Amos

If we place that on a slippery slope bisexuality would be first and on towards homosexuality.

Amos

Not true because iron sexuality is not a natural inclination incarnate to humans. Understand here that we do not precharge our own body with hormones and can only alter their presence and activity to some extent.

DigitalDruid

Thanks to scigirl, geo, the forum aministrators, and the respondents, this has been an interesting debate!

A few comments on some of what amos wrote.

Amos wrote:
What is the reason for your belief? Simply asserting X will inevitable follow Y without stating how exactly is called the Slipper Slope fallacy. <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html" target="_blank">http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html</a>

I find ample evidence that corroborates the contrary, but hardly any that support your conclusion:

(1) Study of tribes that accept homosexuality show that societal acceptance does not lead to larger number of adult homosexuals. For example. among the Sambia tribe (New Guinea), the boys engage in exclusively homosexual activities up to the age of about 22, when they marry and have children. Yet after 10 to 15 years of exclusive homosexual activity carried on by 100 % of the Sambia youth, the incidence of adult homosexual orientation is only 5 % - about the same as in Western society. As per your logic, in the light of societal acceptance of homosexuality, these boys should be predominantly homosexual in their adult life.
<a href="http://home.t-online.de/home/320028007954/sr/prd/ethno/sambia.html" target="_blank">http://home.t-online.de/home/320028007954/sr/prd/ethno/sambia.html</a>

(2)Among the countries (such as Netherlands), significantly more societal acceptance of homosexuality (compared to USA) has not led to run-away homosexual orientation among the population.

(3)Among many primate species with close evolutionary ties to man (male mountain gorillas, female and male pygmy chimpanzees (Bonobos), male orangutans), some of the individual animals engage in various kinds of homosexual behavior. Yet, group-acceptance of homosexuality has not led to the these primates turning increasingly more homosexual over time.

(4)Professional bodies disagree with your conclusion. Acc. to The American Psychological Association (APA), a small minority of the population is homosexual across cultures, irrespective of social acceptance or lack of it:
"Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments."
Excerpts of APA’s Statement on Homosexuality appears in <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_prof.htm" target="_blank">http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_prof.htm</a> .The same page also contains views of the World Health Association, American Medical Association, Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, , American Federation of Teachers, American School Health Association, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, National Education Association and a few others..

So all of this makes me wonder about the basis of your conclusion that societal acceptance of homosexuality would lead to its increase.

Amos wrote:
Acc. to professionals neither hormone therapy nor psycho therapy can change gender identity. Your assertion would cause professional psychologists and psychiatrists to have heart attack! It is a different matter that hormone therapy can induce some secondary sexual characteristic . But sexual identity? No way. Those who wants to undergo therapy for sex change must already have deep-seated proclivity for sex change. A case in point:

Here’s the story of a boy who underwent life-long hormone-therapy, psycho counseling, -even surgery-, to effect sexual identity change . Yet all of these backfired; he retained his male heterosexual identity and had to undergo corrective surgery to regain male anatomy. <a href="http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=1859" target="_blank">http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=1859</a>

Amos wrote:
Amen! So church is competent to offer advice on human nature ? If past performance (inquisition, witch-hunting, support for feudalism, colonial expansion, slavery, etc.) is any guide I shudder to think what kind of advice the church would proffer based on its "understanding" of human nature. OK, that’s a cheap shot. Ignore.

Amos wrote:
Yeah positive and negative come in quite handy - like in car batteries too. But if lack of procreation is a problem with homosexuality, then what about those heterosexual couples, who, for various reasons, do not plan on having any children ever. Isn’t that an "abomination" too? At least Nature seem to have limited homosexuality to a small minority irrespective of prevalent societal mores. But there seem to be no "natural limit" to number of heterosexual couples that might refuse to go along the route of procreation! THAT should be the greater abomination than homosexuality IMO.

Amos wrote:
What happened to the second version of the genesis story where the woman is NOT taken from man ? I am sure there is a revised version of this argument based on that too.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalDruid ]</p>

Amos

For the simple reason that in a gender equal society the psycholigical crossing of the physical barrier is encouraged. In this mindset boys are encouraged to act like girls and girls are encouraged to act like boys. The norm I used here is how boys and girls were encouraged to act in the old "opposite sex" society. If I remember correctly I gave the example of female body builders who fail to ovulate but grow hair on their chest instead.<strong> All of the above just tells me that these studies were done to accept homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle. I have no objection to this but just want to present my point as a counter argument.

The sexual activity of the boys in New Guinea is already over-ruled by the fact that girls are forbidden fruit to make their heart grow fonder. Sexual taboos are found in every mythlogy and this most certainly is not just for the heck of it and if their is any reason to be found it must be done for the fecundity of the tribe.

I am from Holland where lower grade schools are boy or girl only. During these years sexual orientation is greatly reinforced. This model is being considdered as a plus for such schools by the same associations you listed. As for the rest, the Dutch seem to have a mind of their own and are not easlily swayed by anthopology students. <strong> Our gender identity is incarnate and can therefore not easily be changed or we'd all be homosexuals for the occasion (or even monkeys if the occasion arose). It is most likely that in many cases hormone and psycho therapy cannot change the gender identity and I am glad to see that they reported some secondary characteristic changes. The reason why homosexuality can increase and decrease is that parents are responsible for the incarnation process and so they are responsible for the gender identity of their children. In animal science qualitative characteristics (such as behavior) are identified to skip one generation and this is where the accepted norm can become the rule in the future. The benefit of this is that one generation of humans cannot wipe the entire tribe from the face of the earth just because they had made a mistake.

In particular I am thinking of the dairy industry where breeding bulls are parked until their first batch of grand-daugthers are producing milk.
<strong> I don't have time to respond to your "cheap shot" so I won't but the Church does indeed understand human nature or modern humans would not be opposed to it.

An interesting point you made that our desire to be parents is decreasing and further that our natural (God given, to be sure ) ability to be parent is diminishing.

If you allow me to use modern gender identity terms you will find that effeminate females can easily get pregnant and will be good mothers while masculine females have difficulty to get pregnant and are least likely to be good mothers. I base this anser on your defense for homosexuality because also the art of mothering is a God given quality and cannot be learned (or homosexuality would also be a learned behavior).

<strong> I think you will find that woman was never created in Gen.1 but instead "man" was created in the androgyne form of male-and-female.

It was not until Gen.2 that woman (not female) was taken from man to be the womb of man and this is where woman becomes the Tree of Life.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Amos

DigitalDruid, please note that I never claimed that hormone or psycho therapy can change our sex identity. I wrote:

DigitalDruid

Amos, I am having problem making sense of some of your believes which seem to be inconsistent. Let me start with two of your believes:

So you agree that sexual identity can not be changed and also homosexual behavior is ingrained (not learned). Let’s call this your "Core Belief" for referral purposes.

I think some of your other believes are inconsistent with your Core Belief:

(1) In reply to my question asking you why you think homosexuality will increase if society condones it, you wrote: This belief is not consistent with your Core Belief; however much "boys are encouraged to act like girls and girls are encouraged to act like boys", it would have no affect on anyone’s homosexuality as per your Core Belief.

(2) Your Core Belief is inconsistent with your opinion that homosexuality (whether identity or behavior) can increase or decrease. The selective breeding example of animals is not pertinent, as no one has a clue how to breed selectively for sexual orientation(hetero/homo).

(3) As per your Core Belief, why do you not accept homosexuality as one facet of human sexuality? After all, acc. to your own Core Belief, homosexuals are not to be blamed for an identity that can not be changed or for behavior that is ingrained (not learned)?

Exactly what in this anthropological study makes you believe so ? Is it the research methodology? Or something else? The research on Sambia and similar tribes has been conducted by independent anthropologists and has been peer-reviewed. You provide no reason for your wholesale rejection. That is unfair. Or is it that the reported facts (percentages) do not conform to your scripture’s view?

Well, my purpose for mentioning the survey was not to ponder if the girls are forbidden fruit. They very well might be. My point was that after societal approval was granted to marry the opposite sex, about 5% of the boys remained exclusively homosexual. These were the boys with homosexual identity. The others reverted to behavior consonant with their heterosexual identity, when the opportunity arose. This and similar studies corroborate that while heterosexuals can, depending on the circumstances, exhibit temporary homosexual behavior, those with homosexual identity remain homosexual in behavior, parental or societal approval/disapproval notwithstanding. This, to me, seems to strengthen the argument for accepting their homosexuality. They have no choice but to be homosexual. Don’t you agree?

A related question is what if research had found homosexuality is not identity-based? What if it was a choice rather than an identity? Should we then refuse to accept homosexuality? The only case I can think of when societal concern for homosexuality is warranted is if indeed homosexuality (in the identity-based exclusive sense) spreads like wild-fire and threatens to reduce human population to the point of extinction. This is what some would like us to believe. They say "Do not accept homosexuality - your child would be next". But research indicates otherwise. As American Psychological Association and hosts of other professional bodies point out, homosexuality is found in a variety of cultures and over the many years homosexual (in the identity sense) population has remained a single-digit percentage. Homosexuality has been around for as long as people have lived. And yet far from nearing extinction, humanity seems to have multiplied beyond the resources of many countries.

That’s an astounding conclusion you reach; I said nothing of the sort. Please go back and read what I said. All I said was there are heterosexual couples, who, for various reasons, do not plan on having any children ever. As far as I can figure that is not a recent phenomenon and I never mentioned anything about the number of such couples increasing or decreasing over time. I also said "But there seem to be no "natural limit" to number of heterosexual couples that might refuse to go along the route of procreation!". Please note the "might". It is a what-if question - not a report of something that has actually happened! So, relax.


Amos, I think there can be many reasons for advocating separate lower grade schools for boys and girls. Your information is pertinent to our topic (homosexuality) only if the measure is based on considerations of homosexuality. In that case, I would be VERY curious to know which of the secular organizations I listed support the measure. Perhaps you can include a link in your response?

Amos

According to my theory our sexual orientation is for about 80% ingrained and the rest is learned. I base this on the fact that we only use 20% of our mind in our daily routines (our conscious mind), which is also the reason that therapy can affect our sexual orientation.

I also believe that children at an early age go through a polarization period in which they recollect (Plato's theory) their predestined orientation and affirm this with their behavior.

Not science but just a philosophical proposition and has nothing to with scriptures (I am not a religionist).

If we put our sexual orientation on a graduated scale there will be a certain number of people that can be persuated to be/become heterosexual, with or without hormone therapy. Others (and I do not suggest that every homosexual should go through an intense modification period against their will), others should be accepted as equal members of society. (I can argue that they are nicer, more gentle and less violent people and criminal studies have shown this to be true. I believe that such studies on "Moral Issues" were used to introduce and affirm the benefits of the modern "gender equal" society).

In animal science it is very important to breed for effeminity (gender identity) in milk cows. But I agree, we are not milk cows and maybe things have changed there too in the last 20 years.

My argument is based on the illusory human nature (in my theory human is opposite to woman) and must therefore be created by its counterpart--such as it was in the old opposite sex society.

Sorry I have to run, I may continue this later.

Amos

To complete my response I should also tell you that I never looked at your studies. Sorry I just write about things as I see them.

I wrote:
</strong>

We must ask the question why our sexuality is for the most part an intuit urge and to this I would answer that our intuition is the memory of our soul and therefore our behavior today--or the effects of our behavior such as opposite hormone stimilation--becomes engrained in the subconsious mind of our children and also of our children's children.

It is based on the above that our rational gender ideals of today become the effective cause of the incarnate gender identity of our children (I called them "God given" and is the data bank for Plato's "recollection theory." That is, our conscious behavior of today (both vices and virues) become or add to the strongholds of our future generations.

Edited to add that I am trying to point out why things change when they change and I think that it is quite all right that things do change but it is just nice to understand why they change. I also believe that the root cause for the "Christian opposition" to homosexual behavior is based on my argument and the bible just provides them with the "thou shalt not."

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

DigitalDruid

Amos, even if 80% of our sexual orientation (in the identity sense) "resides" in the unconscious (debatable), there is no evidence that it can be altered by therapy. Just because something is in the unconscious does not mean it can be changed by therapy - either in theory or in practice. Modern psycho therapy makes no such claim. In practice, such hopes have been consistently belied:

In the last 100 years, the effort to "reform" homosexuals has ranged from lobotomy, castration and electric shock therapy along with psycho therapy. These were used both privately and by U.S. govt as a "cure" for homosexuality, even though, then as now, nothing could be shown to change homosexual orientation (in the identity sense).

Professional bodies here in the U.S. condemn the various kinds of therapy proposed and practiced by some Christian ministries to cure homosexuality as harmful to clients. For instance: "Therapists who use Recovered Memory Therapy generally report that their clients improve during therapy. Studies of suicide rate, psychiatric hospital admissions, marriage breakup, unemployment rate show the opposite."

None the less, various "ex-gay" ministries have sprung up with the aim to cure homosexuality. Exodus International, one of the first and largest was abandoned after ten years by founders Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper after they realized themselves unable to change their own sexual orientation.

GeoTheo

So what would you say to people who do not want to be homosexual? Would you tell them they are outta luck? Would you tell them to quit lying to themselves? Do you think Transvestitism and transexualism should be outlawed because they are unsuccessfull in changing thier chromosomes?

On a different note:
Just because I cannot totally prevent myself from being aroused by other womens bodies I should then leave my wife?
If no then I don't see the problem with a homosexually oriented person trying to lead a chaste life, even though they are not sucessful in totally changing their orientation. No believer is able to defeat all sin in his or her life.
I am not under the illusion that I will ever in this life be free from all influence of sinfull desire. So I a sense I can't help myself.
Is it then cruel to tell me not to covet, or lie?
If not then it is not cruel to say homosexual sex is a sin.