems in a child's relationships with parents such as with a domineering mother and an ineffectual father, or a possessive mother and a hostile father?
2.Does homosexuality involve fear or hatred of people of the other gender, leading indivduals to direct their sexual desires towards members of their own sex?
3. As children, were many homosexuals molested, seduced, or otherwise sexually victimized by an adult heterosexual?

So, hopefully that answers your statement, drunkwithoutcoffee.

Other interesting things:

-Environmental factors influencing sexuality are still being determined, if any.
-Brains differ with sexual orientation. Sexuality is at least partly physiological.
-Studies of identical twin brothers have shown that 52% of the time, the gay person's twin is also gay.

I always thought that David Reimer was an interesting example of nurture vs nature when it comes to sexuality identity.

[x togepi x]

I believe it has to do with hormones more than actual genes. Scientists have been able to change the sexual behaviours of mice by hormone injections.

yeah....but they tried it with humans and that didn't work.

[Smash Adams]

I always thought that David Reimer was an interesting example of nurture vs nature when it comes to sexuality identity.
That's the saddest story ever, obviously you can't just give a guy a vagina and make him a woman- you didn't need to ultimately drive him to suicide to come to that conclusion

[zion the lion]

That's the saddest story ever, obviously you can't just give a guy a vagina and make him a woman- you didn't need to ultimately drive him to suicide to come to that conclusion

I kind of understand though. Like those parents were on their own when it came to this, those kinds of things werent really talked about back then. There wasnt much they could have done in the first few years of his life. I wouldnt have had the slightest idea of what to do if I was his mother.

[Smash Adams]

I kind of understand though. Like those parents were on their own when it came to this, those kinds of things werent really talked about back then. There wasnt much they could have done in the first few years of his life. I wouldnt have had the slightest idea of what to do if I was his mother.
I don't blame them, if I were in their shoes I'd be too upset to think, I totally blame Dr. Money who did know what to do

[SomedayTheFire]

Okay, I know this sounds kind of lame, but I didn't want to claim anything without pretty good proof of it, so I referred to my psychology textbook and actually found some interesting things:

These three questions are all considered false-

1. Is homosexuality linked with problems in a child's relationships with parents such as with a domineering mother and an ineffectual father, or a possessive mother and a hostile father?
2.Does homosexuality involve fear or hatred of people of the other gender, leading indivduals to direct their sexual desires towards members of their own sex?
3. As children, were many homosexuals molested, seduced, or otherwise sexually victimized by an adult heterosexual?

So, hopefully that answers your statement, drunkwithoutcoffee.

Other interesting things:

-Environmental factors influencing sexuality are still being determined, if any.
-Brains differ with sexual orientation. Sexuality is at least partly physiological.
-Studies of identical twin brothers have shown that 52% of the time, the gay person's twin is also gay.
Seriously. I know a hell of a lot of gay people, myself included, and not one has had any of those three statements. Hell, most I know have fantastic relationships with both their parents and get along better with the opposite sex as friends hahaha

[zion the lion]

I don't blame them, if I were in their shoes I'd be too upset to think, I totally blame Dr. Money who did know what to do

Seriously, what kind of idiot who doesnt know how to do a procedure in the first place, decides to do it using an unpopular method? But I doubt that the parents didnt blame themselves for all of it.

[bastard_of_ness]

I don't understanding this concept of therapy to homosexuals to rehabilitate them to be heterosexuals. I'm not sure what it entails, I'm not sure if it's possible. I'm really at a loss with this, and was looking for some outside opinions.

I personally feel that this is a kind of thing you can't overcome but at the same time, since it's genetic, we can cure other genetic 'irregularities'--so what makes this impossible? Maybe it's not therapeutic or something.

I'm not sure.


A friend of mine went to Nyack College, a Christian school in Nyack NY.

If kids were out at the school, they had to attend group session aimed at delivering them from the evils of homosexuality. In reality, it was a free dating service where homosexual students got to find out who else was homosexual and thus available to hit on.

[Carlo Marx]

Read and watch the youtube videos in this thread:

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=1233622&highlight=John+Barrowman

biological is not a synonym for genetic. genetics insinuates that it is passed on in the genes, from parent (or grandparent, etc.) to child. sexuality is a biological thing; we can't actively say "i'm going to be attracted to this gender". my argument wasn't against you saying it's biological, it was against you saying it's genetic.

sorry if that's where the confusion came from.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

biological is not a synonym for genetic. genetics insinuates that it is passed on in the genes, from parent (or grandparent, etc.) to child. sexuality is a biological thing; we can't actively say "i'm going to be attracted to this gender". my argument wasn't against you saying it's biological, it was against you saying it's genetic.

sorry if that's where the confusion came from.

sorry I thought by you saying it was not genetic you believed it was choice. Which I now realize is quite an logical leap on my part.

[Carlo Marx]

sorry I thought by you saying it was not genetic you believed it was choice. Which I now realize is quite an logical leap on my part.

no no no. i would never attempt to sit here and defend that it's a choice. you can't conscientiously choose who to be sexually attracted to.

[TheReckoner]

I dont understand this at all. The only reason you're gay is because you like boys. Its not a "choice" at all. you cant just stop liking the sex you like (no pun intended).

[TangledUp]

I don't understanding this concept of therapy to homosexuals to rehabilitate them to be heterosexuals.

It's merely suppressing a person's actual sexuality.
Exactly. No need to read the rest of the thread - that is my opinion right there. I actually got into a conversation with my best friend about this, who .. well .. has an extremely different view on it. I asked him how he believes God views homosexuality (he is a practicing Christian). He at one point actually told me that there have been "success stories" of homosexuals "healing" and "becoming" straight. I laughed - but then realized he was serious. :-|

[IntoTheSun]

Seriously. I know a hell of a lot of gay people, myself included, and not one has had any of those three statements. Hell, most I know have fantastic relationships with both their parents and get along better with the opposite sex as friends hahaha

Haha, you mean the three questions? Yeah, they are pretty ridiculous, but there are people out there who believe it. I must admit, I thought some of those things were true three years ago...but that was when I was a naive 14 year old ha. I don't see how family abuse and oppression have anything to do with sexuality, or how it's even the effect of any circumstance.

[SomedayTheFire]

Haha, you mean the three questions? Yeah, they are pretty ridiculous, but there are people out there who believe it. I must admit, I thought some of those things were true three years ago...but that was when I was a naive 14 year old ha. I don't see how family abuse and oppression have anything to do with sexuality, or how it's even the effect of any circumstance.
haha questions :P although I have to say yesterday was the first I've heard of these questions.

[IntoTheSun]

haha questions :P although I have to say yesterday was the first I've heard of these questions.

I've definitely heard of the second one though. Complete BS haha. I mean, you don't hate me, right? see what I did there? ;D

[SomedayTheFire]

I've definitely heard of the second one though. Complete BS haha. I mean, you don't hate me, right? see what I did there? ;D
Haha yeah :P I mean one of my best friends is a girl, now think about that, it just does not make sense.

[IntoTheSun]

Haha yeah :P I mean one of my best friends is a girl, now think about that, it just does not make sense.

How so? It certainly makes sense to me!

[SomedayTheFire]

How so? It certainly makes sense to me!
the question doesn't make sense haha

[IntoTheSun]

the question doesn't make sense haha

Ohh, I thought you meant it didn't make sense that your best friend was a girl. Things are much clearer now.

[kwsqd]

it's sad that a lack of education and overall ignorance is what drives this.

[x togepi x]

i do wonder why it even matters if homosexuality is a choice or not. even if it's a choice, people have the right to choose to live however they want.

[GeeBee]

i do wonder why it even matters if homosexuality is a choice or not. even if it's a choice, people have the right to choose to live however they want.

Religion is without question a "choice", and yet it's protected more than any other status in the U.S.

[boxingwithstars]

i do wonder why it even matters if homosexuality is a choice or not. even if it's a choice, people have the right to choose to live however they want.

good point, but it's still something worth studying. so many people want to claim that homosexuality is unnatural, it would be interesting if science could prove that it's completely biological instead.

[Remote]

Not too sure how factual this is, but it's interesting and certainly makes sense

EcyVwIaVLDc&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcyVwIaVLDc&feature=player_embedded)

[ted is lying]

I don't get the problem with being a homosexual? Someone has to buy rainbow flags.

[Josh Weinstein]

I don't get the problem with being a homosexual? Someone has to buy rainbow flags.

I believe that the majority of those who think homosexuals are bad/sinners is based on the "eww factor." They find it disgusting that two guys want to fall in love. Unfortunately, that clouds their judgement and leads them to believe that gays should not have rights.

[stealthpeng]

If people that have lived heterosexual lifestyles all their life can decide to start living homosexual lifestyles, who's to say people that have lived homosexual lifestyles all their life can't decide to start living heterosexual lifestyles?

[yves.]

i hope the post over this one is a joke.

[stealthpeng]

i hope the post over this one is a joke.

?

both things have happened in multiple instances

[RushAndAPush]

I dont know if this has any relevance to this thread but Oscar Wilde married and had two kids before he truly discovered he was homosexual.

[rawesome]

I dont know if this has any relevance to this thread but Oscar Wilde married and had two kids before he truly discovered he was homosexual.
Discovered or admitted to himself?

I just ask because I used to have a friend (coincidentally, a huge Oscar Wilde fan) who was pretty obviously gay and told me after I met him (and he had come out) that he'd known it since he was 7 but since he grew up in a Baptist house he never wanted to admit it, even to himself.

[ted is lying]

I believe that the majority of those who think homosexuals are bad/sinners is based on the "eww factor." They find it disgusting that two guys want to fall in love. Unfortunately, that clouds their judgement and leads them to believe that gays should not have rights.
Well it is kind of gross, but hey if it is what your into do it, it is not like I'm watching.

[Smash Adams]

I dont know if this has any relevance to this thread but Oscar Wilde married and had two kids before he truly discovered he was homosexual.
Oscar Wilde was also jailed for sodomy when he did come out which might be why he was wary to express his sexuality-it was an even stricter time than today

[boxingwithstars]

Well it is kind of gross, but hey if it is what your into do it, it is not like I'm watching.

... what exactly makes homosexual relations "kind of gross" and not heterosexual relations? just because it's not what you're into doesn't make it "gross."

[saysmydoctor]

My roommate and his boyfriend, who pretty much lives here, have 'normalized' me more so than I already was.

[ted is lying]

... what exactly makes homosexual relations "kind of gross" and not heterosexual relations? just because it's not what you're into doesn't make it "gross."
Well this
Avc0YmYnks0

[saysmydoctor]

I'm going to hope you aren't being serious.

[boxingwithstars]

Well this
Avc0YmYnks0

this just proves that fat hairy men are gross, not gay men.

[SanePsychotic]

You're seriously using a scene in Borat to justify why you think homosexual relations are gross? That's hilarious.

[boxingwithstars]

You're seriously using a scene in Borat to justify why you think homosexual relations are gross? That's hilarious.

haha, i know. i'm hoping that he's joking... but if he's not, there is certainly some irony in there somewhere.

[SanePsychotic]

haha, i know. i'm hoping that he's joking... but if he's not, there is certainly some irony in there somewhere.

There's no way in hell he can be serious. And if he is serious then he just lost whatever credibility he once had on this forum.

That Borat scene is so disgusting. I remember when I saw it in theatres - what a horrible experience.

[ted is lying]

There's no way in hell he can be serious. And if he is serious then he just lost whatever credibility he once had on this forum.

That Borat scene is so disgusting. I remember when I saw it in theatres - what a horrible experience.
Yeah it is a joke, I have no issue with Homosexuals seeing as it doesn't concern me, they are people to. Now the real problem is that women who is in love with a roller coaster, so wrong!

[SanePsychotic]

Yeah, I figured you were joking.

[ted is lying]

Also I shouldn't have much credibility because 90% of my post are a joke and 2% actually make sense, so for now on if you don't like what Im saying just assume Im doing it to make people lol in their shorts.

[stealthpeng]

I think more research--surveys, experiments, etc... should be done to find out why some people are more repulsed by homosexual sex than heterosexual sex. Just screaming at the top of your lungs, "it's because they were raised in homes/areas of the country where hatred towards homosexuality is rampant" doesn't necessarily make that true. It may have something to do with it--but is that true in every case?

It's very possible that some people have a natural repulsion towards it--that cannot be ruled out yet, just as it's possible that some homosexuals may be repulsed by the idea of heterosexual sex.

It's something that really needs to be researched more, instead of people spouting off opinions.

of-course, I'm just musing here... if someone knows of any journal articles that answer these questions, feel free to link.

[zion the lion]

I think more research--surveys, experiments, etc... should be done to find out why some people are more repulsed by homosexual sex than heterosexual sex. Just screaming at the top of your lungs, "it's because they were raised in homes/areas of the country where hatred towards homosexuality is rampant" doesn't necessarily make that true. It may have something to do with it--but is that true in every case?

It's very possible that some people have a natural repulsion towards it--that cannot be ruled out yet, just as it's possible that some homosexuals may be repulsed by the idea of heterosexual sex.

It's something that really needs to be researched more, instead of people spouting off opinions.

of-course, I'm just musing here... if someone knows of any journal articles that answer these questions, feel free to link.

I wasnt raised in an area of the country (or a home) where hatred towards heterosexuality was rampant, but heterosexual sex disgusts me.

but then again, I'm not gay, so my opinion might not be worth much.

[caveBEAR]

I think more research--surveys, experiments, etc... should be done to find out why some people are more repulsed by homosexual sex than heterosexual sex. Just screaming at the top of your lungs, "it's because they were raised in homes/areas of the country where hatred towards homosexuality is rampant" doesn't necessarily make that true. It may have something to do with it--but is that true in every case?

It's very possible that some people have a natural repulsion towards it--that cannot be ruled out yet, just as it's possible that some homosexuals may be repulsed by the idea of heterosexual sex.

It's something that really needs to be researched more, instead of people spouting off opinions.

of-course, I'm just musing here... if someone knows of any journal articles that answer these questions, feel free to link.

Aaaah, here's the answer; anyone who is 'repulsed' by sex of any kind is a ball-less prude. It just means that they are so uncomfortable with their own sexuality that they can't even bother to see other people do it.

You know who else thinks sex is gross? 6 year olds.

It's not the couple who's fucking's problem, it they person who thinks sex is 'icky' who needs to grow the fuck up, and 'grow the fuck up' means get over the sex, and get over the homophobia.

[ted is lying]

Aaaah, here's the answer; anyone who is 'repulsed' by sex of any kind is a ball-less prude. It just means that they are so uncomfortable with their own sexuality that they can't even bother to see other people do it.

You know who else thinks sex is gross? 6 year olds.

It's not the couple who's fucking's problem, it they person who thinks sex is 'icky' who needs to grow the fuck up, and 'grow the fuck up' means get over the sex, and get over the homophobia.
What about having sex with a camel?

[caveBEAR]

What about having sex with a camel?

Just turn around. If there's someone fucking a camel in front of you, there's a good chance there isn't someone fucking a camel behind you.

[ted is lying]

Just turn around. If there's someone fucking a camel in front of you, there's a good chance there isn't someone fucking a camel behind you.
Actually I'm not so sure what if some how you stuble'd in to a place where people only have sex with camels... yeah then that would be an issue.

[caveBEAR]

Actually I'm not so sure what if some how you stuble'd in to a place where people only have sex with camels... yeah then that would be an issue.

Then start fucking camels; if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

[ted is lying]

Then start fucking camels; if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
So by that logic you walk into a gay bar, start making out with men?

[stealthpeng]

Aaaah, here's the answer; anyone who is 'repulsed' by sex of any kind is a ball-less prude. It just means that they are so uncomfortable with their own sexuality that they can't even bother to see other people do it.

You know who else thinks sex is gross? 6 year olds.

It's not the couple who's fucking's problem, it they person who thinks sex is 'icky' who needs to grow the fuck up, and 'grow the fuck up' means get over the sex, and get over the homophobia.


Thanks for sending me scientific facts and not your opinion on why people are repulsed by various sexual acts.

[caveBEAR]

So by that logic you walk into a gay bar, start making out with men?

No. That'd be gross. I was talking about camel fucking.

Thanks for sending me scientific facts and not your opinion on why people are repulsed by various sexual acts.

Coming from the guy who thinks that people viewing gay sex as 'gross' has some sort of relevance anywhere. Where's your scientific facts? You said that we should look into the fact that some people think homosexual sex is 'grosser' than heterosexual sex as if that means anything. It doesn't.

I think more research--surveys, experiments, etc... should be done to find out why some people are more repulsed by homosexual sex than heterosexual sex. Just screaming at the top of your lungs, "it's because they were raised in homes/areas of the country where hatred towards homosexuality is rampant" doesn't necessarily make that true. It may have something to do with it--but is that true in every case?

It's very possible that some people have a natural repulsion towards it--that cannot be ruled out yet, just as it's possible that some homosexuals may be repulsed by the idea of heterosexual sex.

It's something that really needs to be researched more, instead of people spouting off opinions.

of-course, I'm just musing here... if someone knows of any journal articles that answer these questions, feel free to link.

[ted is lying]

No. That'd be gross. I was talking about camel fucking.



Coming from the guy who thinks that people viewing gay sex as 'gross' has some sort of relevance anywhere. Where's your scientific facts? You said that we should look into the fact that some people think homosexual sex is 'grosser' than heterosexual sex as if that means anything. It doesn't.
So what about small dogs?

[caveBEAR]

So what about small dogs?

What breed? I had a rough experience with a Golden Doodle.

[ted is lying]

What breed? I had a rough experience with a Golden Doodle.
All I don't believe in singling out a single type of small dog.

[caveBEAR]

All I don't believe in singling out a single type of small dog.

Ha ha ha...what were we talking about?

[Jason Tate]

Thanks for sending me scientific facts and not your opinion on why people are repulsed by various sexual acts.
Absolutely meaningless.

[ted is lying]

Ha ha ha...what were we talking about?
We were talking about how you don't find having save with camels gross so I asked about small dogs.
Absolutely meaningless.
How about meaning less.

[caveBEAR]

We were talking about how you don't find having save with camels gross so I asked about small dogs.

Yeah, I don't know how we got there, but all beastiality is a little odd to me.

[ted is lying]

Yeah, I don't know how we got there, but all beastiality is a little odd to me.
What is weird about it? Maybe it is the same thing why some people feel homosexual are weird.

[caveBEAR]

What is weird about it? Maybe it is the same thing why some people feel homosexual are weird.

I'm pretty sure you are one of those non-serious accounts, but I am not going to sit here and explain why my thinking that people fucking animals is 'odd' (as in, I don't understand why anyone would want to, but knock yourself out) is not on the same level as people thinking that homosexual sex is 'gross' (as in, disgusting), then it is not m responsibility to explain it.

Plus, I'm not using my non-appreciation for beastiality as an excuse to limit the rights of Americans.

[ted is lying]

I'm pretty sure you are one of those non-serious accounts, but I am not going to sit here and explain why my thinking that people fucking animals is 'odd' (as in, I don't understand why anyone would want to, but knock yourself out) is not on the same level as people thinking that homosexual sex is 'gross' (as in, disgusting), then it is not m responsibility to explain it.

Plus, I'm not using my non-appreciation for beastiality as an excuse to limit the rights of Americans.
You are correct I am one of those non-serious accounts, but I people that enjoy bestiality is the same as people who are gay, or whatever it is to be called when you are attracted to bridges or roller coaster. It's even the same for people who are Heterosexual, people are born and they just are able to find love in different things some just may be "weirder" then others. So then the argument comes if we let men marry men and women marry women, what is stopping a man from marrying this car, after all a lot of men love their cars.

[Jason Tate]

You are correct I am one of those non-serious accounts, but I people that enjoy bestiality is the same as people who are gay, or whatever it is to be called when you are attracted to bridges or roller coaster. It's even the same for people who are Heterosexual, people are born and they just are able to find love in different things some just may be "weirder" then others. So then the argument comes if we let men marry men and women marry women, what is stopping a man from marrying this car, after all a lot of men love their cars.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

If you're not a serious account, you will be banned.

[caveBEAR]

You are correct I am one of those non-serious accounts, but I people that enjoy bestiality is the same as people who are gay, or whatever it is to be called when you are attracted to bridges or roller coaster. It's even the same for people who are Heterosexual, people are born and they just are able to find love in different things some just may be "weirder" then others. So then the argument comes if we let men marry men and women marry women, what is stopping a man from marrying this car, after all a lot of men love their cars.

:yawn:

[ted is lying]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

If you're not a serious account, you will be banned.
Wait so if we ban porn that will lead to book burning? Indeed it is a very slippery slope. So are you saying that me not being hundred percent serious all the time is the slippery slope or letting gays be married?

[Jason Tate]

Wait so if we ban porn that will lead to book burning? Indeed it is a very slippery slope. So are you saying that me not being hundred percent serious all the time is the slippery slope or letting gays be married?
That didn't take long.

Gave you a warning.

[stealthpeng]

Absolutely meaningless.

how is it meaningless?

you do realize that there very might well be a genetic link for people being repulsed by homosexuality, the same way there's probably a genetic link for people to be attracted to same sex? Why is that hard to understand?

I'm just curious as to if there is any link. I, personally, do not know. I haven't looked to see if there has been research done about it, but I am planning on looking into it. Mind you--I'm not giving anyone a reason/excuse to hate homosexuals (i.e. 'well, it's genetic that i'm grossed-out by what you do, so I'm going to picket your funeral'). I'm just curious--and, to me, that doesn't seem like it's outside the realm of possibility.

[Jason Tate]

how is it meaningless?

you do realize that there very might well be a genetic link for people being repulsed by homosexuality, the same way there's probably a genetic link for people to be attracted to same sex? Why is that hard to understand?

I'm just curious as to if there is any link. I, personally, do not know. I haven't looked to see if there has been research done about it, but I am planning on looking into it. Mind you--I'm not giving anyone a reason/excuse to hate homosexuals (i.e. 'well, it's genetic that i'm grossed-out by what you do, so I'm going to picket your funeral'). I'm just curious--and, to me, that doesn't seem like it's outside the realm of possibility.
A genetic link to some people being repulsed by broccoli means some people don't like broccoli. That discovery means nothing. It doesn't say anything - it's a waste of time.

[SanePsychotic]

A genetic link to some people being repulsed by broccoli means some people don't like broccoli. That discovery means nothing. It doesn't say anything - it's a waste of time.

It wouldn't be a waste of time if someone really wanted to know about it. Just because it doesn't really have a practical application doesn't mean that the knowledge is worthless. But I do see why you would consider that to be a waste of time.

[Jason Tate]

It wouldn't be a waste of time if someone really wanted to know about it. Just because it doesn't really have a practical application doesn't mean that the knowledge is worthless. But I do see why you would consider that to be a waste of time.
Nope, still would be a waste of time -- and maybe the dumbest idea I've ever read about on this website.

[SanePsychotic]

Nope, still would be a waste of time -- and maybe the dumbest idea I've ever read about on this website.

Understood. I don't condone the idea, but I would understand why someone would have the desire to research such an idea.

[kwsqd]

how is it meaningless?

you do realize that there very might well be a genetic link for people being repulsed by homosexuality, the same way there's probably a genetic link for people to be attracted to same sex? Why is that hard to understand?

I'm just curious as to if there is any link. I, personally, do not know. I haven't looked to see if there has been research done about it, but I am planning on looking into it. Mind you--I'm not giving anyone a reason/excuse to hate homosexuals (i.e. 'well, it's genetic that i'm grossed-out by what you do, so I'm going to picket your funeral'). I'm just curious--and, to me, that doesn't seem like it's outside the realm of possibility.
No.

Homophobia is a socially-constructed notion. There is no genetic reason for it. People who are insecure with their own sexuality and the sexual orientation of others are homophobic, there is no "genetic link." It's quite simple.

[stealthpeng]

A genetic link to some people being repulsed by broccoli means some people don't like broccoli. That discovery means nothing. It doesn't say anything - it's a waste of time.

maybe so people could come to a better understanding with eachother, instead of saying, 'well, you're only grossed-out because you're a prude/the way you were raised/the part of the country you were in being less tolerant, etc. etc.--I mean, it would be perfectly fine to say that if any of those things were indeed the case, which, it may just be that way. If there's a genetic link, then people can come to an understanding.... I don't think that's worthless.

btw--I'm pretty sure most scientific study isn't actually applied research anyways, so, even if it didn't have a direct application to you or me, doesn't make it any less interesting to find out about.

[stealthpeng]

No.

Homophobia is a socially-constructed notion. There is no genetic reason for it. People who are insecure with their own sexuality and the sexual orientation of others are homophobic, there is no "genetic link." It's quite simple.

Again--are you just giving your opinion, or what is generally known to be the case--I want someone to link me to journals so I can read about it if they've already proven being repulsed by same-sex sexual acts, or sexual acts in general is not in at-least part genetic.

I don't know if research has been done specifically in this area, though I would be surprised if it hasn't. I'm actually going to look into it soon though.

[saturday_snow_squall]

Again--are you just giving your opinion, or what is generally known to be the case--I want someone to link me to journals so I can read about it if they've already proven being repulsed by same-sex sexual acts, or sexual acts in general is not in at-least part genetic.

I don't know if research has been done specifically in this area, though I would be surprised if it hasn't. I'm actually going to look into it soon though.

research has been done (as far as i know) but apparently evidence isnt sufficient enough to come to a close on it.

[Jason Tate]

maybe so people could come to a better understanding with eachother, instead of saying, 'well, you're only grossed-out because you're a prude/the way you were raised/the part of the country you were in being less tolerant, etc. etc.--I mean, it would be perfectly fine to say that if any of those things were indeed the case, which, it may just be that way. If there's a genetic link, then people can come to an understanding.... I don't think that's worthless.

btw--I'm pretty sure most scientific study isn't actually applied research anyways, so, even if it didn't have a direct application to you or me, doesn't make it any less interesting to find out about.
Being "grossed out" by homosexuality is not a genetic trait. It's a social reaction. This is easy to see by watching the development and reactions of children. Again, it means nothing. Even if (it's not, but for argument sake) it's true - it still changes nothing. Having a genetic predisposition to being "grossed out by homosexuality" means absolutely nothing.

[SanePsychotic]

maybe so people could come to a better understanding with eachother, instead of saying, 'well, you're only grossed-out because you're a prude/the way you were raised/the part of the country you were in being less tolerant, etc. etc.--I mean, it would be perfectly fine to say that if any of those things were indeed the case, which, it may just be that way. If there's a genetic link, then people can come to an understanding.... I don't think that's worthless.

btw--I'm pretty sure most scientific study isn't actually applied research anyways, so, even if it didn't have a direct application to you or me, doesn't make it any less interesting to find out about.

That's my thought exactly. I think it would be an interesting study, at the very least. Or you could even switch it around, research why some homosexuals are replused by the thought of heterosexual sex. I don't see the practical use for it and people don't want to put time and research into something that isn't worthwhile to them.

[Jason Tate]

Again--are you just giving your opinion, or what is generally known to be the case--I want someone to link me to journals so I can read about it if they've already proven being repulsed by same-sex sexual acts, or sexual acts in general is not in at-least part genetic.

I don't know if research has been done specifically in this area, though I would be surprised if it hasn't. I'm actually going to look into it soon though.
Start with Kinsey.

[kwsqd]

Again--are you just giving your opinion, or what is generally known to be the case--I want someone to link me to journals so I can read about it if they've already proven being repulsed by same-sex sexual acts, or sexual acts in general is not in at-least part genetic.

I don't know if research has been done specifically in this area, though I would be surprised if it hasn't. I'm actually going to look into it soon though.
There isn't a point in researching this. There should be no journals on this subject. If what you're suggesting were true, then we could possibly find a genetic link between racists or sexists. There is no genetic link. Homophobia... and racism and sexism are ALL based on social experiences.

[stealthpeng]

Being "grossed out" by homosexuality is not a genetic trait. It's a social reaction. This is easy to see by watching the development and reactions of children. Again, it means nothing. Even if (it's not, but for argument sake) it's true - it still changes nothing. Having a genetic predisposition to being "grossed out by homosexuality" means absolutely nothing.

so, studies have been done with children's reactions...?

Like, you all can link me articles. I'm going to research it myself, but, it wouldn't hurt.

[stealthpeng]

There isn't a point in researching this. There should be no journals on this subject. If what you're suggesting were true, then we could possibly find a genetic link between racists or sexists. There is no genetic link. Homophobia or racism or sexism are ALL based on social experiences.

again--this is all based on conjecture unless you can actually provide me with journal articles relating to the subject. Jason pointed out there have been studies looking at children's reactions, so I'll look into that.

and, I'm not understanding why you think it would be pointless to look into any of those things.

[Jason Tate]

so, studies have been done with children's reactions...?

Like, you all can link me articles. I'm going to research it myself, but, it wouldn't hurt.
Start with Kinsey.

[stealthpeng]

Start with Kinsey.

I thought i remember hearing in my psych classes that there were multiple problems with Kinsey. I'll look into though to see if i'm mistaken

[Jason Tate]

I thought i remember hearing in my psych classes that there were multiple problems with Kinsey. I'll look into though to see if i'm mistaken
:lol:

So, now your default answer is ... "provide me examples -- and I'll ignore them for having heard at one point that there maybe were "multiple problems" with them."

Use common sense.

[kwsqd]

again--this is all based on conjecture unless you can actually provide me with journal articles relating to the subject. Jason pointed out there have been studies looking at children's reactions, so I'll look into that.

and, I'm not understanding why you think it would be pointless to look into any of those things.
Our meanings and values are socially constructed. This is a fact.

[Jason Tate]

Our meanings and values are socially constructed. This is a fact.
And because he'll ask for it:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=values+social+construct&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on

;-)

[kwsqd]

And because he'll ask for it:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=values+social+construct&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on

;-)
:-d thanks!

[bastard_of_ness]

Again--are you just giving your opinion, or what is generally known to be the case--I want someone to link me to journals so I can read about it if they've already proven being repulsed by same-sex sexual acts, or sexual acts in general is not in at-least part genetic.

I don't know if research has been done specifically in this area, though I would be surprised if it hasn't. I'm actually going to look into it soon though.

The notion that "being repulsed by same-sex sexual acts" could be genetic in any way is RIDICULOUS. By their very nature, our emotions are socially constructed. We can have a "gut feeling" but to define it and understand it, it must exist in its social context. To find something repulsive, you must first assign it meaning. The very premise of this feeling being gentic is laughable... LAUGHABLE!

Others have already noted this, but I think it's extremely important to understand that there is no merit to this at all.

[stealthpeng]

The notion that "being repulsed by same-sex sexual acts" could be genetic in any way is RIDICULOUS. By their very nature, our emotions are socially constructed. We can have a "gut feeling" but to define it and understand it, it must exist in its social context. To find something repulsive, you must first assign it meaning. The very premise of this feeling being gentic is laughable... LAUGHABLE!

Others have already noted this, but I think it's extremely important to understand that there is no merit to this at all.

some people are attracted by the idea of same-sex intercourse, others are turned off by it. I don't see how that's hard to understand

[stealthpeng]

:lol:

So, now your default answer is ... "provide me examples -- and I'll ignore them for having heard at one point that there maybe were "multiple problems" with them."

Use common sense.

no, I'm going to look into Kinsey more. I actually like psychology, and I'm taking a bunch of psychology classes, and I'm not going to take what others tell me about scientific theory for granted. I actually want to look into the research itself instead of having people spout opinion at me.

I'm just saying, that, with Kinsey, I remember hearing in a class something along the lines of there being multiple major issues with his research, and I'm not talking about the controversy of what he was talking about (at the time). Also, Kinsey was before the time we really understood genetics as well, so, it'll only be able to give me part of an answer regardless.

again--I'll look at Kinsey, more in-depth, but I'm actually going to look more into more current research to see if I can find anything.

[bastard_of_ness]

some people are attracted by the idea of same-sex intercourse, others are turned off by it. I don't see how that's hard to understand

I'm sorry that you don't understand the concept.

I wish our schools would teach people how to think rather than what to think, but.. eh, what do I know?

[stealthpeng]

I'm sorry that you don't understand the concept.

I wish our schools would teach people how to think rather than what to think, but.. eh, what do I know?

we're not even on the same page of thinking, I'm pretty sure.

[bastard_of_ness]

we're not even on the same page of thinking, I'm pretty sure.

Then try to explain to me how it's even plausible that gentics can determine what some is "repulsed" by.

[stealthpeng]

btw--this is more or less related to the original topic.


from wikipedia on the fluidity of sexuality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) states that "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime".[39] In a statement issued jointly with other major American medical organizations, the American Psychological Association states that "different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual".[40] A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states that, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time".[41] Lisa Diamond's study "Female bisexuality from adolescence to adulthood" suggests that there is "considerable fluidity in bisexual, unlabeled, and lesbian women's attractions, behaviors, and identities".[42][43]

[caveBEAR]

we're not even on the same page of thinking, I'm pretty sure.

The entire point is moot. Here's how it goes; a person's 'ick-factor' towards homosexuality (or any sexuality for that matter) is no different (in a person's genetics) than a person's favorite color. Racism is not genetically passed on, homosexuality is not genetically passed on, a person's favorite color is not genetically passed on. This is fucking basic. You say you love psychology and are taking classes? You must be fucking failing, because THIS IS PSYCHOLOGY. All of these things are in these peoples minds, and have nothing to do with genetics.

[stealthpeng]

The entire point is moot. Here's how it goes; your 'ick-factor' towards homosexuality (or any sexuality for that matter) is no different (in your genetics) than your favorite color. Racism is not genetically passed on, homosexuality is not genetically passed on, your favorite color is not genetically passed on. This is fucking basic. You say you love psychology and are taking classes? You must be fucking failing, because THIS IS PSYCHOLOGY. All of these things are in these peoples minds, and have nothing to do with genetics.

I don't have an ick factor towards homosexuality, lol.

[caveBEAR]

I don't have an ick factor towards homosexuality, lol.

I was using 'your' in place of 'a person's'. Don't ignore my entire post over one word, you tool.

[stealthpeng]

I was using 'your' in place of 'a person's'. Don't ignore my entire post over one word, you tool.

it should be assumed from earlier posts that I'm still looking into things, and I'm not going to just take what people say on AP for granted.

[caveBEAR]

it should be assumed from earlier posts that I'm still looking into things, and I'm not going to just take what people say on AP for granted.

I honestly couldn't give less of a shit about how you feel about homosexual fucking, or any fucking for that matter, what I give a shit about is that you think studies should be done to see if its genetics. Spoiler alert; it's not. It wouldn't matter anyway. Have a genetic aversion to paying taxes (also not related to genetics, anyway)? Too fucking bad, you still have to pay them. It's the same way with 'genetic' homophobia. It doesn't change a damn thing, you still can't get in the way of people's rights.

Oh, and I know you think that you're just innocently looking for knowledge, but you're not. There's no positivity that can come from 'discovering' that at least one aspect of homophobia is genetic, and if you can't see that, than you're just as much as a tool as I thought. All a homophobic shit needs is the ability to say 'it's not my fault...I was born a bigot'. Fuck that.

[stealthpeng]

I honestly couldn't give less of a shit about how you feel about homosexual fucking, or any fucking for that matter, what I give a shit about is that you think studies should be done to see if its genetics. Spoiler alert; it's not. It wouldn't matter anyway. Have a genetic aversion to paying taxes (also not related to genetics, anyway)? Too fucking bad, you still have to pay them. It's the same way with 'genetic' homophobia. It doesn't change a damn thing, you still can't get in the way of people's rights.

Oh, and I know you think that you're just innocently looking for knowledge, but you're not. There's no positivity that can come from 'discovering' that at least one aspect of homophobia is genetic, and if you can't see that, than you're just as much as a tool as I thought. All a homophobic shit needs is the ability to say 'it's not my fault...I was born a bigot'. Fuck that.

nice debate, mate.

[caveBEAR]

nice debate, mate.

What debate? You haven't said shit.

[macabre]

I think more research--surveys, experiments, etc... should be done to find out why some people are more repulsed by homosexual sex than heterosexual sex. Just screaming at the top of your lungs, "it's because they were raised in homes/areas of the country where hatred towards homosexuality is rampant" doesn't necessarily make that true. It may have something to do with it--but is that true in every case?

It's very possible that some people have a natural repulsion towards it--that cannot be ruled out yet, just as it's possible that some homosexuals may be repulsed by the idea of heterosexual sex.

It's something that really needs to be researched more, instead of people spouting off opinions.

of-course, I'm just musing here... if someone knows of any journal articles that answer these questions, feel free to link.

I'm actually an assistant for a social psychology lab that focuses on prejudice and one of the studies conducted last semester dealt with this specific issue. If I remember correctly, the results were that individuals who held strong religious beliefs and thought homosexuality was morally wrong were more likely to be disgusted by homosexuality than individuals who did not. Unfortunately, I won't be able to provide a link to the study because it hasn't been published yet.

[stealthpeng]

I'm actually an assistant for a social psychology lab that focuses on prejudice and one of the studies conducted last semester dealt with this specific issue. If I remember correctly, the results were that individuals who held strong religious beliefs and thought homosexuality was morally wrong were more likely to be disgusted by homosexuality than individuals who did not. Unfortunately, I won't be able to provide a link to the study because it hasn't been published yet.

thank you for actually giving me something :)

[caveBEAR]

I'm actually an assistant for a social psychology lab that focuses on prejudice and one of the studies conducted last semester dealt with this specific issue. If I remember correctly, the results were that individuals who held strong religious beliefs and thought homosexuality was morally wrong were more likely to be disgusted by homosexuality than individuals who did not. Unfortunately, I won't be able to provide a link to the study because it hasn't been published yet.

So...that would make it a social/psychological issue over a genetics one, correct?

[caveBEAR]

thank you for actually giving me something :)

No one is giving you any sources on if homophobia is genetic or not because it would be like going into a thread and demanding to see sources proving gravity isn't real. These sources don't exist, because no one is undertaking the studies, because we already know the answer.

[stealthpeng]

So...that would make it a social/psychological issue over a genetics one, correct?

it's one study, not a whole body of work.

a lot of things have genetic and social components. It's the classic 'nature verses nurture' issue... which more and more scientists have found both to be the case in a lot of instances.

the study referenced is one social aspect

[caveBEAR]

it's one study, not a whole body of work.

a lot of things have genetic and social components. It's the classic 'nature verses nurture' issue... which more and more scientists have found both to be the case in a lot of instances.

the study referenced is one social aspect

I meant in relation to the study.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2292426/

There. This is the best I could find for you. It was a study on twins that found (what a shocker) that twins raised in the same house tend to have the same views on homophobia.

[stealthpeng]

I meant in relation to the study.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2292426/

There. This is the best I could find for you. It was a study on twins that found (what a shocker) that twins raised in the same house tend to have the same views on homophobia.

<_< that study showed that there were both genetic and social factors regarding homophobia, with genetics having more of a say.

[caveBEAR]

<_< that study showed that there were both genetic and social factors regarding homophobia, with genetics having more of a say.

C'mon. They had twins take a questionnaire on homophobia. Two people who were raised in the exactly same place by the exact same people at exactly the same time. Tell me how that proves anything genetic? What are the parents views on homosexuals? Use your fucking brain.

[Dicebox]

I have a friend that considered himself homosexual, but now considers himself heterosexual. I can't say that he no longer likes men, he says he doesn't, but I can confirm that he does like women.

[stealthpeng]

C'mon. They had twins take a questionnaire on homophobia. Two people who were raised in the exactly same place by the exact same people. Tell me how that proves anything genetic? What are the parents views on homosexuals? Use your fucking brain.

that's not how a twin study works.

Twin studies are commonly used in determining if a trait is more genetic, or social, or how much of each contributes. They use a variety of twins--ones raised in the same home, and those raised in separate home to get the data (thus separating genetic and social factors). I read through most of the study... it's the opposite of what you're saying. And, according to that study, it's only confirming previous research that 'homophobia' has more genetic influence than social.

edit: And, I'll be really honest--I'm surprised by that. I would have thought there to be more of a social influence than genetic...I just didn't want to count out genetics entirely.

[caveBEAR]

that's not how a twin study works.

Twin studies are commonly used in determining if a trait is more genetic, or social, or how much of each contributes. They use a variety of twins--ones raised in the same home, and those raised in separate home to get the data (thus separating genetic and social factors). I read through most of the study... it's the opposite of what you're saying. And, according to that study, it's only confirming previous research that 'homophobia' has more genetic influence than social.

edit: And, I'll be really honest--I'm surprised by that. I would have thought there to be more of a social influence than genetic...I just didn't want to count out genetics entirely.

Maybe I just know nothing of psychology, but a twin study is not going to convince me of genetics influence on homophobia, and especially since this was the only thing even close to the subject I found on Google, I'm not swayed.

[stealthpeng]

Maybe I just know nothing of psychology, but a twin study is not going to convince me of genetics influence on homophobia, and especially since this was the only thing even close to the subject I found on Google, I'm not swayed.

from wikipedia on twin studies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_studies

"Modern twin studies have shown that almost all traits are in part influenced by genetic differences, with some characteristics showing a strong influence (e.g. height), others an intermediate level (e.g. IQ) and some more complex heritabilities, with evidence for different genes affecting different elements of the trait - for instance Autism."

twin studies are one of the best ways we have right now to determine genetic link. It's not just a psychology thing

[macabre]

So...that would make it a social/psychological issue over a genetics one, correct?

If the source of disgust is religious or moral in nature, then yes.

I searched PsychInfo to check whether there had been any other studies on the topic and there are a few that have found similar results to the study I had referred to earlier:

Towards an understanding of disgust reactions to gay men.
Three studies investigated the hypothesis that gay men (both in terms of homosexual male behavior and individual targets) elicit moral disgust. In Study 1, participants viewed three film clips designed to elicit neutral emotion, disgust and anger, and also viewed a clip of male homosexual behavior. It was found that men (but not women) expressed feelings of moral disgust to male homosexual behavior: a blend of disgust, and anger. Study 2 found that high endorsers of masculine role norms (particularly anti-femininity) report stronger moral disgust to male homosexual behavior. Study 3 found that when men are threatened with the suspicion that they appear to be gay, they express moral disgust; regardless of the sexual orientation of the person directing the threat. Results from studies 2 and 3 indicate that moral judgments to male homosexuality derive from the repudiation of femininity, and that this relationship is mediated by feelings of disgust. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)

Disgust sensitivity predicts intuitive disapproval of gays.
Two studies demonstrate that a dispositional proneness to disgust (“disgust sensitivity”) is associated with intuitive disapproval of gay people. Study 1 was based on previous research showing that people are more likely to describe a behavior as intentional when they see it as morally wrong (see Knobe, 2006, for a review). As predicted, the more disgust sensitive participants were, the more likely they were to describe an agent whose behavior had the side effect of causing gay men to kiss in public as having <i>intentionally</i> encouraged gay men to kiss publicly—even though most participants did not explicitly think it wrong to encourage gay men to kiss in public. No such effect occurred when subjects were asked about heterosexual kissing. Study 2 used the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2006) as a dependent measure. The more disgust sensitive participants were, the more they showed unfavorable automatic associations with gay people as opposed to heterosexuals. Two studies demonstrate that a dispositional proneness to disgust (“disgust sensitivity”) is associated with intuitive disapproval of gay people. Study 1 was based on previous research showing that people are more likely to describe a behavior as intentional when they see it as morally wrong (see Knobe, 2006, for a review). As predicted, the more disgust sensitive participants were, the more likely they were to describe an agent whose behavior had the side effect of causing gay men to kiss in public as having intentionally encouraged gay men to kiss publicly—even though most participants did not explicitly think it wrong to encourage gay men to kiss in public. No such effect occurred when subjects were asked about heterosexual kissing. Study 2 used the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2006) as a dependent measure. The more disgust sensitive participants were, the more they showed unfavorable automatic associations with gay people as opposed to heterosexuals. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract)

Fanning the flames of prejudice: The influence of specific incidental emotions on implicit prejudice.
Three experiments examined the impact of incidental emotions on implicit intergroup evaluations. Experiment 1 demonstrated that for unknown social groups, two negative emotions that are broadly applicable to intergroup conflict (anger and disgust) both created implicit bias where none had existed before. However, for known groups about which perceivers had prior knowledge, emotions increased implicit prejudice only if the induced emotion was applicable to the outgroup stereotype. Disgust increased bias against disgust-relevant groups (e.g., homosexuals) but anger did not (Experiment 2); anger increased bias against anger-relevant groups (e.g., Arabs) but disgust did not (Experiment 3). Consistent with functional theories of emotion, these findings suggest that negative intergroup emotions signal specific types of threat. If the emotion-specific threat is applicable to prior expectations of a group, the emotion ratchets up implicit prejudice toward that group. However, if the emotion-specific threat is not applicable to the target group, evaluations remain unchanged. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract)

Disgust, scrupulosity and conservative attitudes about sex: Evidence for a mediational model of homophobia.
In the present study, core disgust predicted negative attitudes toward homosexuals even after controlling for contamination fear. The effect of core disgust on negative attitudes toward homosexuals was indirect, partially mediated by conservative sexual attitudes and religiosity. The effects of religious principles on negative attitudes toward homosexuals were indirect, via conservative sexual beliefs. These results establish a link between disgust and negative attitudes towards homosexuals that is not fully accounted for by contamination concerns, but rather is partially accounted for by conservative sexual ideology and religiosity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract)

[stealthpeng]

note--I'm not 'okaying' hatred towards homosexuals. I come from the standpoint that genetics are something that determine your initial reaction, or initial thoughts, but not necessarily how you behave. Alcoholism is something that runs pretty rampant in my family, but that doesn't give me an excuse to become an alcoholic--it hurts others and is dangerous addiction, so I should try to not fall into that. It's not something I can't overcome.

in the same way, someone may be predisposed to have repulsion towards homosexuality, that doesn't mean they should turn that into hate

**edit--I'm speaking of behavior genetics, of-course, and not of static physical traits like hair color, eye color, etc.

[sokonfused]

note--I'm not 'okaying' hatred towards homosexuals. I come from the standpoint that genetics are something that determine your initial reaction, or initial thoughts, but not necessarily how you behave. Alcoholism is something that runs pretty rampant in my family, but that doesn't give me an excuse to become an alcoholic--it hurts others and is dangerous addiction, so I should try to not fall into that. It's not something I can't overcome.

in the same way, someone may be predisposed to have repulsion towards homosexuality, that doesn't mean they should turn that into hate

**edit--I'm speaking of behavior genetics, of-course, and not of static physical traits like hair color, eye color, etc.
I'm sorry. But please explain to me how genetics determine a person's reactions, but not how that person behaves. That seems completely contradictory to me. Genetics really doesn't have that much to do with behavior or thoughts/beliefs, including homophobia. At least from my standpoint.

[Jason Tate]

that's not how a twin study works.

Twin studies are commonly used in determining if a trait is more genetic, or social, or how much of each contributes. They use a variety of twins--ones raised in the same home, and those raised in separate home to get the data (thus separating genetic and social factors). I read through most of the study... it's the opposite of what you're saying. And, according to that study, it's only confirming previous research that 'homophobia' has more genetic influence than social.

edit: And, I'll be really honest--I'm surprised by that. I would have thought there to be more of a social influence than genetic...I just didn't want to count out genetics entirely.
You clearly did not read that study. :lol:

[macabre]

I come from the standpoint that genetics are something that determine your initial reaction, or initial thoughts, but not necessarily how you behave.

What you're referring to in that context is implicit prejudice and research seems to indicate that it is learned. I think you may be underestimating the effect that beliefs can have on implicit attitudes.

[Jason Tate]

note--I'm not 'okaying' hatred towards homosexuals. I come from the standpoint that genetics are something that determine your initial reaction, or initial thoughts, but not necessarily how you behave. Alcoholism is something that runs pretty rampant in my family, but that doesn't give me an excuse to become an alcoholic--it hurts others and is dangerous addiction, so I should try to not fall into that. It's not something I can't overcome.

in the same way, someone may be predisposed to have repulsion towards homosexuality, that doesn't mean they should turn that into hate

**edit--I'm speaking of behavior genetics, of-course, and not of static physical traits like hair color, eye color, etc.
That's not what genetics are ... I think the problem is you're completely misusing the term "genetics." By your phrase/proposition, "disgust in homosexuality" is a trait we should be able trace through hereditary, and therefore genes, through families and their offspring. That's the only way it's genetic. Biology 101 should give you dominate/recessive education.

This is what you're probably looking for- behavior:

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml

No single gene determines a particular behavior. Behaviors are complex traits involving multiple genes that are affected by a variety of other factors. This fact often gets overlooked in media reports hyping scientific breakthroughs on gene function, and, unfortunately, this can be very misleading to the public.

[stealthpeng]

That's not what genetics are ... I think the problem is you're completely misusing the term "genetics." By your phrase/proposition, "disgust in homosexuality" is a trait we should be able trace through hereditary, and therefore genes, through families and their offspring. That's the only way it's genetic. Biology 101 should give you dominate/recessive education.

This is what you're probably looking for- behavior:

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml

No single gene determines a particular behavior. Behaviors are complex traits involving multiple genes that are affected by a variety of other factors. This fact often gets overlooked in media reports hyping scientific breakthroughs on gene function, and, unfortunately, this can be very misleading to the public.

Right--there's social and biological (genetic) reasons for behavior. I never said that wasn't the case. According to that particular study linked, it's the case that genetics has more of a say in homophobia than social factors, although both contribute to behavior.

[zion the lion]

I have a friend that considered himself homosexual, but now considers himself heterosexual. I can't say that he no longer likes men, he says he doesn't, but I can confirm that he does like women.

One of my friends who had been sent to "straight camp" is apparently no longer a lesbian. She hasnt dated a girl, kissed or girl or had sex with a girl since she went there. She has, however, dated guys (and has done all of the things that go with a romantic relationship).

[macabre]

And, according to that study, it's only confirming previous research that 'homophobia' has more genetic influence than social.

edit: And, I'll be really honest--I'm surprised by that. I would have thought there to be more of a social influence than genetic...I just didn't want to count out genetics entirely.

I just read through that study and the findings were pretty interesting. It seems to suggest that because of assortative mating, homophobic attitudes may be inherited. I'll continue to look into it but that's a pretty novel concept, definitely goes against what I've learned about implicit prejudice.

[peder458]

Not sure how relevant to the current discussion this is, but here is the link to the PDF of one of my favorite psychological studies. In short, they found that homophobic men were significantly more physiologically 'turned-on' by gay porn than non-homophobic men.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

[Jason Tate]

Right--there's social and biological (genetic) reasons for behavior. I never said that wasn't the case. According to that particular study linked, it's the case that genetics has more of a say in homophobia than social factors, although both contribute to behavior.
:hitself:

[Broclee]

:hitself:
You should probably just stop reading those posts, nothing good will come of it.

[stealthpeng]

Okay, what am I reading wrong in that homophobia study exactly? in the abstract it states, "The results suggest that variation in attitudes toward homosexuality is substantially inherited, and that social environmental influences are relatively minor."

and the end of the conclusion states

"In summary, this study concerning the aetiology of homophobic attitudes revealed that familial aggregation in attitudes toward homosexuality is accounted for by genes as well as by shared environmental factors. However, when the plausible effect of assortative mating on our estimates is taken into account, familial aggregation for homophobia scores might be almost totally accounted for by genetic effects. More research is necessary to further unravel the sources of variance in homophobia and to determine whether these differ between sexes. This future research will need greater sample sizes—preferably including spouses—and should analyse attitudes toward male and female homosexuals separately. It will also be of interest to compare prejudice toward homosexuals with prejudice toward other targets (like racism and sexism), to see to what extent similar results will be obtained and whether the same genetic and environmental sources explain individual differences in prejudice toward different out-groups."

[GeeBee]

Ultimately, you choose to be a bigot or not, I don't really see what you're trying to prove here.

[caveBEAR]

I think the big point here is that it doesn't matter if you're genetically 'homophobic' or not. If they can determine whether or not people's hatred for traffic is genetic, it won't change a thing because you still have to deal with traffic. Cool, you don't like sitting in your car, you can't just skip over it in your own lane because why know why you don't like it. The same for the genetic homophobes. The point is moot because you don't get treated any differently because you're 'genetically homophobic', and you don't get to treat anyone differently because of it. It doesn't matter why you're homophobic, all that matters is that you need to get over it.