Let's take a look of what being gay can mean in Iran

[LuvRPgrl]

I've gone through it before. I only gave it to show a particular psychological organization's stance.

But perhaps you'd like to exactly show me where it says such a thing? I'm not seeing it there at all. Maybe it's because I'm blind or just missing it, but it wouldn't hurt to show me, would it?!).

Here it is:"What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people."
which basically means, they dont know, so they will cave in to the pressures from the homosexual community so as not to suffer from them.
ANd they fail to mention that a majority of homosexuals have their first sexual experience as a minor, with a homosexual ADULT.

As for the second quote you've given, what's being said is completely addressed at the conversion therapy centers themselves. They're saying these organizations don't keep a close watch on its research or test results.!).

which again means they dont know, so how can they state that NO, it cant be changed. Their no should be know.

There is some choice involved whether you actually choose to engage IN sex with a person of the same gender. As for the attraction side of it, it's not something someone just turns off and on, unless they're bisexual (I'm trying to be funny. LAUGH DAMMIT!).

I agree that the attraction side is not a choice. But we still dont know what causes it or when it occurs.

 

[Kagom]

Just out of curiosity, and you don't have to answer this, but how many men have you had sex with so far?

I wouldn't feel comfortable saying in public.

 

[Kagom]

Here it is:"What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people."
which basically means, they dont know, so they will cave in to the pressures from the homosexual community so as not to suffer from them.
ANd they fail to mention that a majority of homosexuals have their first sexual experience as a minor, with a homosexual ADULT.

which again means they dont know, so how can they state that NO, it cant be changed. Their no should be know.

I agree that the attraction side is not a choice. But we still dont know what causes it or when it occurs.

Yes, it is different for each person probably, but a majority share similar reasons. That's a theory again that I wish to pose. Also, that's true for some, but not for all. Only two of my four exes had a sexual experience with an adult, but not a homosexual adult.

How they can state "No, it can't be changed" is done by examinging people who go through converstion therapy centers. I've never met anyone who's gone through one that's changed.

That's my major thing. It's the attraction that no one chooses.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

... you may be correct that Muslims in America send money back to their families, but everything else you say is complete and utter conjecture. If you provide some news articles that support your conjecture you may have a better case.?

Sorry, but its a fact that muslims in Europe, by a much higher rate, are NOT adapting to the culture. I dont have the time to go bring up a report, etc. But so far, my record is pure on people challenging me on one of my stated facts that they wanted some sort of evidence to be provided. which included a claim I once made that kennedy and kerry and edwards all denied to return their tax break, even though they claimed the tax breaks for the rich are huring america.

... First of all, if you are going to quote me, please actually quote me, alright? I have made no statement on this forum regarding my sexuality (at least that I can recall,) and I would appreciate it if you would retract your statements unless you can actually quote where I wrote about my sexuality.?

as I stated, I paraphrased. The intent was that you claim that homosexuality is a genetic thing. If I made it sound like you claimed to be born that way yourself, I didnt intend it, my apologies.

... Moving on...

Do you have any idea how that study was done? Did you actually bother to do some research and go and find the actual study? Or did you simply see 'adopted' and immediately come to your all-knowing conclusion that the study had to be completely and utterly baseless because you thought it to be so??

I read the entire link. You do realize that comparing rates of homosexuality by adoptive, fraternal and maternal twins is not going to be accurate. You do realize that fraternal twins are always the same gender as each other, but about half the time, maternal twins are different genders. That totally messes everything up. What enviormentally could cause a male to become homosexual, might not affect the female.

... And I don't see a peep out of you in regards to the other studies. Now why is that?

because i didnt waste my time reading them. I picked one, it was bad and bogus. Nobody really challenged it, but I instinctively knew it was problematic, and then when thinking on it, realized mathematically and socially how it couldnt be accurate. By the way, I have maternal twins, boy and a girl.
Lastly, it was determined by sheer numbers, that the birth order has a higher predictability than other methods of determining if a guy is going to be homosexual or not. Now that would lend one to believe its enviormental, since the birth order of siblings is an entire science of its own, and its well known, that they way the siblings and parents interact with each other is highly determined by their birth order.

 

[Reneer]

Sorry, but its a fact that muslims in Europe, by a much higher rate, are NOT adapting to the culture. I dont have the time to go bring up a report, etc. But so far, my record is pure on people challenging me on one of my stated facts that they wanted some sort of evidence to be provided. which included a claim I once made that kennedy and kerry and edwards all denied to return their tax break, even though they claimed the tax breaks for the rich are huring america.

Alright, assuming you are correct in your statement, I would envision a reason that the Muslim population in Europe is conforming less to the culture is because, even today, moving to America (I assume) is much more of a task - completely different culture, etc. However it also appears to be the case that Muslims in America are conforming more to the overall American culture.

as I stated, I paraphrased. The intent was that you claim that homosexuality is a genetic thing. If I made it sound like you claimed to be born that way yourself, I didnt intend it, my apologies.

And I apologize if I seemed angry/irate at your words, which I was, but it seems we both miscommunicated, and the waters are hopefully calmer now since we have figured that out.

I read the entire link. You do realize that comparing rates of homosexuality by adoptive, fraternal and maternal twins is not going to be accurate. You do realize that fraternal twins are always the same gender as each other, but about half the time, maternal twins are different genders. That totally messes everything up. What enviormentally could cause a male to become homosexual, might not affect the female.



because i didnt waste my time reading them. I picked one, it was bad and bogus. Nobody really challenged it, but I instinctively knew it was problematic, and then when thinking on it, realized mathematically and socially how it couldnt be accurate. By the way, I have maternal twins, boy and a girl.
Lastly, it was determined by sheer numbers, that the birth order has a higher predictability than other methods of determining if a guy is going to be homosexual or not. Now that would lend one to believe its enviormental, since the birth order of siblings is an entire science of its own, and its well known, that they way the siblings and parents interact with each other is highly determined by their birth order.

I haven't claimed that homosexuality is purely genetic in nature - the twin study lends some support that it may be related to genetics (whether or not the study is correct in its conclusion is debatable) - but the other studies I linked to give credence to the idea that the hormonal situation within the womb during gestation will cause the child to be born as a homosexual (this also is related to the older-brother theory/study you mentioned - the older the mother is the more likely something will happen that is not 'normal' such as a child being born with Down's Syndrome.)

I believe that homosexuality - whatever the reason, be it genetics, hormones, or environment, or a combination of the three - isn't nearly as detrimental to someone's health, physical or otherwise, as many would make it out to be. Case in point: I have several friends who are homosexual, and they are all mentally and physically healthy (as far as I know, of course.)

 

[LuvRPgrl]

... you may be correct that Muslims in America send money back to their families, but everything else you say is complete and utter conjecture. If you provide some news articles that support your conjecture you may have a better case.

well, it didnt take long. Very first google hit:
"Assimilation. Some Muslims born in Europe become secularized and adjust well enough to succeed academically and financially in their countries, says Mark LeVine, associate professor of history at the University of California, Irvine, and a Middle Eastern history specialist. Some, he says, become "Muslim yuppies," join the native-born elite, and are held up as success stories for their communities. However, this group makes up only a small percentage of Muslims in Europe"

along with this:
"Cultural polarization. Many Christian and secular Europeans have grown increasingly wary of Muslim immigration. Meanwhile, some European Muslims respond to the perceived moral permissiveness of Western culture by trying "to assert Muslim culture aggressively and maintain the boundaries around Islam," says Akbar Ahmed, chairman of Islamic Studies at the American University in Washington, DC"

then there is thisfrom the SF Chronicle:

" Most Arabs in the United States, such as Ralph Nader, are not
Muslims "

by the way, do you notice that there are a number of stringently anti homosexuals in this thread, but none are hateful towards the one openly homosexual? So much for homophobia being the label to be used on all who are opposed to accepting homosexuality as "normal"

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Alright, assuming you are correct in your statement, I would envision a reason that the Muslim population in Europe is conforming less to the culture is because, even today, moving to America (I assume) is much more of a task - completely different culture, etc. However it also appears to be the case that Muslims in America are conforming more to the overall American culture..)

another reason is that America is already the melting pot of cultures. They can pick and choose which aspects of it they want to adopt, and they will still fit in and be "american", whereas in european countries, generally, lets take Germany as an example, if they are even partially "non german" then it is obvious and they are labeled as not assimilating.

And I apologize if I seemed angry/irate at your words, which I was, but it seems we both miscommunicated, and the waters are hopefully calmer now since we have figured that out..)

accepted.

I haven't claimed that homosexuality is purely genetic in nature - the twin study lends some support that it may be related to genetics (whether or not the study is correct in its conclusion is debatable) - but the other studies I linked to give credence to the idea that the hormonal situation within the womb during gestation will cause the child to be born as a homosexual (this also is related to the older-brother theory/study you mentioned - the older the mother is the more likely something will happen that is not 'normal' such as a child being born with Down's Syndrome.).)

within the womb is enviormental, not genetic.

I believe that homosexuality - whatever the reason, be it genetics, hormones, or environment, or a combination of the three - isn't nearly as detrimental to someone's health, physical or otherwise, as many would make it out to be. Case in point: I have several friends who are homosexual, and they are all mentally and physically healthy (as far as I know, of course.)

.)actualll, statistically, its disasterous to be homosexual. Life expectency, rate of diseases and health problems, and mental instability are all not favorable on the homosexual side.

 

[Reneer]

well, it didnt take long. Very first google hit:
"Assimilation. Some Muslims born in Europe become secularized and adjust well enough to succeed academically and financially in their countries, says Mark LeVine, associate professor of history at the University of California, Irvine, and a Middle Eastern history specialist. Some, he says, become "Muslim yuppies," join the native-born elite, and are held up as success stories for their communities. However, this group makes up only a small percentage of Muslims in Europe"

along with this:
"Cultural polarization. Many Christian and secular Europeans have grown increasingly wary of Muslim immigration. Meanwhile, some European Muslims respond to the perceived moral permissiveness of Western culture by trying "to assert Muslim culture aggressively and maintain the boundaries around Islam," says Akbar Ahmed, chairman of Islamic Studies at the American University in Washington, DC"

then there is thisfrom the SF Chronicle:

" Most Arabs in the United States, such as Ralph Nader, are not
Muslims "

by the way, do you notice that there are a number of stringently anti homosexuals in this thread, but none are hateful towards the one openly homosexual? So much for homophobia being the label to be used on all who are opposed to accepting homosexuality as "normal"

I accede to the articles you have quoted from. And I have noted that many of those who oppose homosexuality in this thread have been very civil - but I have also seen others on this forum who are anything but towards homosexuals. And I certanly haven't called anyone on this forum a homophobe - though I may have thought it really, really loudly. :

another reason is that America is already the melting pot of cultures. They can pick and choose which aspects of it they want to adopt, and they will still fit in and be "american", whereas in european countries, generally, lets take Germany as an example, if they are even partially "non german" then it is obvious and they are labeled as not assimilating.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. America is much more accepting towards immigrants than Europe. I have some personal experience with this, having been in France recently. They don't seem to like Americans too much.

actualll, statistically, its disasterous to be homosexual. Life expectency, rate of diseases and health problems, and mental instability are all not favorable on the homosexual side.

Well, I believe the mental instability is caused more by the culture in which the homosexual grows up - if they are in an environment that condemns them, of course it is going to cause mental health problems such as depression. And in regards to health problems / life expectancy, everyone can get AIDS or any other STD if they aren't careful, though it would seem that the gay culture is still playing catch-up in safety and whatnot.

 

[glockmail]

1. Simply because France is 'weak' does not mean that it is an indicator for the rest of Europe, unless you also consider the rest of Europe to be 'weak' like you consider France to be.
2. ... because people don't always practice what is in their religious books? I don't see many Jews or Christians following the rules laid out in Leviticus today. The books may not change, but the rules and guidelines that people follow do. Yes there are some passages in the Koran that advocate the conversion of all non-Muslims to Islam - but if the people who practice Islam don't choose to follow those passages, then it doesn't matter if the passages are even in the book at all. People who follow radical Islam are choosing to follow these passages, while many in Islam do not follow them, but the radicals exist only because the moderates allow them to do so.

1. Yes, the rest of Europe is weak, with France being the weakest.
2. I can't speak for the Jews, but we Christians are followers of Jesus, wo by fullfilling Scripture, makes the passages in Leviticus that you refer to obsolete. Islam has no such Savior. Therefore if you are a true follower of Islam then you will spread it by the sword.

 

[Kagom]

1. Yes, the rest of Europe is weak, with France being the weakest.
2. I can't speak for the Jews, but we Christians are followers of Jesus, wo by fullfilling Scripture, makes the passages in Leviticus that you refer to obsolete. Islam has no such Savior. Therefore if you are a true follower of Islam then you will spread it by the sword.

If you don't mind me speaking up, it depends on the Jewish sect. Some do follow Leviticus closely and some don't. Hasidic and Orthodox Jews will be more apt to follow it closely and it is seen in their Synagogues when they separate males from females as well as dress traditionally (at least the Hasidic sect does). Conservative Jews, however, are quite liberal with their following of Leviticus. They pretty much stick to the parts of kosher dieting as far as following Leviticus is concerned.

 

[glockmail]

If you don't mind me speaking up, it depends on the Jewish sect. Some do follow Leviticus closely and some don't. Hasidic and Orthodox Jews will be more apt to follow it closely ....

I'm glad that you did. Do they do animal sacrifices?

 

[Kagom]

I'm glad that you did. Do they do animal sacrifices?

That I don't know. I just know a general overview. I believe the Hasidic sect might still do it. I'd have to research further on that one!

 

[jillian]

That I don't know. I just know a general overview. I believe the Hasidic sect might still do it. I'd have to research further on that one!

They don't. Animal sacrifice was only permissible in the Temple. Once it was destroyed, all sacrifices had to cease until it's rebuilt.

 

[Kagom]

They don't. Animal sacrifice was only permissible in the Temple. Once it was destroyed, all sacrifices had to cease until it's rebuilt.

Thanks for helping out, Jillian

 

[ErikViking]

AND THE OLD MAN SAYS:

"Animal sacrifice before pleasure."

 

[jillian]

Thanks for helping out, Jillian

No worries.

 

[Gunny]

Grasping? Hardly. Heterosexuality is, by definition, a sexual orientation. I go by that. If that's a problem for you, then just say so.

Heterosexuality is a natural, biological function. It requires no definition unless compared to something UNnatural which serves NO biological function.

I know most people can differentiate between factual hereditary traits and pure conjecture to support a stance. In my point of view, your beliefs on homosexuality and heterosexuality are along the same line as the right hand/left hand argument.

Then you would be incorrect in your assessment, comparing apples to oranges. One is a proven hereditary trait, the other a behavior supported only by opinion and no factual evidence. Your argument is invalid.

What you REALLY don't like about my argument is it rejects your argument.

However, I did not return to this thread to continue talking to the wall; rather, to make a point, having seen your thread on Catholics. It is the second thread in which you whine about people pointing out your deviant sexual orientation.

One, you define yourself by it. No one knew you were gay until you came on this board ensuring everyone knew just exactly who and what you are. I can't recall once seeing anyone make a point of announcing thier sexual orientation EXCEPT homosexuals.

I basically quit looking at threads where you've been because I already KNOW what they're about. EVERY one. I even went so far as to ask once if you knew how to talk about anything else.

Point being, man your colors or furl them. You want to have your cake and eat it too. And THAT is the problem the majority has with homosexual agenda. You want to flaunt your aberrant sexual behavior in our faces; yet, you start whining when you get shit thrown back at you.

Is that ALL you are? A homosexual? Or can you possibly debate an issue without bringing it up? Because if that's all you're about, you ain't much of nuthin, and I would say the same thing to ANYONE who defined themselves as a person by a single aspect of their behavior.

 

[mattskramer]

actualll, statistically, its disasterous to be homosexual. Life expectency, rate of diseases and health problems, and mental instability are all not favorable on the homosexual side.

So is drinking alcohol; being left-handed; having a diet low in fruits and vegetables, and fiber; smoking; many other things.

 

[Annie]

So is drinking alcohol; being left-handed; having a diet low in fruits and vegetables, and fiber; smoking; many other things.

You are quoting whom, from where?

 

[Kagom]

Then you would be incorrect in your assessment, comparing apples to oranges. One is a proven hereditary trait, the other a behavior supported only by opinion and no factual evidence. Your argument is invalid.

What you REALLY don't like about my argument is it rejects your argument.

However, I did not return to this thread to continue talking to the wall; rather, to make a point, having seen your thread on Catholics. It is the second thread in which you whine about people pointing out your deviant sexual orientation.

One, you define yourself by it. No one knew you were gay until you came on this board ensuring everyone knew just exactly who and what you are. I can't recall once seeing anyone make a point of announcing thier sexual orientation EXCEPT homosexuals.

I basically quit looking at threads where you've been because I already KNOW what they're about. EVERY one. I even went so far as to ask once if you knew how to talk about anything else.

Point being, man your colors or furl them. You want to have your cake and eat it too. And THAT is the problem the majority has with homosexual agenda. You want to flaunt your aberrant sexual behavior in our faces; yet, you start whining when you get shit thrown back at you.

Is that ALL you are? A homosexual? Or can you possibly debate an issue without bringing it up? Because if that's all you're about, you ain't much of nuthin, and I would say the same thing to ANYONE who defined themselves as a person by a single aspect of their behavior.

I don't dislike your argument because it rejects mine. I dislike it because I feel it's invalid. Heterosexuality is a proven hereditary trait: yes. Because it's the norm, but I believe homosexuality is a reaction of nature and somewhat nurture in regards to the womb. It's something one doesn't choose.

In that particular thread, it was not something being discussed and was brought up to make an invalid point. In fact, the commentary that was directed at me was quite unnecessary as has been pointed out by not just myself, but by others. And I didn't bring it up out of the blue like "OMG! LOL! I'M GAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" It was brought up in a discussion on homosexuality and I brought it up to show that it had a bit of an effect on how I felt towards the topic. And I have talked about other things, if you haven't completely noticed. I've talked a bit about the Middle East, I've talked about the baby Ada in that thread, I've responded to issues regarding illegal immigration, so on and so forth. You choose to view what threads I posted in and, admittedly, they're predominantly homosexual related. But that correlates with my feeling to defend myself and other homosexuals as best I can.

I whine when people act like assholes about the subject or if they bring it up in a thread that has NOTHING to do with it. And as for "whining", I actually debate and come back with rebuttal. That's not whining.

I'm an actor. I'm a writer. I'm a fan of mythology and religion. If people want to know more about me, they need only ask.