I don't fear it. I was pointing out what nature shows us to be natural. The continuation of the species. Seems to be hardwired into life. To procreate and to survive. To think homosexuality is as natural as procreation is contrived. It is an aberration. Out of synch with....the show must go on! I don't care if people are queer. But it ain't the natural order. But we can't even be honest about that! Personally I think the religious taboo is because early man needed procreation to keep numbers up. That drove the taboo. We have had bottlenecks on numbers of humans in our history. So it makes sense the queer taboo, in the past. Same deal with dietary rules. Some foods are risky to eat. So rules came about as to what to eat and not to eat. The problem today is too many people! So perhaps we need to promote queerdom. And late term abortions. Just hit the newborn with a hammer as soon as it pops out. Better than famine culling us out. Quicker. More humane.
MYTH Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals. THE ARGUMENT Depicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality and for winning elections and referenda, as Anita Bryant found out during her successful 1977 campaign to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance barring discrimination against gay people. Discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, the most ubiquitous purveyor of anti-gay junk science, has been a major promoter of this myth. Despite having been debunked repeatedly and very publicly, Cameron's work is still widely relied upon by anti-gay organizations, although many no longer quote him by name. Others have cited a group called the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) to claim, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council did in November 2010, that "the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a [molestation] danger to children. THE FACTS According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men. Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester the stereotypical pedophile cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found, as Herek notes, that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships. The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests. Some anti-gay ideologues cite the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) opposition to same-sex parenting as if the organization were a legitimate professional body. In fact, the so-called college is a tiny breakaway faction of the similarly named, 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics that requires, as a condition of membership, that joiners "hold true to the group's core beliefs ... [including] that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children." The group's 2010 publication Facts About Youth was described by the American Academy of Pediatrics as not acknowledging scientific and medical evidence with regard to sexual orientation, sexual identity and health, or effective health education. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, was one of several legitimate researchers who said ACPeds misrepresented the institutes findings. It is disturbing to me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality, he wrote. The information they present is misleading and incorrect. Another critic of ACPeds is Dr. Gary Remafedi, a researcher at the University of Minnesota who wrote a letter to ACPeds rebuking the organization for misusing his research. In spite of all this, the anti-LGBT right continues to peddle this harmful and baseless myth, which is probably the leading defamatory charge leveled against gay people. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2015/10-anti-gay-myths-debunked
In 1973, the weight of EMPIRICAL DATA, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified. Some psychologists and psychiatrists still hold negative personal attitudes toward homosexuality. However, empirical evidence and professional norms do not support the idea that homosexuality is a form of mental illness or is inherently linked to psychopathology. The American Psychological Association released a Statement on Homosexuality in 1994-JUL. Their first two paragraphs are: The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals. Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. 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.
The original bible never condemned homosexuality as a "sick perversion" or a "sin". It was sickos like Saul/Paul who injected homophobia into Paulism and then his followers perverted the bible to suit their homophobic agenda.
Homosexuality occurs throughout Nature ergo it is natural. Sexuality is a SPECTRUM rather than a purely BINARY concept. Nature does not absolutely require both male and female for procreation. Some 80 species use parthenogenesis instead. There is even a living instance of human parthenogenesis. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14819982-300-the-boy-whose-blood-has-no-father/
Where did I say that? http://www.biblemysteries.com/library/james.htm The PERTINENT question is WHY was Saul/Paul RELEASED from Roman custody after only a couple of days? They took that time to establish that he was a Roman AGENT and there is only his word regarding the alleged "beating". Most probably just a way to COVER his ass if he had been spotted reporting back to his Roman masters. Rome gained which should be OBVIOUS to anyone who understands the history of that period.
Regurgitated BOVINE EXCREMENT that you have already PROVEN that you cannot provide any credible substantiation of.
thats not the way I read it, quote it FALSE FALSE Truth: Since heterosexuals outnumber the homosexual population about 44 to 1, as a group the incidence of homosexuals molesting children is up to 40 times greater than heterosexuals https://www.baptistpress.com/resour...als-more-likely-to-molest-kids-study-reports/ Time to brush up on your math skills
Wouldnt that also apply to chastity? Yet thats a preistly thing. Not many modern religions promote constant sex. Many consider it sinful.
Don't blame me for your inability to tell good evidence from bad; it's a hallmark of conspiracy theorists.
FALSE feel free to look up 'per capita' which is only accurate way to measure that kind of data. Seems I always have to take people to school on here.
RE: LGBTQ and the Bible /||\ ⁜→ Jolly Penguin, One Mind, et al, BLUF: In these social and religious taboos, there is always an element of politics (even if it a hidden agenda). To derive a more accurate conclusion, politics has to be sifted out of the issue under examination. (EXPLORATORY COMMENT) The very touchy landscape of LGBTQ, incest, and cleric celibacy policies, as well as other "priestly things," habits and rituals and practices, one has to tread lightly when discussing the issues under examination. I always wondered if there was some sort of supernaturally induced source for these prohibitions? • OR • Was there actually something in the ancient texts (dating back before the era of Christ) that was interpreted as a prohibition? Where and when did this all start? I ask because none of these practices (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, incest) are new. All of them can be seen in many cultures, across many time periods, as being practices at the highest level of society and ranks of the courtesans; dating back to the very early pharaohs. And I always thought (and maybe I am wrong) but even Sumerians were quite open on these matters as personal choices and lifestyles. Of the major religious societies, are these acts only frowned upon by the Abrahamic religions? Most Respectfully, R
Absolute nonsense, it is idiotic to imagine the church had this wrong, only to be 'corrected' by non-Christians 2,000 years later with an axe to grind. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/more-on-homosexuality-in-the-bible-9811 You repeat the same bunk Muslims do, also with no evidence, that the Bible was corrupted and changed.
So does cancer, and since when do we take our moral cues from animals? Nature is also affected by the Fall.
When you earlier inferred Paul made up Christianity. Pure speculation on the James quote from a crackpot tin foil hat source that has an extreme minority opinion on the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. From Wikipedia: "Scholarly consensus dates the Qumran Caves Scrolls from the last three centuries BCE and the first century CE.[1] Bronze coins found at the same sites form a series beginning with John Hyrcanus (in office 135–104 BCE) and continuing until the period of the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE), supporting the radiocarbon and paleographic dating of the scrolls." What reference is that? He was imprisoned by Rome for two years, from 57-59AD in Caesarea. Where is your evidence for this nutty theory? Christianity wasn't the official religion until centuries later, now answer my question, what did Paul gain? From II Cor. 11: Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food,2 in cold and exposure. Paul said if Christianity were only true in this life they were the most miserable of creatures. Would you endure the above for a lie? I want in on that action. [/QUOTE]
Yes. There is plenty that is natural that is immoral. So to say homosexuality is natural or not has no bearing on its morality. And I would say that the onus is on whoever declares it immoral to show what harm they say it does to themselves or to society at large.
