10% Myth

[Aineo]

Story: A coalition of leading pro-homosexual activist groups has now admitted in a legal brief that only "2.8 percent of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual."

The admission is in stark contrast to the popular myth that ten percent of the population is homosexual.

The acknowledgement that the actual size of the homosexual or bisexual population is far smaller came in an amices curiae (or 'friend of the court') brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence v. Texas. In the case, homosexual activists are seeking to have a Texas law barring homosexual sodomy declared unconstitutional. The brief was filed on behalf of a coalition of 31 pro-homosexual activist groups, including some of the leading national organizations like the Human Rights Campaign; the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force; Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG); the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD); and the People for the American Way Foundation.

The unusually candid statement about the relatively low number of homosexuals in the population appeared on page 16 of the brief. The text contains the assertion, "There are approximately six million openly gay men and women in the United States, and 450,000 gay men and lesbians in Texas." After the national figure there appears a footnote, number 42 in the brief. The actual footnote at the bottom of the page reads as follows (in its entirety):

The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al., The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian.

Unfortunately, despite their candor about the small percentage of the population that is homosexual, the authors of the brief still managed to overestimate the actual number of "openly gay men and women" by more than a third. That's because the figures of "4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian" were apparently arrived at by multiplying the 2.8% and 1.4% figures by the total number of males and females in the U.S. population. Yet it hardly seems reasonable to count any of the 60 million Americans who are fourteen years old or younger (and particularly the 40 million who are nine or younger) as "openly gay men and women."

If one applies the percentage figures from the NHSLS instead to only the population of men and women 18 years old or more, one arrives at an estimate that perhaps 4.3 million Americans (2.8 million men and 1.5 million women) identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual. The percentage of the population that identifies exclusively as homosexual (not bisexual) is only 2.0 percent for men and 0.9 percent for women, or about 2 million men and slightly less than a million women. And the NHSLS found that only 0.9 percent of men and 0.4 percent of women reported having only same-sex sexual partners since age 18, a figure that would represent a total of only about 1.4 million Americans (men and women combined).

The book on the NHSLS that was cited in the homosexual groups' brief refers as well to "the myth of 10 percent." It also mentions in a footnote that "Bruce Voeller (1990) claims to have originated the 10 percent estimate as part of the modern gay rights movement's campaign in the late 1970s to convince politicians and the public that 'We [gays and lesbians] Are Everywhere.'" At the time, Voeller was the chair of the National Gay Task Force--forerunner to one of the groups represented by the recent brief.-PSS

http://www.frc.org/get/n03d012.cfm

[Surfer]

This, of course, is nonsense.

The phrase "male population" is usually taken to mean all males, not just those over 18.

So, the 2.8% figure was calculated by dividing the number of self-identifying gay men by that male population. To get back to the number of gay men, you have to take that percentage of the same population. The percentage would have been much higher had the
original calculation been done with the restricted populaton you chose to use to get a smaller answer.

[5thRaven]

Kill "Bob" or kill me, we all know the ten percent myth was made up to help people who are gay feel better about themselves and less alone. When a person who is gay discovers that they have sexual desires for people of the same sex, they are often afraid of being branded a wirdo or a freak. I believe the technical term is Faggot or Lesbo. To make them feel better, adults who campaign for qual rights for gays decided to do a little statistics twisting and get the percentage up to ten. Every adult who had already discovered themselves was supposed to know it was bull, but the kids who are just coming into their own were supposed to take comfort in it instead of constantly being worried about being bullied by people like the people who run this forum.

It is because of those self-same people who campaign for the whitwashing of all people into good, baby-producing, hetro-sexual, and most importantly christian that young kids whos GENETIC tendancy towards being homosexual has been triggered by something in the environment feel that they need to run and hide in a closet. The truth is, gays just want to live in peace like you. Nobody wants to be homosexual but there is something about that gene that natural selection really wants that keeps making it pop up. Pursecuting and going on witch hunts only hurts people.

Let them alone, and if you really can't stand them, then take solacy in the fact that they are genetically DEAD.

[Aineo]

The technical term is homosexual; the accepted term is gay for men and lesbian for women. As to leaving them alone to live their lives, I happen to agree with you until they try to force their behavior on confused and vulnerable children, redefine marriage, etc.

If you don't care for our or my position then you have the choice to stay off this board.

[Doormouse]

My rant against you was in a Jewish way. Ever read Ramban? He goes on rants about how all other scholars are morons and should just sit down and shut up. He is also considered one of the great Jewish thinkers. Just because I fervently disagree doesn't mean I don't want to hear your side of the arguement. I want to know why you disagree with me so I can make myself a better person by listening to you.

Also, large amounts of typing might help my spelling problems.

The technical term is homosexual; the accepted term is gay for men and lesbian for women.

It was a litterary convention used to cause interest in what I was speaking about. It is a well known fact that saying something controversial in a sarcastic manner grabs peoples attention.

As to leaving them alone to live their lives, I happen to agree with you until they try to force their behavior on confused and vulnerable children, redefine marriage, etc.

It is impossible to "force" homosexuality on "confused and vulnerable" children. It is, however, possible to educate children as to what homosexuality really is. This way, kids who are naturally gay wont feel alone, those who are bisexual won't be afraid of themselves, and those who are straight won't feel the need to ridicule others for their sexual orientation. All those things are good.

As for children being "confused and vulnerable", that irks a very deep pet peeve I have. I happen to have been a child not to long ago and, with something called a memory, I remember many things. Some things were good, some were bad. The bad made be strong and the good made me happy. I grew up in a bery liberal atmosphere (does it show?) and I happen to know many people who were gay or bisexual. I have had many homosexual teachers and mentors. Also, my first partner was bisexual. My first partner also happens to be female. As far as I can tell, I am hetro-sexual although I wouldn't be afraid of it if I were gay. Most of my friends from my youth are hetro-sexual (I think all but I'm not sure). However, I don't tease gay, I don't make their lives hard, and I don't try to "convert" them to being hetr-sexual.

On the topic of marriage: it is a tough issue with many sides. I see the side that marriage is an institution to produce children and has historically been between a man and a woman. However, I also see many stable homosexual couples with children who could really use the legal benefits of marriage. I also see many disfuntional hetro-sexual couples who should never have children. I now think that the country should abolish marriage as a legal term, replace it with universal civil unions between any two consenting people. And then allow churches to define what marriage is and who can be "married" within their religion. Its a hard topic.

[5thRaven]

This is annoying. I was in the wrong account again. Doormouse = me.

[beads]

It was a litterary convention ....

Unfortunately, your "literary conventions" (i.e. sarcasm, humor, etc....) will be lost on alot of people here. The little emoticons help sometimes in conveying your meaning, but if you're like me you probably think that using them defeats the purpose and humor of a great line of sarcasm! Sarcasm's tough to pull off when you only have typed words, and you can't use vocal inflection and facial expressions.

Keep it coming, though! The threads on this forum sometimes get quite intense. Some of us enjoy an occasional laugh!

[gerani1248]

not every poll or statistics are true. they are just polls and statistics. they cannot take away the fact that gays exist and shall exist until some dna scientist will finally change the chromosome arrangement and jazz.
i dunno.

[Aineo]

not every poll or statistics are true. they are just polls and statistics. they cannot take away the fact that gays exist and shall exist until some dna scientist will finally change the chromosome arrangement and jazz.
i dunno.

No one has denied that a small percentage of people experience homosexual desires. And just how to you believe molecular geneticists are going to "change" the chromosome arrangment and jazz?

Environment, personality, and other factors can be shown to effect sexual orientation. DNA does not effect environment.

"not every poll or statistics are true", yet you appealed to statistics in another thread in an attempt to show that gays comprise 10% of the population. You also maintain that Hinduism is the largest largest religion in the world, which is based on polls and statistics. You are being selective in what you will and will not accept.

[gerani1248]

It is impossible to "force" homosexuality on "confused and vulnerable" children. It is, however, possible to educate children as to what homosexuality really is. This way, kids who are naturally gay wont feel alone, those who are bisexual won't be afraid of themselves, and those who are straight won't feel the need to ridicule others for their sexual orientation. All those things are good.

i soo agree!

---------------------------------------------------------------

um actually i saw one poll which read that 1/3 of the population worldwide have homosexual tendencies. meaning only a few of them are ultimatly gay lesbian and bi, but there are plenty of straight ppl who are on the edge.


i look at myself and i think im 90 percent gay and 10 percent straight. does that make sense? i mean, i like women and all, but i find no pleasure looking at them. it feels all cold and stuff. understand? its really wierd. ive tried to imagine myself doing that, but i cant. [/quote]

[Drift3r]

So you test yourself once in a while to make sure you're gay?

[gerani1248]

my intention wasnt to 'test' rather to see how it would feel if i made out with a woman, in which i felt no attraction and only confirmed it.
just to make sure i wasnt bi.
lol. okay so may be i do test myself. well. i dunno.

You also maintain that Hinduism is the largest largest religion in the world, which is based on polls and statistics.

no, i never did. just to make sure that i said such a thing, quote me.

[Aineo]

my intention wasnt to 'test' rather to see how it would feel if i made out with a woman, in which i felt no attraction and only confirmed it.
just to make sure i wasnt bi.
lol. okay so may be i do test myself. well. i dunno.

You also maintain that Hinduism is the largest largest religion in the world, which is based on polls and statistics.

no, i never did. just to make sure that i said such a thing, quote me.

Should have stated largest old, not largest largest.

[gerani1248]

theres a chance that hinduism is one of the oldest. unless if you count wiccanism because it wasnt as organized as it was centuries ago, and native americans practiced it to some degree with the spiritis of nature (which i like) and such....

[Aineo]

theres a chance that hinduism is one of the oldest. unless if you count wiccanism because it wasnt as organized as it was centuries ago, and native americans practiced it to some degree with the spiritis of nature (which i like) and such....

Native American practiced pantheism and animism, which are the real roots of Hinduism.

[webmaster]

Is it the oldest because there is a writing that predates any other writing?

Religion and believe in gods has been around since the beginning.

The REAL question is rather they was worshiping God as God or was they worshiping a god they created!

[gerani1248]

good thought. it was probably one God. why dont you make a time machine and travel back in time and find out? lol. writings dont matter because hinduism existed for several centuries with oral tradition.

i frankly dont care who is the oldest or largest.

[Aineo]

good thought. it was probably one God. why dont you make a time machine and travel back in time and find out? lol. writings dont matter because hinduism existed for several centuries with oral tradition.

i frankly dont care who is the oldest or largest.

The interesting aspect of oral traditions is they change with the telling. Ever played a game called "telephone"? In case you have not it goes like this. You get a group of people together and one person whispers a short paragraph into the ear of his neighbor and then that person whispers the paragraph to his neighbor and so on until the last person tells the whole group what he was told. The last person in the line never gets the paragraph orally transmitted correctly.

[gerani1248]

thats obvious. i thank God that his message was not dettered by that.

all scripture came about by oral tradition.

[fuzz2050]

~~~now, the question is, what is the odlest GAY religion?

[Hells_Angel]

Forgive me if I am being niave here, but I didn't realise Jesus Christ was a 'straight' persons god. Actually, I am to understand that he is in fact NOT a god. Just the son of one. What about the whole "Worship no false god" thing?

I am, as you may have guessed, a gay man. I do not advertise it, I am not proud of it, I am not ashamed of it. It just means that my cock gets hard at, well, other cock. I am a man, made, as you may say, in the image of god. In what way did God, in his all-being-knowledge, make you any better than me?

I kinda had to laugh at the whole statistics thing. Would it surprise you to hear that the majority of people with sexual desires for someone of the same sex are actually too afraid to admit it? Well it shouldn't surprise you as people like yourselves are the sole reason of this fear. People like you made it taboo.

I am correct in saying that God created ALL life on this planet. I am also correct in saying that almost all species have been discovered in homosexual, thats right, HOMOSEXUAL relationships. Amazing eh? Well, amazing to a simple mind. You know, its one of the things that really annoys me, ignorance. If you have not experienced or felt it yourself, it cannot exist or is wrong in some way. Hell, white people decided to enslave anybody who physically look the same. Some of them still find it hard to get over that one physical difference, so it really isn't surprising that the neanderthall way of thinking comes into play with a psychological difference.

Don't get me wrong, I would never insult my name by calling myself a "gay-activist". I hate those idiots who, within the first few minutes of meeting them make sure you know their sexual preferences. Fair enough, gays might be discriminated against. But so is every bloody minority group on the face of the earth. And we all fall into at least one of them; blacks, Jews, Christians, red-heads.... the list is endless. What we all need to realise is that we cannot continue to go around singling out particular groups of people from the rest. The fact that you feel so passionately about gays can only suggest to me that you may be struggling with your own sexual orientation.

Many Christians turn to Christianity for the simple reason that they are confused, or afraid that they may be committing sin, so seek the 'salvation' of religion. I know this because many of my friends turned to religion for these reasons.

I belive the message that Christianity has to bring is really positive. But like the failings of most other religions, it was set up by men with the wrong intentions, and bad messages have been sent.

I understand if offence is taken, although it may not be meant. However, I would appreciate the answer of but one question. What are your views on Mary Magdelane*?

* (Forgive me if I mis-spelt. Hated R.E!)

[Aineo]

In all my years as an active gay man I was never discriminated against for being gay, was never treated as less than human for being gay, and I came out in the 1960's. So your thesis that society is the reason people hide their gayness is nothing more than a self serving excuse.

If you bothered to check out the opening post you would have found that a gay activist organization submitted the latest statistics to the U.S. Supreme Court, so these statistics did not come from any anti-gay organization.

Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is not universal and in many cases is situational (like prison sexuality). God created mankind in His image and what mankind has done with that image is not because He created evil.

Jesus Christ is the Savior of humanity. The Bible explains how one can become one with and in Him. Being straight is no guarantee that one will be saved.

The Bible is clear that Jesus is the Son of the Father and creator of all that exists in heaven or on earth. So you can draw your own conclusions from what the Bible says not what some men want to believe.

As to Mary Madgelene is you want to discuss her then take it to the Free For All forum.

[Blake.L.]

an old and wise maxim: live and let live.

here's my 2c:

if you're struggling with the possibility that you are gay, don't fight it. be brave. check it out and see how it feels. i don't believe you will go to any hell other than the one you create for yourself right here in this world from your own shame and guilt and the shame and guilt bestowed upon you by people with smaller, weaker and more judgmental minds. i say, throw off the shame and throw off the guilt! be true to yourself! be who you are because who you are is beautiful and acceptable as is. sadly, not too many people have the strength or courage to actually achieve it.

the bible is 2000 years out of date. we live in the modern western world that has evolved past selling women for camels. that's not to say that the bible in parts is not relevant because it is. if you follow the golden rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you you can't really go wrong. these days women are actually allowed to work and vote and are recognised as equal to men unlike the scriptures in the bible. see? large chunks of it are simply no longer relevant. the human race has evolved and with it human sexuality. live and let live.

where i live it has come to light in the last decade that catholic priests have buggered little boys, baptist preachers have sexually harrassed certain females in their congregations, assembly of god pastors have financially and sexually taken advantage of their parishioners, long standing and respected jehovah witnesses have committed adultery and left their wives and families. two things about this: its always been men and they have always claimed to be among the most pious of people. people are fallible. people are confused. its hard to be who you are when you have someone shoving down your throat somebody elses doctrine. you only live once and it is important that you live according to your own lights. know who you are and live accordingly. most people, especially those who belong to religious groups, do not know who they really are and so when they break down in later life, it's not surprising. conditioning should not be underestimated. it is not who you are. it's what you've been told to be. don't be conditioned. live your own life, unafraid, and live it mercifully.

fulfill yourself and feed others. be kind. how can you go wrong?

as for other people's sexuality, unless you're sitting on their lap, really, it's none of your business.

and you know what they say about people that protest too much! (they need a good buttf**king!!)

[Aineo]

Your understanding of the Bible and women is definitely lacking. Hebrew women had more rights than their contemporaries.

“To thy ownself be true” is found in Scripture: “Love your neighbor as yourself”. I agree that those with a gay orientation need to accept themselves for who they are, but not necessarily for what they do.

Have you considered helping those who struggle come to an understanding of why they have those desires, which in the vast majority of cases can be explained and the roots of the desires can be overcome.

Your 2 cents makes about as much sense as telling an alcoholic or a drug addict to go with the flow.

[Blake.L.]

drug and alcohol addiction are very different creatures to homosexuality. homosexual sex is generally not something that you beat people over the head to obtain unless you are some kind of sex addict or pervert and face it, most rapists are heterosexuals. drug and alcohol addiction has negative physical, emotional and financial effects on not only the user but the users family, friends and community. my father was always drunk when he molested me. he was always drunk when he abused me or hit me.

homosexuality does not cause people to behave that way, as any one who has been with a homosexual the morning after they have had sex knows. a spring in the step, a light in the eye and smiles all round. the only way homosexual sex causes grief is when the homosexual themselves is caused to feel shame and guilt for who they are or their family is ashamed of who they are, if they are told they are "sick" or "satanic". in those cases, yes, homosexuality can cause destruction and even suicide. if left to its own devices, homosexuality can blossom into a life affirming, positive lifestyle.

sure sometimes families have trouble accepting that their loved one is gay but in my experience these days its far more common for them to, over time, come to accept and love their offspring for who they are not how or who they (explative deleted). most people have at least enough respect, courtesy and basic common sense to let people be who they are and trust them. what are we talking about here? do what thou will and harm none. love not destruction.

my lacking in the scripture department is oh so true. i don't even have a copy of the bible in my house - which kind of shocked me when i realised. really pisses me off because i find it a useful reference. it has some great ideas and metaphors for the human condition and moving through it in a positive way. i must buy another copy soon. i had one in my old house, i think i must have lost it in the move.

as for your suggestion that i "help" homosexuals overcome their homosexuality, well, i am simply not rude enough to involve myself in business that is not mine. perhaps if they were junkies or alcoholics and it was damaging them every which way, yes, but as it stands, every single homosexual i know - and there are at least 10 - are positive, happy people who contribute much to their community and have more compassion for life's outsiders and underdogs than any heterosexual i have ever met. let's take one couple i know as an example: john and phillip. john is a doctor and phillip is an architect. they have been together 20+ years. phillip spends his spare time helping to nurse people with AIDS through their last years and john is a surgeon at a public hospital and last year spent 10 weeks in iraq with doctors without borders. john's parents are both dead and phillip's father is dead. they built a lovely, fully self contained flat in their backyard so phillip's mother could move in and wouldn't have to be alone, which she has done. so who the hell am i to walk in there and tell these two excellent, amazing, wonderful people that they should get over their homosexuality? they would smile, hand me a glass of wine and tell me to "let it all out". lol!

homosexuality is a beautiful thing, as beautiful as heterosexuality. if people would only stop casting shame and guilt on it the world and homosexuals in general would be better off and a lot happier.

drug addicts and alcoholics = negative, destructive behaviour
homosexuality without guilt or shame or fear = positive, life affirming behaviour.

big difference.

[Aineo]

There are similarities to why some people become gay and others become alcoholics or drug addicts. People (gay and straight) who do not control their sexuality are also a burden on society. The cost of treating HIV is enormous and since about 3% of the population account for about 50% of the HIV/AIDS cases in the United States you are not facing the truth.

You are happy being gay but not all people who are gay are happy being gay. It is for those that want truth that threads like this one are published. Do you suppose you can refute the thread title?

[Blake.L.]

first off, i'm seeing somebody of the opposite sex and have been for 5 years now.

secondly, if people stopped damning homosexuality and homosexuals as evil, sick and pathetic there would be a lot more happy homosexuals living satisfying, productive lives. pity and judgment never helped anyone in any way. take responsibility for your own actions and your own life and do not presume that every one should live the way you do or hold your beliefs. there's a little thing called individuality to take into account. homosexuals generally don't go around telling all the straight people they should be gay, do they? they would not presume to do that because they have felt the sting of being judged first hand and are more compassionate by and large than to thrust that on to others.

just for the record, hinduism did not come from the indigenous americans and i don't think i know one homosexual who has not been vilified by straight and scared society, be it people shouting at them in the street through to out and out harassment at work that led to nervous breakdown and another friend was beaten up so badly he nearly died.

statistics can be skewed to say anything. anyone who has studied statistics 101 knows that. don't be so naive.

i read that you are fighting your homosexuality for whatever reason, and that is kinda sad to see. i wish you could come visit me and spend some time with some of my gay friends. they would help you to see that you are actually an okay person exactly as you are and that being homosexual or feeling homosexual urges is not something you need to fight or be afraid of. i bet if that happened you would spend a lot less time posting messages online judging others. you would be too busy being out and loving life and revelling in who you are to be concerned about how other people live, but horses for courses and all that. fear is a terrible thing. it stunts ones growth. i hope you eventually find your way.

[Aineo]

If you have read that I am fighting my homosexuality then your comprehension of English is as lacking as your knowledge of the Bible. I changed my sexual orientation by taking control of my own self-image and deciding what I wanted out of this life. Societal pressure had nothing to do with my decision.

I have spent about 20 years working to improve understanding of the gay community by Christians and then people like you come along with your self pity and lies and undo what some of us have done.

If you took the time to read the opening post you would have discovered that a gay activist group submitted the study showing the number of gblt in America to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Oh, I know what stats can be used for an agenda, which is how gay activists used stats for decades and now many uniformed accept their lies as truth.

[Blake.L.]

so what "changed" your sexual agenda and what is your mission here? how did that come to be? self-loathing? fear? god?

as i have said, i believe sexuality is very fluid and ones tastes can change, what satisfies us one day is not necessarily what satisfies us the next. perhaps this is what happened to you? why did you turn your back on the community that supported you and who you fought for for 20 odd years? enquiring minds want to know. what exactly was the catalyst? a sudden realisation that you were mortal and your time was getting closer to coming to an end? prayer is the last refuge of a scoundrel, you know that, don't you?

[Aineo]

What makes you think I turned my back on the gay community? Also, what makes you think I no longer work for or support equal rights for the gay community? Is it because I would rather disseminate truth than lies? I have been banned from one Christian message board and am not welcome on a couple others because I do not support their assumptions that everyone in the gay community is a demented pervert out to sodomize the youth of America. You seem to be judging me and all Christians based on lack of knowledge and are using the same prejudice you accuse all Christians of when dealing with homosexuality.

If you will take the time to click on the blue banner in my signature you will find my reasons for leaving gay life, not my gay friends. So before you continue with your arrogant accusations I suggest you educate yourself about the ex-gay movement and me without assuming what you read on the Internet about the “ex-gay fraud” is my reality. You might try starting with this page: WELCOME TO MY HIV & AIDS PAGE, which is dedicated to my youngest brother who was gay and died from complications due to HIV/AIDS. I have not ceased promoting real communication between the gay community and Christians who do not understand what they condemn; in fact I have spent more time over the last 20 years working for equal rights for all human beings and real dialogue between gays and straights than almost anything else.

I was 38 when I first started thinking about leaving gay life and 40 when I committed to the “journey”. Based on my family history I have a good chance of reaching 90+ before I die so again your assumption that a sudden realization of my mortality having anything to do with my choice is ludicrous. My maternal grandmother’s youngest sister died a year ago at the age of 95, my grandmother died at 92, her father was 91 when he died. My brother passed away in 1995 (he was 42 and I was 52), 12 years after I left gay life behind so HIV/AIDS was not a factor in my decision.

prayer is the last refuge of a scoundrel, you know that, don't you?

Would you care to back up this statement with facts and not opinion?

[Blake.L.]

so what the hell are you doing? trying to pursuade people that homosexuality is an "illness"? i'm sorry if you feel that way but it's just not the case and I don't think you have any right to judge others as "ill" if they feel attraction for those of the same sex, because that is your agenda, isn't it? to turn gays back to the straight life. well, you know what they say, misery loves company. you have turned your back on gay society whether you want to admit it or not because, it seems to me, you are only remaining part of in in order to subvert it and damage it and, if you had your way no doubt, ultimately destroy it. is this not the case? what goodness and usefulness are you bringing to queer society at this point in time? to tell them they are "sick"? well, pardon me boys, if i don't agree that this appraoch is helpful.

prayer *is* the last refuge of the scoundrel. you know that to be true. you don't need facts. surely you have your own inherent logic and reason and common sense to deduce the truth of so simple an idea. i didn't say that prayer is ONLY the last refuge of the scoundrel but, you know, in your case, i think it is true. i don't think you can face up to what you are for one reason or another and so you have turned your back and are now vilifying what you once fought for and trying to erase any image of yourself that might see reflected in others. i think that secretly you hate yourself. threshold of revelation, my friend. go and rent "Angels in America". it might offer you some assistance as far as self-acceptance and tolerance goes.

i am very sorry to hear about your youngest brother.

[Aineo]

You are posting the same type of ignorant hate you accuse Christians of disseminating. I have not turned my back on the gay community and I do not insist any gay man or lesbian woman change their sexual orientation. This is nothing more than your own prejudice over riding truth. I cannot force and “preach” anyone into changing their lives; that is a personal decision.

What is the source of your hate?

Logic has nothing to do with your comment about prayer. Prayer is part of a life of faith so according to you all faithful people who pray are scoundrels. You just judged 90% of the earths population based on your own hate filled prejudice.

[RomeSweetHome]

Aieno Wrote:

I was 38 when I first started thinking about leaving gay life and 40 when I committed to the “journey”. Based on my family history I have a good chance of reaching 90+ before I die so again your assumption that a sudden realization of my mortality having anything to do with my choice is ludicrous. My maternal grandmother’s youngest sister died a year ago at the age of 95, my grandmother died at 92, her father was 91 when he died. My brother passed away in 1995 (he was 42 and I was 52), 12 years after I left gay life behind so HIV/AIDS was not a factor in my decision.

I know this might not have anything to do with the thread, but I was curios about something you said. Above you say you have a good chance in reaching the age of 90+ you gave a description about your family and their age at death etc... but doesn't HIV/AIDS dramatically reduce your life span?

I pray that you may be healed, that you may have a long healthy and prosperous life.


Peace

[Aineo]

Modern medicine (and the grace of God) have kept me healthy. My CD4 count is 1014 (normal is 500). As long as I use common sense and do not practice self destructive behavior I have a good chance of living into my 90's. My older brother and my sister are both diabetics who could "cure" themselves by changing their behavior, which includes eating right, daily exercise, and a positive mental attitude.

This is not to say that the virus and my medications have not dictated some changes in my life. In my case the virus penetrated my brain and caused some cognitive problems (side effects of some of the meds contributed to this as well), which is why I am retired. However, my current medical regimen is reversing the damage done by the virus (to the amazement of my HIV/AIDS specialist) so we know why I am regaining my mental faculties.

The faithful prayers of many people have contributed to my well-being, which brings me back to Blake’s statement about prayer. I am sure Troy Perry, Mel White, and Bishop Gene Robinson will be surprised they are scoundrels. Troy Perry is the founder of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (I believe there are 8 MCC’s in New Zealand and Australia). Mel White along with his partner are the founders of SoulForce, and if Blake does not know who Bishop Robinson is he is living under a rock.

[Blake.L.]

You are posting the same type of ignorant hate you accuse Christians of disseminating. I have not turned my back on the gay community and I do not insist any gay man or lesbian woman change their sexual orientation. This is nothing more than your own prejudice over riding truth. I cannot force and “preach” anyone into changing their lives; that is a personal decision.

What is the source of your hate?

Logic has nothing to do with your comment about prayer. Prayer is part of a life of faith so according to you all faithful people who pray are scoundrels. You just judged 90% of the earths population based on your own hate filled prejudice.

there is no hate and there is no ignorance and there is no prejudice, its simply a difference of opinion. you cannot force or "preach" anyone into changing anything, true enough, but why bother them at all? do you see gays bothering you to the same extent? no. and it is happening because of the bloody bible. that book has caused more grief to more people than probably any other religious tome in the history of the world.

there is no hate. there is a reasonable bewilderment however at why some people feel it necessary to shove their beliefs down the throats of others and evangelical christians amongst others are guilty on that count. they don't live and let live. they live and judge others by their own beliefs rather than accept and love them for exactly who they are because that takes courage and balls. evangelicals want to change everyone into clones of themselves, they deny people the inherent right to live as they see fit. they damn them and belittle them and frighten them with hellish visions if they do not comply. what the hell is that about? how cruel and meanspirited to do that to another human being.

i think there should be an evangelical gay movement that goes around preaching homosexuality and prays for heterosexuals to see the way and wakes people up at 9am on a saturday morning to spread the word. i would love to see that. shame that homosexuals have too much respect for other people's beliefs and sexual persuasions to do that, huh?

you totally twisted my words. i made it clear that i don't believe that prayer is ONLY the refuge of scoundrels. i think it has many positive benefits for a great many people. prayer and faith is something i have tremendous respect for and would never dream of belittling it anymore than i would dream of telling those who pray that they are "ill" or that their faith is a "crutch". it might be true, it might not be, depending on which side of the fence you're coming from, but nevertheless, i won't and do not interfere with the beliefs of others because it is simply not the right thing to do. wouldn't you agree? it shows a marked lack of respect for other human beings and their right to live their lives as they see fit and as best they can. there are these things called gay christians, go figure. i let them be even if i think their belief is incredibly illogical. its called acceptance. you might have heard of it.

you know, even when friends are beaten up i don't go looking to find the people that did it and beat the hell out of them right back, nor would i badger them into not doing it anymore if i did find them. the only question i would have is "why". mostly, i just accept that they are lost or at a stage where they don't know any better or think that maybe their lives have been shaped by forces that have brought them to this violence and i hope the police find them and take them off the streets. instead, i focus on looking after my friends and community as best i can. experience has shown me that everyone finds their own way in their own time. its not something that can be forced. i believe that the people that do inflict violence on homosexuals, or heterosexuals for that matter, will eventually realise what they are doing is wrong and if they don't, that's just how it is and i accept that as best i can. incarceration doesn't work. i don't go out and try to actively find them and change them. they will change when they're ready or able to, in their own way and in their own time. or not. so be it. they're not my business. let the dead look after the dead. my business is helping my friends recover. hate or badgering someone to change who is not ready to change is just wasted energy that could be put to better use assisting one owns community. do not cast your pearls before swine. if i am that swine, so be it. walk away.

everyone is stuggling in this life, Aineo. everybody. be that you, me, the cat down the street or the prostitute on the street corner. everyone is doing the best they can do in the best way they know how given whatever tools they have. sure you can suggest, and maybe that is all you do, but to repeatedly badger, cajole, demand, tear down and use guilt and fear as a battering ram is crossing personal boundaries and is intolerance in action.

people may not live the life you think they should live and so be it. they are living according to themselves and their own experience and they will find their own way as they go. that is all any of us can do and it is our right to do so. if you act from true motivation, and i believe you do, all you can do is suggest and leave. if they want to know more they can come to you but you can't and should not force it or use guilt or fear as a motivator. everyone feels guilty and fearful enough. the world doesn't need anymore of it. personally, i hope people don't come to you because i think you are negating people and damping down their innate spirit, the same spirit i try to keep alight, but its their choice. not mine and not yours.

understanding and respecting the peaceful beliefs and lifestyles of others creates a more bearable and tolerant world for all concerned. tearing down the beliefs and lifestyles of others does not.

[Aineo]

Yes we have a difference of opinion. I do not go into the streets using the Bible as an offensive weapon to force anyone, gay or straight, to accept my beliefs. I have simply taken a public stance of the possibility of changing ones sexual orientation if a person decides to seek information on change. I do not go to gay sites and preach hell fire and damnation. People who want real information not just hysterical propaganda come to me. You on the other hand have come to a Christian board and denigrated our faith and the Bible without having taken the time to read the book you are condemning.

You have judged me and my motives based on your personal agenda, which apparently does not have anything to do with truth. Have you taken the time to research the psychological roots of homosexuality? Have you read any of the modern research including the recent studies done in the Netherlands that show that gay men are at greater risk for emotional and medical problems? Or are you simply out to bash what you do not understand and therefore refuse to accept?

prayer is the last refuge of a scoundrel, you know that, don't you?

This is an exact quote of what you posted. So are you now backing off this statement?

Attacking me is not going to change my mind and it is not going to motivate me to take my website off the Internet or tell you and others in the gay community that your behavior does not have eternal consequences. I accept people for who they are. Acceptance of who people are does not necessarily equate to blind acceptance of what they do. I have maintained friendly relationships with many in the gay community and intend to continue to do so.

1 Corinthians 5:9-13
9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves. NAS

Professed gay Christians have terminated their friendships with me because we have differing views on the inerrancy of Scripture, however, my non-Christian gay friends could care less about my faith. You on the other hand would rather assume you understand God’s truth and me based on your own assumptions.

Matthew 22:36-40
36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37 And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." NAS

The word “love” is used 219 times in the New Testament.

Matthew 5:43-48
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.' 44 "But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you 45 in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same? 47 "And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. NAS

Hate is a destructive emotion that effects the person who hates and does nothing to those who are the object of hate. Hate is detrimental to a positive mental attitude. What the Bible teaches about interpersonal relationships is simply common sense and good psychology and is just as relevant today as it was when it was written.

[doodlewacker]

Since you are on the topic of hate....

Ex-Gay” History

In 1973 John Evans, who is gay, and Rev. Kent Philpott, who is heterosexual, co-founded the original “ex-gay” ministry, Love In Action on the outskirts of San Francisco. Philpott soon wrote The Third Sex?, the first ever “ex-gay” book which touted six people who supposedly converted to heterosexuality through prayer.

Although time eventually revealed no one in his book actually had changed, the people reading it had no idea the stories were fallacious. As far as they knew, there was a magical place in California that had figured out the secret for making gays into straights. Inspired by his book, a few enthusiastic individuals spontaneously began their own “ex-gay” ministries.

Evans, however, denounced the program he co-founded after his best friend Jack McIntyre committed suicide in despair over not being able to “change”. Still, Love in Action survived because many people who read The Third Sex? came to California in hopes of changing.

As a result of Philpott’s book, within three years more than a dozen “ex-gay” ministries organically sprung up across America. As these ministries serendipitously became aware of each other, two leading “ex-gay” counselors at Melodyland Christian Center in Anaheim, California - Gary Cooper and Michael Bussee - decided to organize a conference where the “ex-gays” could meet each other and network.

In September 1976, Cooper and Bussee’s vision came to fruition as sixty-two “ex-gays” journeyed to Melodyland for the world’s first “ex-gay” conference. The outcome of the retreat was the formation of Exodus International, an umbrella organization for “ex-gay” groups worldwide.

The early Exodus meetings almost disintegrated the group because participants kept sleeping with each other. The group was rocked to its core a few years later when Bussee and Cooper acknowledged that they had not changed and were in love with each other. They soon divorced their wives, moved in together and eventually held a commitment ceremony.

In 1979, Seventh Day Adventist minister Colin Cook founded Homosexuals Anonymous (HA). But Cook’s “ex-gay” empire crumbled a few years later after he was scandalized for having phone sex and giving nude massages to those he was supposedly helping become heterosexual.

As acceptance for homosexuality grew in the late 1970’s, the “ex-gay” ministries had trouble attracting new recruits and growth of these programs stagnated. Then came AIDS. Unscrupulous ministry leaders were able to use the threat of AIDS to scare people into entering “ex-gay” ministries.

However, even as the epidemic spurred new growth, the “ex-gay” ministries remained relatively obscure in mainstream society. This dramatically changed in 1998 when the politically motivated Religious Right jumped on the “ex-gay” bandwagon launching a multi-million dollar newspaper and television ad campaign. They featured groups like Exodus because the traditional fire and brimstone rhetoric of the far right political groups made them seem mean-spirited and intolerant. By embracing the “ex-gays”, hateful men like Revs. D. James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson could claim they loved homosexuals and were just trying to help them.

But the ad campaign soon backfired after University of Wyoming student Matthew Shepard was murdered because he was gay. The groups who sponsored the anti-gay ads were held largely responsible for creating a climate where hate crimes, such as the Shepard incident, could flourish. Although these groups denied a connection, because of the negative fallout they postponed their “ex-gay” television ads for several months and the campaign lost steam.

Additionally, several of the “ex-gays” they paraded as proof of “change” were uncovered as frauds. The biggest example was “ex-gay” poster boy John Paulk who the ad campaign sponsors put on the cover of Newsweek with his “ex-lesbian” wife Anne under the large headline, “Gay for Life?” But in September 2000 Paulk was photographed cruising in a Washington, DC gay bar and was suspended as Chairman of Exodus and put on a temporary “hiatus” by Focus on the Family, where he ran their “Love Won Out” program.

The “ex-gay” ministries are still growing today despite their history of scandals and failures. The sad truth is, as long as people are made to hate themselves for being gay, these groups will exist. The best way to counter their negative influence is by highlighting the truth and revealing the failed history that “ex-gay” groups represent. Showing an honest portrayal of gay life also greatly diminishes the effectiveness of these groups. When people learn that God loves them for who they are and that they can be gay and happy, the appeal of these dangerous groups invariably wanes

[Aineo]

Love In Action was founded by Frank Worthen in 1973. Gary Cooper and Michael Bussee were not co-founders of Exodus International. Your post is filled with one lie after another:

"I questioned Michael Bussee about this a few years ago, and he said that Gary was a volunteer in the ministry at that time, and he picked up conference guests at the airport who were arriving for the conference! So much for Gary's role as 'co-founder' of Exodus. "Gary died about five years ago of HIV/AIDS-related illness. Michael is now in another "long-term" relationship with a man -- I don't have details.

"Michael and Gary 'married' each other publicly in the MCC about 1982 (not sure of exact year). I have never heard anyone question Michael about how Gary got AIDS if they had been 'married' (and supposedly sexually faithful) since the early 1980s. They are always presented as the 'happy gay couple' in anything that I have seen. I suspect there is another story 'off the record' about how many sex partners Gary had during their 'marriage.'
The Role of Michael Bussee or Gary Cooper in the Founding of Exodus

The anti-gay media campaign launched by the religious right in 1998 was opposed and condemned by Exodus International and there affiliate ministries.

The torture and murder of Matthew Shephard was not in any way connected with the ex-gay movement and to bring up this tragedy in your pack of lies simply demonstrates the lengths that some in the gay community will go to obfuscate the truth.

What is it about ex-gays that scares you and others?

[doodlewacker]

The torture and murder of Matthew Shephard was not in any way connected with the ex-gay movement and to bring up this tragedy in your pack of lies simply demonstrates the lengths that some in the gay community will go to obfuscate the truth.

Actually, Aineo, I have read over and over in many articles and on many websites that the torture and murder of Matthew Shephard occurred very shortly after the Ex Gay movement took out millions of dollars of advertising. Is there a connection? Maybe so, maybe not, but it sure did help to put the "being gay is a sin" vibe out into the world, didn't it?

Perhaps you are the one peddling the myth and obfuscating the truth, no? The greatest scientific and psychological intelligences currently leading the planet think so.

Here is what the American Psychiatric Association stands on what you do:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/ex-gay

"Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable."

The APA has also stated that

"Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so."

You're right. Some people are in need of desperate psychiatric help but it ain't the Homosexuals, baby.

[Aineo]

The media blitz put our by Falwell and his group was not from the ex-gay movement it was from the political religious right; so your continued insistance in posting lies only shows that you don't know what you are talking about. Exodus and their affiliate ministries took a public stance in opposition to those ads. Matthew Shepard is not the first gay man to be murdered in this country by psycho bigots. I think that gay activists use of his tragic death at that point in time is a travesty and another black mark against those who obfuscate truth.

I am well aware of what the APA has to say about conversion therapy. You posted on another thread what the editor of Psychiatry Today had to say about the APA's 1973 decision and I posted the name of a book that actually explains how gay activists forced that decision, which was never put to a vote of the APA's membership. So those professionals you appeal to lack a professionalism that calls their credibility into question. If we were having this discussion in early 1973 I could appeal to the same organizations to show that you are mentally ill. Interesting how politics and influence with an executive board can shift a professional organizations stance isn't it?

[doodlewacker]

The media blitz put our by Falwell and his group was not from the ex-gay movement it was from the political religious right; so your continued insistance in posting lies only shows that you don't know what you are talking about. Exodus and their affiliate ministries took a public stance in opposition to those ads.

You are really only splitting hairs about this. Without Falwell and his lunatics existing in the first place there probably would never have been an Ex Gay movement.

Matthew Shepard is not the first gay man to be murdered in this country by psycho bigots. I think that gay activists use of his tragic death at that point in time is a travesty and another black mark against those who obfuscate truth.

There is more than one way to kill a homosexual. One way is to bash them until they are dead and the other way is to convince them they are sick and "help" them to "change". Same end, different means and each end is tragic. In reality those people you term "psycho bigots" are your brothers in arms. The end goal for both of you is the extinction of the homosexual. Think about that next time you open your mouth to tell someone they can "change".

So you put a statute of limitations on tragic, unjust deaths, do you? Don't like to have them used to prove a point? Hmmm, I must remember that next time anyone brings up, oh, JFK or MLK or the holocaust. And what truth is there to obfuscate? That society is violent towards gays and that groups such as Phelps', Falwells and your own feed into that violence? Sorry, but you don't get away so easily with me, or with the majority of the population of the western world, for that matter.

I am well aware of what the APA has to say about conversion therapy. You posted on another thread what the editor of Psychiatry Today had to say about the APA's 1973 decision and I posted the name of a book that actually explains how gay activists forced that decision

And just who was that book written by, Aineo, and what is the author's religious background? Again we have independence vs bias. You'd see a "gay agenda" in cheese if it stood in the way of your belief, wouldn't you. No, really, man, there was a gay agenda in my tortilla, and I swear she was weeping!"

which was never put to a vote of the APA's membership.

There has been overwhelming antipathy for the Ex Gay movement from the APA and still on their website is their stance that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that sexual orientation is changable. Pretty weird to have that on your website if, as you seem to be inferring, the majority of members disagree. Sorry, Aineo, but I think you'll find the opposite is true. And you are forgetting to take into account a very long list of similarly respectable professional organisations across the world who take exactly the same stance as the APA.

So those professionals you appeal to lack a professionalism that calls their credibility into question.

No. You have proved no such thing whereas I have absolute bucket loads of independent evidence from professionals in all sectors of the medical and psychological disciplines as well as many, many first hand accounts of people who have been through hell and back trying to "change" themselves and who have come out the worse for wear.

If we were having this discussion in early 1973 I could appeal to the same organizations to show that you are mentally ill. Interesting how politics and influence with an executive board can shift a professional organizations stance isn't it?

Honey, its not executive boards that have shifted the stances of professional organizations, it's advances in medical and psychological science. Here's a clue: the earth is no longer the centre of the universe.

[Aineo]

Do you even bother to read what you post on other threads? The ex-gay movement was birthed one year before the APA decision in 1973 to modify the DSM III. The political religious right became a force in America after Clinton was elected in 1992. You need to get your facts straight. As to the political religious right supporting Exodus or any ex-gay ministry most of the powers ignore us because we do not support them hate filled rhetoric. Again you need to become better informed.

What is interesting about Satinover's book is that what he published can be proven, on the other hand the APA cannot furnish any real scientific data, including studies, to back up their decision. How many psychiatrists who pushed for the modification of the DSM III were gay? Satinover is a psychiatrist and before you make a lot of assumptions about his book you should at least read it, I have.

Another aspect of your position is that what the Bible states regarding sexual sins has not stopped heterosexuals from flaunting their immorality. You and other outspoken critics of the ex-gay movement and Christianity seem to need a focus for the fact most gay relationships are innately unstable. Why else lie about the percentage of gays in the population or promote lies about the ex-gay movement?

[doodlewacker]

Do you even bother to read what you post on other threads? The ex-gay movement was birthed one year before the APA decision in 1973 to modify the DSM III. The political religious right became a force in America after Clinton was elected in 1992. You need to get your facts straight. As to the political religious right supporting Exodus or any ex-gay ministry most of the powers ignore us because we do not support them hate filled rhetoric. Again you need to become better informed.

you continue to try to hide behind irrelevant facts and data.
hunney everybody ignores you. i'm only arguing with you because i'm bored.

What is interesting about Satinover's book is that what he published can be proven, on the other hand the APA cannot furnish any real scientific data, including studies, to back up their decision. How many psychiatrists who pushed for the modification of the DSM III were gay? Satinover is a psychiatrist and before you make a lot of assumptions about his book you should at least read it, I have.

Again, I ask you, what is his religious background and what are his religious affiliations? independent? So, the APA cannot provide any "real" scientific data, including studies but HEY! they are STILL taking the SAME stance and so is EVERY OTHER INDEPENDENT MEDICAL/PSYCH PROFESSIONAL BODY IN THE WESTERN WORLD. you are accusing the greatest medical minds on the planet of lying, falsifying research findings and of basically being wrong. just remember that when some new drug or some new lifesaving medical technique that you really need is created and available. i am assuming you would never ever avail yourself of it because after all, you don't believe that these people really know what they are talking about.

let me say that again for emphasis.

EVERY SINGLE INDEPENDENT MEDICAL/PSYCH PROFESSIONAL ORG IN THE WESTERN WORLD AGREES WITH THE APA.

All those false studies and what, hidden, research findings? must be a ***damn epidemic, mustn't it? or hey, YOU COULD JUST BE WRONG?? lol!

Another aspect of your position is that what the Bible states regarding sexual sins has not stopped heterosexuals from flaunting their immorality. You and other outspoken critics of the ex-gay movement and Christianity seem to need a focus for the fact most gay relationships are innately unstable. Why else lie about the percentage of gays in the population or promote lies about the ex-gay movement?

I don't know about other "outspoken" critics of the ex-gay movement but I find your stance moves me the same way a mother is moved to protect her children. Gee, maybe those "lies" are actually true and you are just so desperate for them not to be, so afraid of them, so afraid of who you really are that you see things in them that are not there. you and other outspoken critics of the gay movement seem to need a focus for the fact that HETEROSEXUAL'S WAYS ARE NOT HOMOSEXUAL'S WAYS. deal with it. and just for the record i know many gay couples aged from 25 to 60 who have been together from 5+ years to 30 years. who cares what the percentage of gays in the community is and who is lying about it? personally, i couldn't give a rats. its reasonably irrelevant.

If you love gays so much and truly want to help them, why do you spend so much time focussing on the "lies" and "agenda" of the gay movement? Could it be because in reality you hate them?!?

[Aineo]

Now you are confusing pharmaceutical research and other research into our physical bodies with the pseudo science of psychology. Since I am an AIDS patient I rely on the medications to keep the virus under control. So you are assuming a lot based on your own prejudice.

Do you know the difference between psychiatry and psychology? Psychiatry deals with the diagnosis and treatment of diseases of the brain and nervous system. Homosexuality is not a “disease of the brain or nervous system”. Psychology is the “science of mental processes and behavior”. As I posted earlier the American Psychiatric Association modified their stance on homosexuality in the DSM III based on political pressure and not on any empirical studies, which can be verified by people other than Satinover, who is a psychiatrist.

The American Psychiatric Association depends on anecdotal studies to determine what is and is not “normal”. Unlike medical and pharmaceutical research you cannot dissect the brain and find a gene for behavior. Unlike you I have taken the time to read both sides of this issue and have discovered that for some gay men and lesbian women homosexuality is the result of childhood trauma. Now you can ignore the fact that about 70% of the membership of both APA’s agree with this and rely on the fact that neither of the APA’s will resubmit the decision to remove homosexuality completely from the DSM IV to their member for a vote all you like but the fact remains that Bieber showed that homosexuality has environmental causes before 1973 and subsequent studies have also demonstrated this to be true.

Who cares about the percent of gblt in America? From the opening post on this thread: "A coalition of leading pro-homosexual activist groups has now admitted in a legal brief that only "2.8 percent of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual." Apparently the "coalition of leading pro-homosexual groups" who took the time and expense to prepare and submit a legal brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Oh, and your assumption that nobody is reading what I post and taking it seriously is simply wishful thinking on your part. Those interested in facts are taking me seriously.

BTW, God's last name is not damn and the use of profanity is a violation of our Forum Rules, are you out to get yourself banned?

[doodlewacker]

:D Now you are confusing pharmaceutical research and other research into our physical bodies with the pseudo science of psychology. Since I am an AIDS patient I rely on the medications to keep the virus under control. So you are assuming a lot based on your own prejudice.

Do you know the difference between psychiatry and psychology? Psychiatry deals with the diagnosis and treatment of diseases of the brain and nervous system. Homosexuality is not a “disease of the brain or nervous system”. Psychology is the “science of mental processes and behavior”. As I posted earlier the American Psychiatric Association modified their stance on homosexuality in the DSM III based on political pressure and not on any empirical studies, which can be verified by people other than Satinover, who is a psychiatrist.

The American Psychiatric Association depends on anecdotal studies to determine what is and is not “normal”. Unlike medical and pharmaceutical research you cannot dissect the brain and find a gene for behavior. Unlike you I have taken the time to read both sides of this issue and have discovered that for some gay men and lesbian women homosexuality is the result of childhood trauma. Now you can ignore the fact that about 70% of the membership of both APA’s agree with this and rely on the fact that neither of the APA’s will resubmit the decision to remove homosexuality completely from the DSM IV to their member for a vote all you like but the fact remains that Bieber showed that homosexuality has environmental causes before 1973 and subsequent studies have also demonstrated this to be true.

Who cares about the percent of gblt in America? From the opening post on this thread: "A coalition of leading pro-homosexual activist groups has now admitted in a legal brief that only "2.8 percent of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual." Apparently the "coalition of leading pro-homosexual groups" who took the time and expense to prepare and submit a legal brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Oh, and your assumption that nobody is reading what I post and taking it seriously is simply wishful thinking on your part. Those interested in facts are taking me seriously.

BTW, God's last name is not damn and the use of profanity is a violation of our Forum Rules, are you out to get yourself banned?

you can type all the hot air you like but the simple fact of it is science and progess is on my side and you are living in a world that no longer exists. that is why you are doomed to failure. you don't seem to understand that the world has changing and it can and will never go backwards. the vast weight of empirical evidence is legitimising homosexuality every single day and that will only increase. so suck it up and get a life!

[Aineo]

Another pipe dream. There is no empirical evidence to show that homosexuality is "normal" for mankind. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that shows homosexuality has been practiced in every society throughout the world; but that does not make homosexuality any more "normal" than stealing, murder, or any other controllable human behavior, especially since all the anecdotal evidence shows that in most cultures males were expected to marry and produce children in addition to their extra curricular sexual activity with men. Have you studied the Greek City-State of Sparta? Failure to produce offspring could be a capitol offense for a Spartan citizen. Your exclusive gay world is something new and as history has shown will eventually lead to the destruction of any society that allows it.

You can ignore the real world all you want, but the truth is there are more ex-gays running around in stable and joy filled heterosexual marriages than you and others who denigrate what you fear want to believe or admit exist.

Lets face it doodlewacker, how many ex-gays do you know that will put up with people like you who are more discriminatory and hateful than the straight world? At least you have egalitarian liberals and universalists on your side and the only people who are verbal in support of our side are those Christians who understand Biblical Christianity.

[doodlewacker]

Another pipe dream. There is no empirical evidence to show that homosexuality is "normal" for mankind. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that shows homosexuality has been practiced in every society throughout the world; but that does not make homosexuality any more "normal" than stealing, murder, or any other controllable human behavior

you really hate homosexuality, don't you. look at what you have written about homosexual behaviour. it reeks of intolerance, contempt and hatred. how dare you insult us this way. You really are very rude and ignorant.

i can't be bothered looking for a single example of empirical evidence because there is too much of it out there to sift through and i know that you will remain unconvinced even if i did bother. none so blind as those who will not see.

especially since all the anecdotal evidence shows that in most cultures males were expected to marry and produce children in addition to their extra curricular sexual activity with men. Have you studied the Greek City-State of Sparta? Failure to produce offspring could be a capitol offense for a Spartan citizen. Your exclusive gay world is something new and as history has shown will eventually lead to the destruction of any society that allows it.

did you ever think that perhaps the biological agenda changes in accordance with its needs. it's called evolution (but i guess you think that's all rubbish, too). this is what has happened over the past 2000 years, aineo. the world is at critical mass when it comes to human population. male fertility rates are declining, the number of women having children is declining and homosexuality is on the rise. mother nature knows what she's doing, she always has. when the population needs another boost, the biological impulse to breed will return. that's science.

You can ignore the real world all you want, but the truth is there are more ex-gays running around in stable and joy filled heterosexual marriages than you and others who denigrate what you fear want to believe or admit exist.

i'm afraid of being straight? haha. but seriously, if there are ex-gays running around in stables with joy (whoever she is) that's just fine although as yet i am yet to come across any testimony from an independent ex gay person (ie. not religiously affiliated) stating that this is the case. science does not back you up, the data does not back you up, nature does not back you up. time to bend over and pick up the soap, aineo. get in the real world and get a real job and leave the kiddies alone.

Lets face it doodlewacker, how many ex-gays do you know that will put up with people like you who are more discriminatory and hateful than the straight world? At least you have egalitarian liberals and universalists on your side and the only people who are verbal in support of our side are those Christians who understand Biblical Christianity.

hateful and discriminatory. hmmm, i don't see myself going out into the straight world and beating anyone up, nor do i see myself hanging around the periphery of the religious right or evangelical churches or any other organisation that lives in a way that i don't agree with and telling them for absolutely no good reason that they are "sick". nor would i ever attempt to change them. as long as they don't threaten my community, what they do is none of my business as the queer community and what they do is none of yours. you and yours, however, DO threaten my community and thus i am here and i will be wherever such threats occur. if you push i will push back.

quite simply, i live my life quietly and focus on supporting my community. i do not force my beliefs down the throats of those who don't agree with me unless i am threatened or my way of life is threatened or my community is threatened and i do not, not, not take advantage of vulnerable and confused youths.

[Aineo]

The reason you can't be bothered to look for empirical evidence is there is none. If practicing what Scripture labels immoral and carriers the same judgment as adultery, murder, stealing, and lying upsets you that is your problem. Like I have posted before you came here I did not seek you out.

If you can't stand the heat don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[doodlewacker]

The reason you can't be bothered to look for empirical evidence is there is none. If practicing what Scripture labels immoral and carriers the same judgment as adultery, murder, stealing, and lying upsets you that is your problem. Like I have posted before you came here I did not seek you out.

If you can't stand the heat don't let the door hit you on the way out.

show me some empirical evidence from a non-aligned academic study that proves that people's unhappiness with being gay does NOT stem from the cultural and conditioning that they are imbued with from a very young age. THAT is the cause for people's unhappiness at discovering they are homosexual.

show me some empirical evidence from an unbiased source - a university or academic study - by someone who is not and has never been either (a) gay or (b) in any way connected at present or in the past with any Christian organisation that homosexuality is an illness.

here ya go. italian scientist had something to say, just last month.
h
ttp://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/ ... tudy.reut/

Study links genes, male homosexuality
Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Posted: 12:52 PM EDT (1652 GMT)

Genetic factors, along with cultural and early experiences, influence male homosexuality, Italian scientists said on Wednesday.

Researchers at the University of Padua said the genetic components are linked to the X chromosome which is inherited only from the mother. But they are probably on other chromosomes and could partly explain male homosexuality.

"The key factor is that these genes both influence homosexuality in men, higher fecundity in females and are in the maternal and not the paternal line," Andrea Camperio-Ciani, who headed the research team, said in an interview.

More than a decade ago scientists in the United States reported that they had found evidence of a "gay gene" in men. But other researchers questioned the finding when they could not duplicate the results.

Camperio-Ciani and his team suggest there several genes could be involved, including those on the X chromosome.

In their research, which is reported in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, they found an increase in homosexuality in the maternal line of gay men they studied which suggests the X chromosome.

"We know that at least one of these genetic factors in on the X chromosome but that it not enough, there must be other genetic factors that are important but are elsewhere," Camperio-Ciani added.

The results are based on a study of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and about 4,600 of their relatives. The scientists compared the frequency of gay men on the maternal and paternal lines of the families.

Among homosexuals there were a greater number of gay men in the maternal line of the family, as well as greater fertility in the female relatives.

An early interest in sex before the age of 10 was also a predictor of homosexuality, according to the researchers.

"We can no longer say that is it impossible to have a gene that influences homosexuality because we found out that genes might have different effects depending on gender," Camperio-Ciani.

But he added that cultural and individual experience also play a part.

[doodlewacker]

New Gay Gene Evidence
by Matt Johns
365Gay.com Newscenter
Los Angeles Bureau

Posted: October 20, 2003 11:56 a.m. ET

(Los Angeles, California) Evidence continues to mount that sexuality is genetically controlled. The latest findings were reported today by researchers from the University of California.

The scientists, in a statement, said that sexual identity is "hard-wired" into the genes.

"Sexual identity is rooted in every person's biology before birth and springs from a variation in our individual genome," said Dr. Eric Vilain, a genetics professor at the UCLA School of Medicine.

Vilain and his team of researchers have identified 54 genes in mice that may explain why male and female brains look and function differently. They used two separate genetic testing methods to compare the production of genes in male and female brains in embryonic mice -- long before the animals developed sex organs.

They discovered 54 genes produced in different amounts in male and female mouse brains. Eighteen of the genes were produced at higher levels in the male brains; 36 were produced at higher levels in the female brains.

"We discovered that the male and female brains differed in many measurable ways, including anatomy and function." Vilain said. Among the differences, the two hemispheres of the brain appeared more symmetrical in females than in males. According to Vilain, the symmetry may improve communication between both sides of the brain, leading to enhanced verbal expressiveness in females.

Vilian warns though that finding the exact gene that results in homosexuality will require considerable more research. He said that if future research does determine conclusively that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, the implications would be huge.

"If it's not a choice, you can't have the typical conservative argument that says you choose this lifestyle so you have to bear the consequences and society has no reason to basically give you any rights because you choose to be an outcast," Vilain said.

"If you can't do anything about it, therefore you should have all the rights to be integrated into society and have the same rights as heterosexuals in terms of marriage and the rights to inheritance."

Vilain said the initial emphasis will be on determining the origin of transgenderism. He says the research may help doctors determine the proper gender assignment of babies born with ambiguous genitalia.

"If physicians could predict the gender of newborns with ambiguous genitalia at birth, we would make less mistakes in gender assignment," Vilain said.

Typically such a baby is assigned a gender and in many places in North America genital surgery is performed to make the genitals appear to conform to the gender selected.

But many grow up very unhappy, feeling the surgery was harmful by assigning them a gender they didn't feel was appropriate.

The Human Rights Campaign welcomed the results but said that laws should protect all Americans equally, regardless of the genetic basis for being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

"This study is part of a growing body of evidence showing that it is likely that sexual orientation and gender identity are genetically based," said Elizabeth Birch, HRC's executive director.

"Although further research will be conducted by this team, at the end of the day, the question of nature versus nurture shouldn't matter. Laws in America should protect everybody equally, regardless of what causes differences of sexual orientation or gender identity."

Last week, British psychologists also said they have found strong evidence to support the theory that a person's sexuality is "hard-wired" into the brain before birth.

[doodlewacker]

Gay In The Blink Of An Eye
by Peter Moore
London Bureau

Posted: October 3, 2003 12:01 a.m. ET

(London) British psychologists say they have found strong evidence to support the theory that a person's sexuality is "hard-wired" into the brain before birth.

Researchers from the University of East London and from King's College measured the "startle" response, or eye-blink reaction, of both straight and gay test subjects who were subjected to sudden bursts of loud noises. The technique is called prepulse inhibition or PPI.

The scientists, Qazi Rahman, of the University of East London, and Dr Veena Kumari and Dr Glenn Wilson of the Institute of Psychiatry, part of King's College London, claim the study is the first independent evidence of " a non-learned, neurological basis for sexual orientation."

They say that they found significant differences in the response between male and female, heterosexual and gay participants.

The reaction of the lesbian test subjects was closer to that which would be expected among straight men. And, gay men reacted closer that of women, although to a lesser extent.

To measure the 'blink' response the researchers attached electrodes on the test subjects faces just beneath their eyes. They then measured the strength of the involuntary eye-blink responses to the noises and compared them with those of a loud noise on its own.

"The startle response is pre-conscious and cannot be learned, Rahman told the Reuters news agency.

" It is mediated by an ancient region of the brain called the limbic system which also controls sexual behavior. This is very strong evidence that female sexual orientation at least may be 'hard-wired' in this region."

Rahman said the results could affect the way society dealt with sexuality and issues of sexual orientation.

[doodlewacker]

University study links neurochemistry to sexual orientation in homosexual, heterosexual men
By Jared Sagoff
November 21, 2003

A study recently released by researchers at the University of Chicago indicates linkages between neurochemistry and sexual orientation in exclusively homosexual and heterosexual men.

The study proves the existence of a physiological basis for sexual preference. It verifies the claim that one’s sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, but rather is dictated by inborn chemical factors.

Department of Biopsychology Professor Emeritus Howard Moltz, who authored the study, said the goal in his research was to determine whether there was any connection between brain activity and sexual preference. “We thought that exclusive homosexuality may be hardwired and not a matter of choice as such,” he said.

Moltz interviewed 80 homosexual men for the study, from which he chose eight as “exclusive.” Moltz said that, unlike most gay men, these “exclusives” have never felt aroused by females. Moltz also chose eight exclusively heterosexual men, who had never been attracted to other men.

In the study, Moltz focused on the metabolism of serotonin, a neurochemical responsible for sexual arousal and behavior located in the hypothalamus.
When serotonin re-uptake was inhibited with Prozac, an anti-depressant, heterosexual men had a significantly greater metabolization rate of the Prozac than did the homosexuals. According to Moltz, this difference in neurochemistry showed that the body dictates sexual preferences, offering evidence that it is not a matter of choice.

The results hold great promise for the scientific community, according to Heino F. L. Meyer Bahlburg, a professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University. Bahlburg said that the study marks the success of a new technique in the investigation of sexual preferences.

“The remarkably strong association seen in this study between hypothalamic physiology and sexual orientation underlines the promise of functional brain imaging for elucidating the neuroanatomy and neurophysiology underlying human sexual behavior and functioning,” Bahlburg said in a news release issued by the University.

Dominique Duncan, a first-year in the College, said that these findings run contrary to common perceptions about sexual preference.

“Most people believe that it’s a matter of choice,” Duncan said. “For instance, I know people who still aren’t sure if they’re gay or straight or bi, and it just seems like they will decide for themselves and it has nothing to do with their internal chemistry.”

Past studies had indicated links between individuals’ genetic makeup and their sexual orientation. Moltz said investigations into a “gay gene” have proved promising but inconclusive, and he believes that the study incorporates too broad a population.

[doodlewacker]

Face it, Aineo, it's only a matter of time before science and technology become advanced enough to identify the physiological cause of homosexuality.

And not long after that it will identify a physiological cause for God and you might as well just give it all up.........

[doodlewacker]

And here is one more just for luck.

Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture
Ryan D. Johnson

April 30, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In recent decades, many hotly debated topics have come under the scrutiny of sociobiologists, trying to determine their causation and origins. One such topic is homosexuality. Originally thought by the American Psychological Association (hereafter referred to as APA) to be a mental disorder, research into its causes, origins, and development have consequently led to its removal by the APA from its list of diagnoses and disorders [1]. Many different theories can be found regarding the root of homosexuality, as far back historically as Ancient Greece. The current debate is whether or not homosexuality is a result of nature: a person's environment and surroundings, or of his biology and genetics. The debate endures because both sides have the ability to create a scientific environment to support their cause. For example, biological theorists may argue that a monkey and human child, reared in the same setting, will develop with vastly different outcomes, while social theorists may argue that monozygotic twins, one reared normally and the other raised in seclusion for 18 years, will also develop with vastly different results, but different even more from the first scenario [4].

In debating sexual orientation, much is unknown; according to Charles Darwin, "...we do not even in the least know the final cause of sexuality. The whole subject is hidden in darkness." [2]. Although the APA currently states that sexual orientation is not a choice, rather that "...it emerges from most people in early adolescence with no prior sexual experience"[1], social theorists argue that an individual's upbringing can directly influence this [sexual orientation]. Also tied in with many of these debates is the morality of homosexuality. But the purpose of this examination is not to prove whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong, but rather to establish a thorough understanding of the biological and social theories surrounding the cause of homosexuality.

Let us first look at the biological debate. Biological theorists have found substantial instances of anatomical, genetic, and endocrine evidence to support their argument. Experiments in biological research date back as far as the late 1930's, beginning with the pioneering research of Alfred Kinsey (for the University of Indiana) on human sexuality. Kinsey had two goals for his tests: 1) to find out how many adult males engaged in homosexual behavior, and 2) to suggest theories about it came to be [9]. When asked if they had engaged in homosexual sexual relations, a large percent of the population tested answered "no", however when asked if they had engaged in same-sex sexual relations, the percentage answering "yes" nearly doubled. The experiment yielded that 30% of males had experienced at least orgasm in a homosexual act. The results of this research became the widely popularized Kinsey Scale of Sexuality. This scale rates all individuals on a spectrum of sexuality, ranging from 100% heterosexual to 100% homosexual, and everything in between [7]. While establishing that as many as 10% of adult males reported having sexual relations with a same-sex partner, this research did little more than to put the word homosexual into common language.

Karen Hooker executed the first psychological test done to test for biological determinism in 1957, on a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health [2]. The study was meant to explore the relationship between homosexuality and psychological development and illness. Hooker studied both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Both groups were matched for age, intelligence quotient (IQ) and education level, and were then subjected to three psychological tests. These three tests, the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) and the Make-A-Picture-Story Test (MAPS), were then analyzed by psychologists, and the results were tabulated. The results of Hooker's experiment yielded no significant differences in answers on any of the three tests. Because both groups' answers scored very similarly, she concluded a zero correlation between social determinism of sexuality.

As a result of Hooker's finding, the APA removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders in 1973. In 1975 it then released a public statement that homosexuality was not a mental disorder. In 1994, two decades later, the APA finally stated, "...homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality" [2].

D.F. Swaab conducted the next noteworthy experiment in 1990. This experiment became the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of a gay man's brain. Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart [2].

At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen made a similar discovery in the hypothalamus as well. She found that the anterior commissure (AC) of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals [2]. Both Swaab's and Allen's results became a standing ground for the biological argument on homosexuality. The very fact that the AC and the SCN are not involved in the regulation of sexual behavior makes it highly unlikely that the size differences results from differences in sexual behavior. Rather the size differences came prenatally during sexual differentiation. The size and shape of the human brain is determined biologically and is impacted minutely, if at all by behavior of any kind.

Simon LeVay conducted another experiment regarding the hypothalamus of the human brain in 1991. LeVay, like Swaab and Allen also did a post-mortem examination on human brains; however, he did his examinations on patients who had died from AIDS-related illnesses. He examined 19 declared homosexual man, with a mean age of 38.2, 16 presumed heterosexual men, with a mean age of 42.8, and 6 presumed heterosexual women, with a mean age of 41.2 [3]. LeVay discovered that within the hypothalamus, the third interstitial notch of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) was two to three times smaller in homosexual men then in heterosexual men. The women examined also exhibited this phenomenon. LeVay concluded the "homosexual and heterosexual men differ in the central neuronal mechanisms that control sexual behavior", and like Allen and Swaab, agreed that this difference in anatomy was no product of upbringing or environment, but rather prenatal cerebral development and structural differentiation [2].

Another line of testing done to support the biological perspective are neuroendocrine studies. The neuroendocrine viewpoint's basic hypothesis is that sexual orientation is determined by the early levels (probably prenatal) of androgen on relevant neural structures [7]. If highly exposed to these androgens, the fetus will become masculinized, or attracted to females. This research was conducted on rats at Stanford. The adult female rats that received male-typical levels of androgens sufficiently early in development exhibited male symptoms of attraction. The same was true in the reverse when applied to the male subjects. The female exposed to high levels of the hormone exhibited high levels of aggression and sexual drive toward other females, eventually trying to mount the other females in an act of reproduction. In the males, the subject who received deficient levels of androgen became submissive in matters of sexual drive and reproduction and were willing to receive the sexual act of the other male rat [7].

A popular route of experimentation in general psychology also did not elude the biological argument. Twin studies have become a highly debated area of experimentation. Ernest Kallman conducted the earliest twin study. He found a 100% concordance between monozygotic (or identical) twins (MZ), and only a 12% concordance for dizygotic (or fraternal) twins (DZ). Although discredited with methodological problems, the early experiment paved the way for a much-publicized team to conduct their twin studies.

J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard also studied the gayness between MZ twins, DZ twins, and non-related adopted brothers. They examined how many of the sample population examined were gay and how many were straight. They found that 52% of MZ twins were both self-identified homosexuals, 22% of DZ twins were so, and only 5% of non-related adopted brothers were so. This evidence, repeated and found to be true a second time, showed to the biological camp that the more closely genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they both are to exhibit gay or straight tendencies. Later experimenters found similar evidence in females. One such scientist is Dean Hamer. Hamer examined the possibility of homosexuality being an X-linked trait. He examined the family trees of openly gay men, and thought he saw a maternal link, leading him to investigate his theory of X-linkage. He took 40 DNA samples from homosexual men, and genetically examined them. He found that there was a 'remarkable concordance' for 5 genetic markers on section of the X-Chromosome called Xq28 [2].

Hamer hypothesized upon examining the family trees of the same men that on each subject's mother's side, there were markedly larger numbers of homosexual men, all stemming through the maternal lineages. This observation, along with his startling discovery on Xq28, led his findings to be dubbed the "gay gene study". The statistical probability of the 5 genetic markers on Xq28 to have matched randomly was calculated to be 1/100,000 [2], lending even more support to his findings.

This finding of a possible 'gay gene' prompts a look into two evolutionary concepts, and how they are affected. The Superior Heterozygote Theory states the phenotypic (actual) expression of homosexuality is the result of homozygosity for recessive (non-expressed but present) genes [11]. In simplification, if the person's genetic code is heterozygotic (one homosexual gene and one heterosexual gene), if the homosexual allele (half of the genetic code) is the allele passed on to the next generation, it will become the phenotype. Heterozygotes are only capable of being passed through to the next generation by mothers (as the Y-chromosome is incapable of heterozygosity), this again links homosexuality to X-linkage.

While all of this scientific experimentation and conclusion seems evidentiary, sociobehaviorists are not convinced. This opposing point-of-view proposes that homosexuality is the result of environmental factors, not biological ones. Most social theorists see childhood elements as the largest contributing factors to homosexuality. Often they examine childhood play patterns, early peer interactions and relations, differences in parental behavior toward male and female children, and the role of gender constancy in the household [9].

The social argument for homosexuality dates back to the ancient Greeks. Aristophanes, in his Symposium investigates homosexuality, although not termed as such, as a desire by men to share a long-term fulfillment of the soul. He believed that two souls are longing to be together, and the sexual desire alone is not strong enough to create homosexuality, but that the cultural environment allows or forbids the relationship to occur [10]. In Greece is it well known that many men engaged in same-sex relationships, however, these were not equal relationships, they were older men to young boys going through the transition to adulthood. Two instances where the culture is a causative agent of homosexual expression are in New Guinea and Crete. In some tribes in New Guinea, young boys ages 8-15 are inseminated daily by the young male warriors of the tribe. In Crete, every adolescent boy undertook a homosexual relationship as a rite of passage into manhood [10]. In these two instances, the homosexuality is accepted; however, it can be argued that it is also forced, not a natural expression.

Most psychoanalytic theories, however, stress the role of parental and family dynamics, not the society as a whole. Behaviorists believe that some sexual and gender identification differences result from roles imposed by family and friends upon children, such as the masculine and the feminine stereotypes. Problems with this are there is no evidence, social or biological, to support that homosexual children were raised differently than were the heterosexual children. Also, with reinforcement of gender identification norms, one would be led to logically deduce that all of the stereotype reinforcement would ensure a heterosexual outcome [7].

While it is agreed that an element of gender ID is based on the decision made by parents on how to raise the child, the other element is formed with the development of language skills, naming of sexual behaviors and the naming process related to these behaviors [9]. Gender ID is learned over time, and other contributions include the frequency of parental interactions, tolerance of aggression levels, and the vigor of play during childhood. In this, another theory is acknowledged, the Parental Manipulation Theory. This theory is that one or both parents are able to neuter and control offspring to promote their (the parent's) evolutionary fitness, ensuring the passage of genes into the next generation. By selecting only heterosexual practices as acceptable, the parents are attempting to promote their passage of genes [5]. However the Kin-Selection Theory contrasts this. This theory states that it doesn't matter how the genes are passed to the next generation, so long as they are passed along. For example, regardless of a homosexual outcome, the very similar genetic makeup of siblings will still allow for the passage of the family genetics along to the next generation [9].

Two predominant social theorists on homosexuality are David Halperin and Jean Foucault. Although both social theorists, both have largely contrasting ideas on the environmental contributions to the formation of an individual's homosexuality. Halperin believed in Planophysical theory. This theory believes that homosexuality is a freak of nature, an error. His theory follows in the tradition of psychological theory on this subject. Halperin was a Freudian psychologist, and places stock in Freud's idea that homosexuality is derived from a failure to resolve Oedipal issues [10]. Although Halperin has a large following from interest groups such as Christian coalitions, his theory is largely disrespected by the psychological community at large, as it provides only a result, not a cause. He fails to produce any scientific evidence. He does, however, provide examples. He postulates that a weak father and strong mother, with an unresolved Oedipus complex will lead to a weak, and then homosexual, son, because the mother has too strong of an image, compared to the weak state of the father. Psychologists argue that this same arrangement would also possibly lead to a stronger son, striving for compensation of his father's weakness.

Jean Foucault argues, "...homosexuality became because we made it so" [11]. Foucault says that the category of homosexuality itself was only created a mere one hundred years ago, after a German neologism coined some twenty years later. Foucault gives root to the social derivation of homosexuality believing that homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of sexuality, only "after it was transposed from the practice of sodomy into a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul" [10]. The theorists believe that the homosexual had been an aberration, and had then become a species, justifying itself with a new word.

Although both theorists represent the major ideas of the socioenviromental belief, there are three differences in the two theories. The first is based on the depth of desire. Foucault believed that the depth of desire is only sexual preference, that it is nothing more than superficial tastes and preferences. Halperin contrasts this with saying that homosexuality does go deeper than superficial tastes, and that homosexuality is a psychological condition, with much deeper roots than mere sexual preference. The second major difference is that Foucault did not divide people into categories. Halperin acknowledged that there are three general categories of people in respect to sexuality: heterosexual, gay men, and lesbians. Foucault groups gay men and lesbians into the all-inclusive term of homosexual. The third difference is that Halperin see homosexuality as a symmetrical and equal relationship, Foucault believes that historically, as far back as the Greeks, before the term was coined, homosexuality has always been unequal, differences in race, age, education and social status influencing the 'superficial' tastes and preferences of the men influenced.

We have examined many causes for homosexuality in the preceding pages, both biological and social. And although an interesting topic of debate, no one theory or experiment leads to a definitive answer. Some believe that the characters found on Xq28 are the Holy Grail of homosexuality research, the elusive 'gay gene'. Others may place stock in the theories of Foucault and Halperin. Perhaps Simon LeVay did reveal to us that anatomy is the key to understanding the difference in sexual orientation. Perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WORKS CITED
[1] APA Online. “Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality”. Online. 11 April 2003. Available http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html.



[2] “Biological Basis for Homosexuality.” Online. 8 April 2003. Available

http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/boa ... basis.html



[3] Bull, James J. and Pease, Craig M. “Biological Correlates of Being Gay” Online. 11 April 2003. Available http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/T ... /Text.html.



[4] Fujita, Frank. “The Nature-Nurture Controversy.” Online. 8 April 2003. Available http://www.iusb.edu/~ffujita/Documents/nn.html



[5] Hoback, Wyatt. “Lecture 21. Sociality.” Online. 11 April 2003. Available http://www.unk.edu/acad/biology/hoback/ ... ture21.htm.



[6] Moberly, Elizabeth R. Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. James Clarke and Co.; Cambridge, MA, 1983.



[7] Pillard, Richard. “NPR Letters on the Biological Basis of Homosexuality.” Online. 8 April 2003. Available http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/RootWeb/ npr_letters_on_the_biological_ba.htm



[8] Sullivan, Andrew. Virtually Normal: an Argument about Homosexuality. Alfred A. Knopf; New York, NY, 1995.



[9] Thompson and Devine. “Homosexuality: Biologically or Environmentally Constructed?” Online. 8 April 2003. Available http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Research/ HNatureProposalsArticles/Homosexuality.biologicall.html



[10] Thorp, John. “The Social Construction of Homosexuality.” Online. 8 April 2003. Available http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/thorp.html



[11] Taylor, Tim. “Current Theories on the Genesis of Homosexuality.” Online. 11 April 2003. Available http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/timt/ papers/twin_studies/theories.html.

[Aineo]

Thank you, now I will do my own little bit of research and show where these studies have been shown in error.

BTW, LeVay's theories have been discounted by his peers, Chandler is not a scientist (I have Chandler's "A Second Creation", which is nothing more than his opinions backed up by lab techs not molecular geneticists), Hamer's book is misquoted (I have "The Science of Desire"), and your appeal to the APA's opinions are meaningless.

The Baily study is not an empirical study it is an anecdotal study by a human geneticist. So while I do my own research read this from another message board:

In the summer of 1991 neurobiologist Simon LeVay introduced the world to the possibility of homosexuality being biological. LeVay claimed to have found a difference in the hypothalamus part of the brain structure between gay and straight men. The hypothalamus is a small area of the brain that is near the pituitary gland which is located at the base of the brain (see figure 1) (1). LeVay took brain tissue from forty-one routine autopsies. Nineteen of the 41 samples came from homosexual men who died from complications from AIDS (one bisexual was included in this category), and sixteen come from presumed heterosexual men (six of them died from AIDS and the rest form other causes). The last six came from presumed heterosexual women (only one woman died from AIDS, the rest from other causes) (6). LeVay’s research focused primarily on the third interstitial nucleus of the interior hypothalamus. This region is very small, making up only approximately .000009 percent of the brain's mass, and is known as INAH 3 (9). The INAH 3 is spherical or ellipsoidal in shape and is located about 1 mm lateral to the wall of the third ventricle (6) (see figure 2) (12). In his research he found that on average the size of the INAH 3 region in heterosexual males was about two to three times greater in volume than that of homosexual men and in women. With this LeVay concluded that this could be ultimately responsible for homosexual orientation (9).

Levay started his research by first fixing the brains by immersion for one to two weeks in 10 or 20% buffered formalin. Afterwards, the brains were sliced by hand at the thickness of about 1 cm in or close to the coronal plane (6). The coronal sections are any sections that divide the body into anterior and posterior sections and are perpendicular to the sagittal plane which runs side to side (see figures 3 and 4) (7, 12). Tissue blocks containing the anterior hypothalamus were then dissected from the slices made earlier and then stored for one to eight weeks in 10% buffered formalin. At this point the blocks were given code numbers in order to perform blind research, making it unknown to which group each sample came from, preventing any bias. The blocks were then infiltrated with 30% sucrose and then frozen-sectioned at a thickness of 52 micrometers in planes that were parallel to the original slices (6). Frozen-sectioning is when a sample is frozen and then tissue layers are shaved off for view under a microscope (see freeze-fracture pg. 140 in Biology text by Campbell for an example of this procedure) (2). After the blocks were frozen-sectioned, the sections were mounted serially on slides, dried, and then defatted in xylene. The samples were then stained with 1% thionin in acetate buffer for 15-20 minutes and then differentiated with 5% rosin in 95% alcohol for 4-10 minutes. After all of the slides were finally prepped, LeVay used a compound microscope with a camera lucida attachment at a linear magnification of x83 to trace the outlines of the four nuclei (the INAH 1, 2, 3, and 4) (6).

With the use of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) LeVay found that there were no differences found in the INAH 1, 2, or 4. He did find, however, that the INAH 2 was about two times larger in men than in women. But when the INAH 2 of the women were compared to that of men of similar ages, no sexual difference was found. With this LeVay concluded that the INAH 2 was not sexually dimorphic. LeVay did find that the INAH 3 to be dimorphic. He found that the volume of the nucleus was more than twice as large in the heterosexual men (0.12 ± 0.01 mm3, mean ± SEM) as in the homosexual men (0.051 ± 0.01 mm3). LeVay also noticed that the volume of the INAH 3 in homosexual men was similar to that of heterosexual women, which was 0.056 ± 0.002 mm3 (6).

There were many things that were questionable in LeVay’s research that in turn makes his results unreliable. The first problem was in his sample groups. Of the sixteen heterosexual men that were tested, only two of them, which were the ones that died of AIDS, denied any homosexual activity. For the other fourteen men there was no record available about their sexuality and they were assumed to be “mostly or all heterosexual on the basis of the numerical preponderance of heterosexual men in the population” (6). Not only is the actual sexuality of the sixteen assumed heterosexuals questionable, but so is the classification of the homosexuals in his sample groups. In determining degrees of sexual preference, the seven-point Kinsey scale is often used. When LeVay made his classification of the group of homosexuals he included all men that have had sexual encounters with men and he did not take into account any possible encounters they might have had with women. This is evident in how he included a bisexual in the group of homosexuals. This classification implies that there is a unity of sexual behavior between bisexual men and men who only have sex with men that simply does not exist (3). Another questionable item in LeVay’s research is in the measuring of the INAH. Considering the fact that the borders of the nucleus are not very clear, many scientists disagree on exactly how to measure INAH nuclei. The thing that makes the nucleus hard to measure is that it is seen as a scattering of cells, as seen in figure 5(1). Many feel that it is more accurate to count the actual numbers of the cells of the INAH 3, instead of just measuring the volume, like LeVay did. One way that this would help out is that it would rule out any measuring errors due to any possible swelling or shrinking of the nucleus caused by chemicals or by diseases (8).

The second major research that was performed to try to link genetics with homosexuality was the work of molecular biologist Dean Hamer and his research team. In the summer of 1993, Hamer announced that they discovered a link between the chromosome region Xq28 and male homosexuality. Hamer and his research team conducted interviews and took blood test from forty pairs of brothers, all of which were homosexual. The purpose was to see if they shared similarities in a particular segment of the q arm of the X chromosome, Xq28 (10) (see figure 6 for image of Xq28) (13). Hamer’s research started out with the recruitment of test subjects from various outpatient HIV clinics and from local homophile organizations. Through his recruitment he had 114 gay men for primary volunteers, 76 in which their family histories were not known and 38 that were known to have a gay brother (the 38 pairs of brothers came from Hamer’s sib-pair pedigree study and 2 more were added to this group from the random sample) (4). 142 relatives of both groups were interviewed in which 99 of them were male relatives and 43 were female. The relatives of the homosexuals were used to draw the sexual orientation in the family trees (5). When the interviews were completed, Hamer noticed that there was a higher number of maternal homosexual relatives compared to paternal relatives. With these results and the knowledge that males receive their single X chromosome from their mothers Hamer concluded that the gene was passed by the mother (4).

After Hamer finished establishing the sexual orientation in the subjects’ family trees, he began to try to find any X chromosomal linkage within the group of the homosexual brothers. At this point, blood samples were taken from the group of the 40 brothers, as well as from some of their relatives. All of the subjects were typed for a series of 22 markers that span along the X chromosome. From there they were categorized into three different groups according to those findings. If the mother was unavailable for testing and both of the brothers shared the same allele with one another, they were labeled as concordant-by-state. The brothers whose mothers were known to be heterozygous and shared the same allele were labeled as concordant-by-descent. The rest of the brothers that did not share the same allele were labeled as discordant and noninformative if the mother was known to be homozygous for the marker. The results of this research was that 33 of the 40 pairs of brothers shared the same allele in the area of Xq28. Hamer concluded from this that this find suggested that there is a locus, or maybe loci, that is related to sexual orientation in men lies within 4 million base pairs of DNA that are on the tip of the long arm of the X chromosome (4).

How reliable is Hamer’s research? One problem with his research is how he did not use heterosexual men as a control in his research. If heterosexual brothers shared the same markers, then the whole idea of this particular marker being connected to homosexuality is completely nullified. Another issue with his research is that he only tested the possible alleles of 15 of the 40 mothers. This means that it was unknown as to if the untested moms were homozygous or not. The rest of the mothers were classified as homozygous for the marker by using the population frequency of the allele coinherited by the brothers (4). This in itself leaves plenty of room for error in the results. There have been other researchers who have tried to duplicate Hamer’s research with no luck. In April of 1999 George Rice and his team tried to duplicate Hamer’s findings by using 52 gay brothers in their research. They examined the same markers and their results did not match the results of Hamer. They concluded that their results did not support any X-linked gene for homosexuality (11).

In short, science has not been able to truly form a biological link to homosexuality. Aside from all of the problems with the research procedures of LeVay and Hamer, the research in itself forces one to rely on assumptions to take in the results as fact. Also, all of the attempts that have arose to try to prove homosexuality as being biological comes from a naturalist point of view. According to naturalist thinking in this situation, if there is a biological link to homosexuality it would be considered immoral to discriminate against homosexuals. If there was indeed a link, discrimination against homosexuals would be no different than discriminating against someone because of their height, nose shape, color of their skin, etc. Unfortunately, it is naturalist philosophy that is serving as evidence as this point instead of true scientific fact.

Works Cited

1. Aamir, Munaff, et al. WhatCloset?!. http://homepage.mac.com/ihuggermugger/what...lity-brain.html

2. Campbell, Neil A., and Jane B. Reece. Biology. 6th ed. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings, 2002. 140.

3. Carrier, Joseph M., and George Gellert. “Biology and Homosexuality”. Science 1 November 1991: 630

4. Hamer, Dean, et al. “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation.” Science 16 July 1993: 321-327.

5. Hamer, Dean, and Peter Copeland. The Science of Desire. New York, New York: Simon and Schuster,1994.

6. LeVay, Simon. “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men.” Science 30 August 1991: 1034-1037.

7. MadSci. Washington University Medical School. 15 May 2003 http://www.madsci.org/~lynn/VH/planes.html

8. Marshall, Eliot. “When Does Intellectual Passion Become Conflict of Interest”. Science New Series, Vol. 257, No. 5070. 31 July 1992. 620-625.

9. Nimmons, David. “Sex and the Brain.” Discover 15:3 (1994): 64-71.

10. Peters, Ted. Playing God? New York, New York: Routledge, 1997.

11. Rice, George, et al. “Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28.” Science 23 April 1999.665-667.

12. The W.U.S.M. Neuroscience Tutorial. The Washington University School of Medicine. Copyright 1997 http://thalamus.wustl.edu/course/corhor.html
http://standing4christ.com/forum/postin ... =quote&p=6

13. YACs on Chromosome X. Unknown (Forbidden access to homepage). http://www.biologia.uniba.it/rmc/2-YAC-BAC/YAC/YAC-X.html

Animal research where scientists artificially change their chemical balance does not prove anything but that you can increase the aggressiveness of females by pumping them full of male hormones. When men are treated with female hormones (which was one APA sanctioned therapy for gays) all that happens is they develop breasts and treatment with testosterone (anabolic steroids) can cause cancer and other problems. I have two dogs that will hump anything that moves but that does not mean they are genetically gay, it means that they are no female dogs available for humping and the dogs have a biological need to hump.

[doodlewacker]

i don't care for this debate. i trust the view held by the majority of scientists that are all pointing to homosexuality having a physiological cause. what you peddle is just a crutch.

you do understand, don't you, that this nature vs nurture debate is merely the rationale you hide behind. the crutch you use to excuse what you do - which is basically infringing others rights and screwing up their heads. that is the essence of all of this. you are taking an unproven fact and holding it up as a some kind of truth and using it to serve your own ugly agenda against vulnerable young people. that is what really disgusts me about you, aineo. you are obviously in a position of trust and you abuse that position completely. the screwed up, unhealthy arrogance that you try to impose on others will only ever create equally screwed up and unhealthy people. that stands to reason.

the weight of science is going against you. psychology and psychiatry are going against you and yet you still believe that what you do is "helping".

the long-term psychological damage caused by "reperative therapy" and telling homosexuals that they can "change" has been documented over and over again. it's non-existent "success" rate speaks for itself. yet you just point blank refuse to take these things into consideration.

you don't seem to care if you wreck the lives of innocent, confused kids through your misguided claptrap. you simply don't care about other human beings enough to be that compassionate. and perhaps that's at the root of all your problems, i don't know, but it would make a hell of a lot of sense.

you simply don't seem to care in any genuine way at all. you might tell yourself you do but deep down, you know that you really are only doing all this for you, not anyone else. a vain attempt to salve some hurt that you can barely face up to.

i really don't think i have anymore to say to you. you repulse me. i have made my feelings very clear. i don't like what you stand for. i don't like what you do. i don't like you.

[Aineo]

The reason you don't care for this debate is because:

i trust the view held by the majority of scientists that are all pointing to homosexuality having a physiological cause.

is false and you know that I can prove it since the majority of molecular geneticists have already stated their is no genetic component to homosexuality - including Dean Hamer, which is why he is now doing cancer research at the NIH.

[doodlewacker]

The reason you don't care for this debate is because:

i trust the view held by the majority of scientists that are all pointing to homosexuality having a physiological cause.

is false and you know that I can prove it since the majority of molecular geneticists have already stated their is no genetic component to homosexuality - including Dean Hamer, which is why he is now doing cancer research at the NIH.

give it up now. you're lost. no wonder the psychs wrote you off. you are crazier than a shit house rat.

[Aineo]

You really don't care about respecting the Forum Rules do you?

I have given you enough lee way but enough is enough.

You and Blake.L. can get together and cry on each others shoulders.

[Aineo]

Now lets to a hard look at your “empirical” evidence that homosexuality is innate and immutable.

The CNN article reporting on the work of Italian professor Andrea Camperio Ciani, who is a professor of ethnology not genetics, is based primarily on unproven assumptions. One of those assumptions is based on Hamer’s study, which has not been accepted because of what his peers call “bad science”. Camperio Ciani’ report is based on anecdotal not empirical observations without taking into consideration the genetic base of personality. He also states:

"We can no longer say that is it impossible to have a gene that influences homosexuality because we found out that genes might have different effects depending on gender," Camperio-Ciani.
But he added that cultural and individual experience also play a part.

So the obvious question based on Camperio Ciani’s conclusion is “what genes control or contribute to an individuals personality”.

As to what you posted from 365Gay.com Newscenter Los Angeles Bureau, your source is less than biased. You have rejected any evidence I offer based on the faith of an author, yet you appeal to a biased source that does not discuss the science of the study. So how do other scientists view Dr. Vilian’s published study?:

According to Dr. Throckmorton, all this study "really suggests is that genes may play a role in creating differences in male and female brains. This not news; researchers have known this for a long time." Throckmorton says this study has nothing to do with the formation of sexual orientation. (Dr. Throckmorton is Director of College Counseling and an Associate Professor of Psychology at Grove City College.)
NARTH Vice President Dr. Byrd notes that media reports have failed to note that this study was conducted on mice, not on human beings. Says Dr. Byrd, "There is no animal model that accurately reflects human sexuality. Pigs don't date, ducks don't go to church and mice don't fall in love."
http://www.narth.com/docs/press1.html

This statement is also from Dr. Vilian:

Vilain said the initial emphasis will be on determining the origin of transgenderism. He says the research may help doctors determine the proper gender assignment of babies born with ambiguous genitalia.

Western arrogance found in western medicine is a major cause of lifelong emotional trauma in the intersexed. Studies done in countries where children born with ambiguous genitalia who have been accepted without western prejudice found that these children will physically mature according to their genes. So surgical intervention is totally unnecessary. A member of our forum who deals with this personally has discussed this on another thread.

“Gay In The Blink Of An Eye” is nothing more than unproven science. Since you judge the veracity of published books, studies, articles based on the authors sexuality and faith I wonder what the sexuality and faith of these scientists is. From what I can learn concerning Qazi Rahman he sounds a lot like Le Vay, who is gay whose theories have been discounted by his peers.

University study links neurochemistry to sexual orientation in homosexual, heterosexual men. http://maroon.uchicago.edu/news/article ... dy_lin.php
This article does not contain anything new and again seems to be based on Le Vay’s discounted theories. Here is a quote from the article:

In the study, Moltz focused on the metabolism of serotonin, a neurochemical responsible for sexual arousal and behavior located in the hypothalamus.

Again we see Le Vay’s discounted theories being the foundation of inadequate and/or misleading conclusions. What is the role of serotonin is humans?

The serotoninergic system is known to modulate mood, emotion, sleep and appetite and thus is implicated in the control of numerous behavioural and physiological functions. http://www.biopsychiatry.com/serotonin.htm

Psychology not physiology determines the release of this hormone.

Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture, is an old settled debate. Nurturing is part of the development of a gay orientation as are personality and home and social environment. Only those who are ignorant of how gay desires are developed believe being gay is a matter of choice. What an individual does with their attraction is a matter of choice however having a gay orientation is not.

With few exceptions your so called “empirical” proofs for a genetic and unchangeable basis for sexual orientation plainly state that factors other than genetics influence the development of sexual orientation.

[svalink.]

aot of lie i have read here.
people wake up
to kill someone belif because he is homo or getero...sexual is this validity.
ALL people different it is - great.
It is possible to quote the book (copied millions times - each time ....change..) - and to understand sense like you want to understand.
People should respect people - which live on this planet and to respect their opinion.
someone gay, someone liar, someone even getero sexual ....but this is people...
I believe in myself and in people.....
It is a pity we can't run from itself, and sand castles constructed in the heavens - are not eternal, i can't stop and solve grief - who and for whom are more necessary, only sad fairy tales are necessary for someone too

hello from Ukraine
Vsevolod

[Aineo]

aot of lie i have read here.

This a rather broad statement; would you care to list the lies you have read here?

[svalink.]

aot - means a lot of .
Forgive that has forced to think about it.
I think if you wrote in Ukrainian - you would do much more mistakes.
The main - understanding.
And thank for you message.
I simply wanted to tell that opinions of people need to be respected.
If people will continue to think that getero - it is good,
homo - it is bad (or on the contrary) -
They never will understand each other.
It only will strengthen enmity.
It is necessary to love people.
In the world there are no ideal people.
If someone searches for something that separates people - he will find it.
(And on the contrary).
In this world each year - war.
young people do war - it is a medicine (for them) against wrinkles.
Red blood - in one hour - the ground, in two hours - on it flowers and a grass, through three - again alive and heats beams of a star named the sun.
The destiny loves people who live under other laws,
who can get stars - and don't think that it is only dream.

PEACE

Seva

[dethbylifeitself]

The technical term is homosexual; the accepted term is gay for men and lesbian for women. As to leaving them alone to live their lives, I happen to agree with you until they try to force their behavior on confused and vulnerable children, redefine marriage, etc.

If you don't care for our or my position then you have the choice to stay off this board.

That pisses me off...

Gays and lesbians dont force their lifestyle on anyone... i'd say 'they force their lifestyle on confused and vulnerable children as much as you do" but christians opposed to gays and lesbians are attempting to force their lifestyle on others by making unconstitutional amendments etc. Jeeez...

[Aineo]

Making unconstitutional amendments? Now that is an oxymoron is there ever was one.

However, I will repeat what ticked you off.

If you don't like Biblical truth you have the option to refrain from viewing or posting to this message board.

[SkipChurch]

So if the percentage of gays is so small...uh...maybe everyone should just chill and leave them alone.

Where does all this FEAR come from??

[Aineo]

So if the percentage of gays is so small...uh...maybe everyone should just chill and leave them alone.

Where does all this FEAR come from??

It seems you have bought into the "anyone who accepts the Bible is true is a homophobe". I have met very few truly homophobic people in my 6 decades.

[SkipChurch]

Aineo,
I didn't say that people who accept the Bible as true are homophobes, and I haven't done any special study on a correlation between the two. There is quite a lot of heat and strong feeling surrounding homosexuality, and quite a bit of it comes from conservative Christians, as anyone with a radio can easily observe. On the other hand, my close friend who is a 60 year old woman who is a lifelong member of a conservative reformed church, is very much pro gay marriage. So it is not possible for me to generalize about any necessary connection between religious beliefs.

Now if you say there are not strong feels about the topic, if you say there is not a fear of gays and the so-called gay agenda, I guess were just live in different universes.

What I don't understand is WHY? What is the concern about specifically? What's the big deal?

[Aineo]

Apparently you live in a universe that accepts how the liberal media portrays all conservative Christians, a universe I don't live in since I know far to many conservative Christians who are not homophobic, a term applied by gay activists to anyone (including liberals whose oppose gay unions) who opposes full acceptance of their political agenda.

Their are conservative Christians who view gay unions as a civil rights issue and their are others who view gay unions are a morality issue so to label all who oppose gay unions as doing so out of fear is simply ludicrous as it denies the reasons some (including homosexuals) oppose legalizing gay unions.

[SkipChurch]

Aineo,
You seem determined to feel victimized, or misunderstood. Let's just stipulate that Christians are NOT homophobic, okay?

Now.

What is the concern about homosexuals, by ANYONE?

Why is it an issue? Why is there a controversy? You said attributing opposing to gay unions to fear "denies the reasons some (including homosexuals) oppose legalizing gay unions." Fair enough.

Here is your opportunity for a Teaching Moment.

WHAT are the reasons?

[Aineo]

SkipChurch you do realize you are posting to a fundamentalist Christian message board don't you? If you do then you should understand that what we oppose is sinful behavior that God in His sovereignty judges as worthy of punishment.

On a more personal note I am not out to force anyone to accept my faith or the Bible as absolute truth. This thread was started to show that the commonly repeated percentage of homosexuals being 10% of the population in in fact false. A lie first used by gay activist Harry Hay in the late 1940's, which was based on Kinsey's early works that have been discounted by all who seek truth.

[SkipChurch]

Aineo,
The particular percentage of gays being lower that advertised, while interesting I suppose, should just make people who think that homosexuality is wrong or sinful quite happy. Less sin.

I expect people who think something is wrong, or bad, or sinful to say so. That's fine. I do that myself. So did Jesus.

For instance, In Luke 16:18 Jesus says: "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

Based on that very clear statement I would expect Bible-Believers to oppose remarriage by divorced folks. I see that in the Catholic church, but not much elsewhere.

But I do see a great hue-and-cry about gays. Okay, it's thought to be sinful. But compared with other sins, even drunkeness, it gets pretty short shrift in the Bible.

There are lots of things I personally disapprove of. Gluttony, for example. People wasting their money on booze. Selfish people who are well off not helping others. These things obviously hurt society, but they don't rise to the level of crimes. They are basically vices, and in a free society we give our fellow citizens wide latitude in the pursuit of happiness.

What I don't see at all is why there is such a focus on homosexuality. It seems all out of proportion, especially, as you have so helpfully pointed out, it is a tiny percentage of the population.

I'm supposing now that your point on the "10% Myth" is that homosexuality is not much of a problem for Christians. ?? It can't be that since it is a smaller percentage that it is more okay to deprive them of their civil rights, or to single them out for special treatment through legislation.

[Aineo]

The point of this thread is to expose an outright lie perpetrated on the populace by gay activists out to normalize a behavior by resorting to outright lies. The percent of gays is irrelevant to historic Christian teachings. Also your comments show you are ignorant of what the Bible teaches concerning who are sinners since the Bible plainly states that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". God does not make a distinction based on "orientation".

You brought up heterosexual sins, which has its own forum so if you want to discuss what Scripture teaches concerning divorce and remarriage start a thread in that forum.

Before you make anymore posts that attempt to redirect the topic of this or any thread I suggest you review our Forum Rules, which you agreed to abide by when you registered.

[SkipChurch]

Gee, Aineo. I'm sorry I got you all upset or annoyed! By the way, I wasn't trying to "redirect" anything. It's not like this site has many participants, after all. It's just you and me, kiddo. I was trying to have a conversation.

But all for nought, alas. You are annoyed, all puffed up about your Biblical knowledge and your very important statistics, and basically never respond to questions. So I'll leave you to your mission, whatever that is.

I just found this site by chance, and I posted a few things, and read quiet a few. I guess I could get involved in the "Is There Sex In The Afterlife?" discussion, or the discussion of demonic oppression through Ouija Boards, but I guess this sort of stuff is just not my cup of tea.

Anyway, go in peace.

[Aineo]

Private conversations should be through PM or email. The fact that I am doing my job by enforcing our Forum Rules seems to annoy people like you who then accuse me of being puffed up and annoyed. I find this attitude very common among university admins and professors who are so used to being in control they get annoyed when they don't have control.

Now if you have something to show that a study submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by 31 gay groups is invalid then I suggest you post those studies since this thread deals with lies used by gay activists and their supporters in an attempt to gain a political advantage. It seems that you support such lies and when you cannot contribute anything worth reading you attack me, which is another tactic common among those who cannot or will not stay on topic.

As to my Biblical knowledge this is after all a Christian message board and if you don't like having the Bible quoted and being corrected by having your ignorance exposed then by all means tuck your tail between your legs and slink off into the sunset.

[QUIC]

This, of course, is nonsense.

The phrase "male population" is usually taken to mean all males, not just those over 18.

So, the 2.8% figure was calculated by dividing the number of self-identifying gay men by that male population. To get back to the number of gay men, you have to take that percentage of the same population. The percentage would have been much higher had the
original calculation been done with the restricted populaton you chose to use to get a smaller answer.

I sorta agree, i think.

Also, by Self-Identifying gay male population (i'm taking that to mean that they know they're gay/bi/les and/or they're out of the closet to themselves and/or anyone else).

If this is what you mean, then how do you explain the people who are gay/bi/les but aren't "Self-identified" as that sexuality? (Ask any sexual health nurse/doctor and they will tell you that there's atleast hundreds... of all ages).

Also, if you take the full population of males (this means every male from 1 year old up to approx 100 years old).
I've met very very few "Self-identified" gay/bi/les people between the age of 10 and 17, letalone 1 and 10.

I'm not saying the statistics are wrong, I'm just curious to know how anyone can claim to know how many there exactly, and also why it matters how many there are... the fact is - they exist, and there's quite a few of them.

[Aineo]

This is from the initial post on this thread, which if you read the whole article included bisexuals. The 6 million figure is found in the study submitted to the Supreme Court by gay groups.

The unusually candid statement about the relatively low number of homosexuals in the population appeared on page 16 of the brief. The text contains the assertion, "There are approximately six million openly gay men and women in the United States, and 450,000 gay men and lesbians in Texas." After the national figure there appears a footnote, number 42 in the brief. The actual footnote at the bottom of the page reads as follows (in its entirety):

The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al., The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian.

I can't speak for Australia but in the U.S. youth as young as 12 are self-identify as gay, bi, lesbian, which is why some high schools have gay youth organizations.

[Eshto]

A word to the wise:

Not everyone who feels same-sex attractions or engages in same-sex behavior IDENTIFIES as being gay. In fact, it's likely that in certain places MOST people who fall in love with and/or have sex with members of the same sex don't admit it or identify themselves as gay.

As you fundies like to point out so often, a large part of being gay has to do with having a social and political identity.

There are many people who do not want to be labeled in this way, which is understandable considering how vicious people like you are in attacking the so-callled "gay lifestyle". Therefore, they don't talk about what they do in their private lives.

Or, if they're someone like (famous ex-gay) John Paulk, they run around claiming to have prayed away the gay, and then get busted cruising for dudes in a seedy gay bar.

-E

[Aineo]

What I find interesting about your post is that you have tried to rationalize away a scientific study that was used by a coalition of 31 pro-gay groups that denies an outright lie first promulgated by a gay activists name Harry Hay.

There are many people who do not want to be labeled in this way, which is understandable considering how vicious people like you are in attacking the so-called "gay lifestyle". Therefore, they don't talk about what they do in their private lives.

Or, if they're someone like (famous ex-gay) John Paulk, they run around claiming to have prayed away the gay, and then get busted cruising for dudes in a seedy gay bar.

There are plenty of LGBT people who do talk about what they do in their private lives and their are plenty of LGBT people who are not afraid to admit what they do in their private lives when responding to an anonymous poll, so your comments lack credibility.

As to John Paulk, there is no proof that Paulk was "cruising" anyone. He made two mistakes; one was entering a gay bar alone and the second was lying about it. It was the lie that tainted his gay bar visit, not the fact he was in a gay bar.

I readily admit that there are so-called Christians who viciously attack the gay community, but to paint all conservative Christians as "vicious" is nothing more that hateful rhetoric.

[Gringo]

Dear Sir:

I believe we all agree (whatever our positions) that gay folk are looked down upon by the general population, that we are reviled by some and looked upon with humor by others. HOW can you quote any statistic as being respectable. Do you HONESTLY think that all the REAL gay people the world over are going to ADMIT such a thing? It may very well be true that 1 or 2 percent claim to be gay. But what about all the OTHER gay people who may not have quite as much courage? All the ones who, for whatever their reason, don't want to risk losing their jobs, their kids, being denounced by heterosexuals (who don't obey the Bible in areas where THEY are tempted) or cause disappointment to their parents. Do you HONESTLY think that ANY poll can record such a statistic? I just want to bang my head up against a Banana Tree.

[/b]

[Aineo]

Dear Sir:

I believe we all agree (whatever our positions) that gay folk are looked down upon by the general population, that we are reviled by some and looked upon with humor by others.

You can say the same thing about those who are clinically obese because they choose to overeat and do not exercise. However, the study cited by the coalition of pro-gay activists groups was an anonymous study that did not require the participants to "come out" and take a public stance removing all your objections to the published percentage of self-identified gay men and lesbians.

..being denounced by heterosexuals (who don't obey the Bible in areas where THEY are tempted)

I will not go into your misuse of the word "tempted", but I wholeheartedly agree that many bigoted professed Christians ignore their own sins while berating the gay community for their sin.