report

Definition of Marriage

TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE
TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE

My library contains three dictionaries; their definitions of marriage vary in context, but ultimately each source supports the same definition. The definitions of marriage are as follows "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife," "The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law," and "Social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

MARCHERS FOR GROUP MARRIAGE
MARCHERS FOR GROUP MARRIAGE
SHOULD POLYGAMY BE LEGAL?
SHOULD POLYGAMY BE LEGAL?
SHOULD THESE FIVE PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO LEGALLY ALL MARRY EACH OTHER?
SHOULD THESE FIVE PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO LEGALLY ALL MARRY EACH OTHER?

GAY MARRIAGE

The 21st Century finds this definition being challenged. People wish to redefine what has always been in order to suit their own purposes and circumstances; they want to change the definition of marriage simply because it does not fit into the “wants and desires” of today’s society. Today’s society wants it all, and right or wrong they are ready to fight for it, but who makes these decisions? Who decides the redefining of history, the redefining of a sanctified ritual, and do they have the right to make those decisions? More importantly, do we let them?

The first great challenge to the definition of marriage came from people who have demanded the right to marry those of the same sex. As these people have been granted some legal privileges by the state that are similar to those who are married, yet another cry has arisen from cohabiting couples that they too should have the same privileges without having to be married. In addition, there are even more voices being raised by those who believe that the laws against polygamy should be overturned. Others, they want marital law opened up to include various combinations of people (polyamory). In the background, there are lurking those who desire the lifting of age restrictions, the right to marry their siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, and perhaps even their own parent or child. The common thread that runs through all of these arguments is moral relativism: why should not people have the right to marry any and all people?

SHOULD A MAN HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY THREE WOMEN?
SHOULD A MAN HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY THREE WOMEN?

POLYGAMY

The human institution of marriage predates recorded history and is universal throughout all human societies. The meaning of marriage has never changed; it has never been anything other than the union of men with women. While there has been sanctioned polygamy in various parts of the world—generally meaning men with multiple wives—monogamy has been by far the norm throughout history and throughout all cultures on this planet. Laws regarding marriage are the oldest codified by man, but the concept of marriage between a man and a woman existed long before the existence of written law, and thus is far more than a political institution.

THAT'S WHAT I CALL BEING FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLYING
THAT'S WHAT I CALL BEING FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLYING

FAMILY

Marriage has for millennia been the cornerstone of the family, and in turn, the family has been the foundation of civilization. There may not be an American left who has not been affected by the breakdown of the family, and its resultant social instability. G.K. Chesterton observed that the family provides the principle check against the power of the state. Many Communist theorists include dismantling the family as a necessity to establishing totalitarian power for a collective state. The natural family unit claims rights not granted by the state, but natural rights that the state is obliged to recognize. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, "The family is the natural and fundamental unit of society." 

GAY MARRIAGE?
GAY MARRIAGE?

SAME SEX MARRIAGE

Douglas Farrow writes in the current issue of Touchstone magazine "Crafty fools ask foolish fools, 'What harm does same-sex marriage do to your marriage, or to your family?' The truthful answer is: Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artifact. Those who have trouble connecting the dots here—which lamentably includes many defenders of the traditional institution—should take time to consider the fact that the new “inclusive” definition, in striking procreation from the purview of marriage, has left both parents and children without a lawful institution that respects and guarantees their natural rights to each other. Opening up marriage in principle to non-generative unions really means closing it in principle to the inter-generational interests on which it has always been based. From now on, the handling of those interests will be entirely dependent, legally speaking, upon the good graces of the state. Every citizen will stand naked before the state, unclothed by his most fundamental community, unbuffered by any mediating institution with its own inherent rights. Nor should it be overlooked that, what the state has the power to define, it has the power to define again and again, and even to dispense with."

MONOGAMY

At the heart of traditional marriage has always been the practice of monogamy.  Monogamy is the freedom to be virtuous and responsible; the belief in objective truth and universal morality, it is oriented toward children and the future. Monogamy anchors men to their wives and children through the deliberate focus of their sexuality.

SHOULD FIFTEEN PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ALL MARRY EACH OTHER AS A GROUP?
SHOULD FIFTEEN PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ALL MARRY EACH OTHER AS A GROUP?

POLYAMORY

The rising culture today is polyamory— a practice defined as having more than one intimate relationship at a time. Proponents of polyamory demand freedom from any sexual restraints believing that the pleasure of the individual is the ultimate goal of human beings. The polyamory lifestyle requires the existence of an awesome welfare state to care for the results of its irresponsible citizenry.  The entertainment industry promotes polyamory as a great joy. The results in the real world are tens of millions of aborted babies and even more out-of-wedlock births. Illegitimate births are up 900% in the past 50 years. The results of polyamory in the real world are an inordinate amount of broken homes, and what has become a pandemic of sexually transmitted diseases. 

A THING OF THE PAST?
A THING OF THE PAST?

BROKEN HOMES

Is there is a serious problem with all of this? Yes, there is. Children who are reared without an intact family that includes both their natural fathers and mothers are vastly more prone to promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, depression, drug usage, suicide, crime and imprisonment. It is unequivocally proven that no arrangement of the rearing of human children produces healthy, productive citizens as does living one's life with your natural mother and father into adulthood.

FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS
FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS
MALE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS
MALE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS

MEANING OF MARRIAGE

Robert George wrote an article in First Things magazine entitled What Marriage Is—And What It Isn't in which he stated, "The bodily unity of spouses is possible because human males and females, like other mammals, unite organically when they mate—they form a single reproductive principle. Although reproduction is a single act, in humans (and other mammals) the reproductive act is performed not by individual members of the species but by a mated pair as an organic unit. What is unique about marriage is that it truly is a comprehensive sharing of life, a sharing founded on the bodily union made uniquely possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman—a complementarity that makes it possible for two human beings to become, in the language of the Bible, one flesh—and thus possible for this one-flesh union to be the foundation of a relationship in which it is ­intelligible for two persons to bind themselves to each other in pledges of permanence, monogamy, and fidelity."

HUMAN REPRODUCTION

The Catholic Theologian Germain Grisez: "Though a male and a female are complete individuals with respect to other functions—for example, nutrition, sensation, and locomotion—with respect to reproduction they are only potential parts of a mated pair, which is the complete organism capable of reproducing sexually. Even if the mated pair is sterile, intercourse, provided it is the reproductive behavior characteristic of the species, makes the copulating male and female one organism."

THERE'S SOMETHING HAPPENING HERE
THERE'S SOMETHING HAPPENING HERE
THESE SIX PEOPLE DEMAND THE RIGHT TO BE IN ONE MARRIAGE
THESE SIX PEOPLE DEMAND THE RIGHT TO BE IN ONE MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE LAW

Robert George: "The true meaning, value, and significance of marriage are fairly easily grasped (even if people sometimes have difficulty living up to its moral demands) in a culture—including, critically, a legal culture—that promotes and supports a sound understanding of marriage. Furthermore, ideologies and practices that are hostile to a sound understanding and practice of marriage in a culture tend to undermine the institution of marriage in that culture. Hence it is extremely important that ­governments eschew attempts to be neutral with regard to marriage and embody in their laws and policy the soundest, most nearly correct, understanding.  The law is a teacher. It will teach either that marriage is a reality in which people can choose to participate, but whose contours people cannot make and remake at will, or it will teach that marriage is a mere convention, which is malleable in such a way that individuals, couples, or, indeed, groups can choose to make of it whatever suits their desires, goals, and so on. The result, given the biases of human sexual psychology, will be the development of practices and ideologies that truly tend to undermine the sound understanding and practice of marriage, together with the development of pathologies that tend to reinforce the very practices and ideologies that cause them."

INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE

The Oxford philosopher Joseph Raz has noted that, “Monogamy, assuming that it is the only valuable form of marriage, cannot be practiced by an individual. It requires a culture which recognizes it, and which supports it through the public’s attitude and through its formal institutions.”

WHAT DO THESE CIRCLES MEAN?
WHAT DO THESE CIRCLES MEAN?

MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE

Robert George: "Even if monogamy is a key element in a sound understanding of marriage, large numbers of people will fail to understand that or why that is the case—and therefore will fail to grasp the value of monogamy and the point of practicing it—unless they are assisted by a culture that supports, formally by law and policy, as well as by informal means, monogamous marriage. What is true of monogamy is equally true of the other elements of a sound understanding of marriage.
In short, marriage is the kind of good that can be chosen and meaningfully participated in only by people who have a sound basic understanding of it and choose it with that understanding in mind—yet people’s ability to understand it, at least implicitly, and thus to choose it, depends crucially on institutions and cultural understandings that both transcend individual choice and are constituted by a vast number of individual choices
."

OLD ENOUGH FOR MARRIAGE IN SOME CULTURES
OLD ENOUGH FOR MARRIAGE IN SOME CULTURES

NURTURING CHILDREN

Marriage has long been about children and property.  The desire and necessity of producing a male heir to assume one's property, titles or trade, was the subject of much consternation for millennia. In order for marriage to remain the cornerstone of civilization it is important that society supports it.  Marriage has proven itself indispensable to the nurturing of the young. Strong marriages create strong families. A marriage is of public importance and affects far more than the two people who wed. 

ANYTHING GOES?
ANYTHING GOES?

ARE FATHERS NECESSARY?

The religious, cultural and legal doctrines that support marriage have weakened. Welfare has made marriage not only unnecessary, but also undesirable to some as it causes the loss of their governmental support. The State has replaced the father in millions of homes; in many cases it is the family’s source of support, and for many women it has become irreplaceable. A “father” is no longer needed; a father would remove the support that in some cases is depended on for survival. Should the State be the caregiver and source of financial support for our nation’s children? Apparently to postmoderns the answer  to this question is "Yes."

The social liberals who want to redefine marriage are of the belief that individuals should be able to do anything they want as long as it does not immediately harm another person. They could care less what harm is done to others in the long run, especially the harm done to children. Their lack of belief in moral truth leaves then unwilling to consider  millennia of human experience, wisdom, custom and tradition. 

MAIL ORDER BRIDES
MAIL ORDER BRIDES

DAMAGED CHILDREN

There is no question that broken homes harm children, and there is no question that illegitimacy harms children. The only question left to ask is: why do so few care? In the name of tolerance, the stigmas that were attached to divorce, adultery, cohabitation and illegitimacy have not only been removed, they are no longer even considered to be moral problems at all and instead have been deemed "rights."  Anyone who disagrees with this viewpoint is simply termed "judgmental."  The new focus of our society is now based on feelings and emotions. Prudence and propriety are now seen as archaic.  If it feels good, do it!

LIKE IT OR NOT; OUR SOCIETY HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN TRADITIONAL FAMILIES
LIKE IT OR NOT; OUR SOCIETY HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN TRADITIONAL FAMILIES

THE PURPOSE OF SEX

Those who wish to redefine marriage posit this ancient institution not an end but a means, like money—it is a means to get what you want.  But money is only green paper. And human beings have higher purposes than mere animal desires. We seem to have lost the point that sex is designed by nature for reproduction—not pleasure. It is, of course, pleasurable, but that is not the biological point of sex. That leaves us asking, what is the point of marriage? What one can get out of it?

TROPHY WIVES

Divorce and infidelity are running rampant.  Many middle-aged men trade in their wives for younger "trophy wives" with little legal or social pressure to do otherwise. Law and public policy no longer even consider what is "good" for our society.

HYPOCRITES

Conservatives who break the old rules are readily called on the carpet as hypocrites. The liberal solution to hypocrisy is to have no principles—then you can't be one. What happened to permanence and fidelity? When did marriage vows become archaic sounding? 

MEANING OF MARRIAGE?
MEANING OF MARRIAGE?

MEANS OR AN END?

It used to be that knowledge was an end to itself.  In college curriculums today, knowledge becomes a means to get something else. Is marriage merely an instrument to get what you want from another person? If the romance or infatuation dies, is the marriage over? Is marriage no longer a lifelong organic—bodily, emotional, spiritual, economic—union of a man and a woman? Do people care about the environment in which their children are reared? A husband and wife have entered into a union unmatched by any other combination—a union based on every level of the human person. 

ONLY A MAN AND A WOMAN CAN CONSUMMATE

Throughout most of human history the consummation of a marriage was the key point regardless of fertility. A marriage not consummated could be annulled according to civil and church law.  A marriage could not be annulled for infertility—unless of course you were Henry the VIII.

ANY TAKERS?
ANY TAKERS?

SHOULD GOVERNMENT SUPPORT PARENTS?

It is estimated that children cost parents $15,000 per year per child. If the government will no longer offer financial incentives to assist with this cost—and many childless people are steadfastly opposed to this now— the result will be that people will choose to have fewer and fewer children. This has in fact already happened. Does anybody care? They should. It takes 3 children per family to create a growing, robust economy in a nation.  2.1 children per family are required to merely replace the dying.  In America (and Western Civilization), the birth rate is about 1.4, meaning that the nation is committing suicide, only kept afloat by immigration. Countless ancient bloodlines have come to an end.  We used to care deeply about posterity. Now, one can sense an attitude of "it won't affect me. I'll be dead before it happens." A healthy society needs children. 

DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE?
DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE?

THE LAW IS A TEACHER

The law is a key issue in this discussion. The law is the one great teacher of the next generation. We've learned that through the legalization of abortion. Once the state said it was alright, abortions skyrocketed. The termination of a pregnancy is now officially sanctioned by the state. This is why so many Conservatives are incensed over public, tax-funded schools handing out birth control. It signifies to the young that premarital sex is sanctioned by the state regardless of what their old-fashioned parents say.

DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE
DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE

TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

Is traditional marriage unfair to all of these other groups who want to dismantle it?  A group of social liberal activists ran a full-page statement in the New York Times in 2006 titled "Beyond Gay Marriage."  Part of that statement said this: "Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. While we honor those for whom marriage is the most meaningful personal--for some, also a deeply spiritual--choice, we believe that many other kinds of kinship relationships, households, and families must also be accorded recognition."  The stated goal of these prominent gay activists is no longer merely the freedom to live their lives as they want. Rather, it is to force you, your family, and the state to recognize and respect their myriad choices. The result of meeting these demands will be a culture, a legal system, and a government that considers a monogamous, exclusive, permanent sexual relationship of child-bearing and child-rearing nothing more than one among many lifestyle choices. It leaves the claim that marriage is normative for the flourishing of spouses, children, and society--not to mention any attempt to enshrine in law this unique human good--would be considered bigotry. In other words, marriage as a social institution would be destroyed. 

PRINCETON PRINCIPLES

In 2006 a group of thinkers produced a paper supporting traditional marriage, known as the Princeton Principles:

The 10 principles that summarize the public value of marriage and why society should endorse and support the institution:

  • Marriage is a personal union, intended for the whole of life, of husband and wife.
  • Marriage is a profound human good, elevating and perfecting our social and sexual nature.
  • Ordinarily, both men and women who marry are better off as a result.
  • Marriage protects and promotes the wellbeing of children.
  • Marriage sustains civil society and promotes the common good.
  • Marriage is a wealth-creating institution, increasing human and social capital.
  • When marriage weakens, the equality gap widens, as children suffer from the disadvantages of growing up in homes without committed mothers and fathers.
  • A functioning marriage culture serves to protect political liberty and foster limited government.
  • The laws that govern marriage matter significantly.
  • "Civil marriage" and "religious marriage" cannot be rigidly or completely divorced from one another.

NORMAN ROCKWELL PAINTING "THANKSGIVING"
NORMAN ROCKWELL PAINTING "THANKSGIVING"

HUMAN NATURE

Hadley Arkes, a political scientist at Amherst, writes: "There is finally no getting around the fact that marriage cannot be detached from what we might call the "natural teleology of the body": namely, the inescapable fact that only two people, not three, only a man and a woman, can beget a child. The hard, obdurate fact here is that if marriage is detached from this natural teleology of the body, it loses the defining features, in principle, that cabin its meaning and establish its coherence. "Homosexual families" cannot produce "gay children." Children must come into being through the only kind of family that nature knows. There is indeed, in the strictest sense, one meaning of sexuality, and when I say that it is the plainest meaning, I would simply say with John Paul II, that it is the meaning "imprinted in nature," in the very presence of gender. A "natural teleology" is at work there -- that something in the nature of sex, in the strictest sense, must be at the core of marriage, or the understandings that have sprung up around marriage, and that these understandings are likely to be largely the same in all places, quite regardless of the local culture, because the intrinsic meaning of sex -- and the moral understandings surrounding sex -- are likely to be in all places the same. Why that point should be so obscure to us today is indeed one of the mysteries of our age, or it is a measure of how the inventiveness of political argument may obscure the plainest facts of our nature."

MARITAL SEXUALITY

Marital sexuality has reproduction as its true end. Other sexual acts are a mockery of this—mere genital stimulation.

A debt is acknowledged to a speech by Robert George in New York at a Socrates in the City event, from which I took notes.


More by this Author

  • Pros and Cons of Capitalism
    113

    Pros and Cons of Capitalism defines capitalism; the theory of capitalism; positive effects of capitalism; creative destruction; Private Property; Capitalism vs Socialism; Democracy; Free Enterprise.


Comments 558 comments

James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

yalishangd— Thank you for reading my article. Any comments as to the content of it are welcome.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

Au fait— Thank you!! Thank you very much! :D


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

Carl Francis— Thank you for reading my article. I appreciate your outstanding comments. Welcome to HubPages.

I wrote another Hub in which I detail the Homosexual Agenda and delineate the strategy of the Homosexual Movement to kill marriage—in their own words. A huge part of their strategy was to cover up what it is they actually DO and frame the conversation in new terms—that homosexual behaviors are not what a person DOES but who a person IS, like being black-skinned. This has been so effective that I routinely come across young people who believe propaganda so completely they will say, "It is scientifically proven homosexuals are born that way." Which is, of course, a lie. Any movement based on lies has to be suspect because we do know who is the Father of Lies—Satan. A link to that article is here:

http://hubpages.com/relationships/The-Homosexual-A...

And then I published an article that reports on how they have succeeded so far beyond their own wildest dreams. A link to that article is here, if you are interested:

http://hubpages.com/relationships/The-Homosexual-M...

You might notice there are no ads on those Hubs because HubPages will only monetize aricles that are pro-homosexual marriage. In other words, they will pay you to write in favor of homosexual marriage but not to oppose it.

The young kids today have been brainwashed so badly that some of them claimed my Hub was "hateful" when all I did was report the facts.

They do not know that according to our Founding Documents the rights of Americans come from God—not from the State. The State must recognize our God-given rights and it has no right to pass laws that oppose God's law. And what is happening now is that Americans are soon to be forced by law to oppose God. This is the beginning of the end.


Au fait profile image

Au fait 4 years ago from North Texas

A very interesting hub and well written.


Carl Francis 4 years ago

Today was a special day. Earlier, President Obama announced his personal approval of gay marriage. No real surprise there. This evening, during an interview by Pierce Morgan of actor Jesse Tyler Ferguson -- the redheaded half of the gay couple on the TV program Modern Family -- who is, indeed, gay in real life -- said, in essence, "The problem in American today is misunderstanding and misinformation. We are not trying to redefine marriage." What? That really stopped me in my tracks and led me to do a Google search on "... not trying to redefine marriage ..." which led me to your hub. Your coverage of the subject of marriage is simply superb. Yes, I say that at least partly because I agree with what you've said and the way you've said it. But one item you didn't address is a feeling I have about homosexuality and same-sex unions. That feeling is disgust. Sorry, ladies and gentlemen, but I just can't shake it. As much as I love all fellow humans, I must admit that my natural disgust with the concept and practice of homosexual acts simply disgusts me. And I would further suggest that my intense disgust with homosexuality is every bit as natural to me as alleged homosexuality is to homosexuals. But there is a difference. I and my kind are apparently expected to not express our disgust and, if we do, it will be "redefined" as hate. Just as marriage has today been officially redefined by our president.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

garry and ellen— Hello! No apology necessary at all. Thanks again and you are welcome.

Faithfully Yours,

James


garry and ellen 4 years ago

Hello James

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, but you will probably have received an auto-reply to say our laptop was being repaired.

Thanks for letting us use your quote. We shall be coming back to your site...

Best regards

Garry and Ellen


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

Garry and Ellen— Hello! I am so glad you found my Hub and enjoyed reading it. Thank you for your kind compliments, and you are most welcome.

Far from having any objection, I am honored that you would quote from my article.

I came over and took a look at your excellent website. I see the attribution and I am thankful for it.

By the way, the link above does not work as it is missing an "s" just before the .com But I found your site and will bookmark it for further reading.

James


garry and ellen 4 years ago

Hi James,

We are authors of a book called "Where are all the Men?" about Christian values in marriage and family. Associated with it we have a blog http://ellenduguid.aegauthorblog.com.

We happened upon your site while researching for information to post about the Attacks on Marriage on our blog. We have taken the liberty of quoting a paragraph about the traditional definition of marriage from your site. Your factual appraisal of what might happen to marriage-as-we-know-it is very thorough and informative throughout your hub. We have given you full acknowledgement and will add you to our blogroll if you approve.

Please be assured that we will remove any reference to your site, and the quote, if you oblect to the use to which we have put the quote.

Thanks in anticipation of your approval

Garry and Ellen


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago Author

Laura in Denver— How great to hear from you again! Thank you for reading my article. I sincerely appreciate your excellent and insightful remarks.

I know what you mean: sometimes the best laid plans go awry. Happy New Year!


Laura in Denver profile image

Laura in Denver 4 years ago from Aurora

I have a comment about your phrase, "•Marriage is a personal union, intended for the whole of life, of husband and wife."

I was married by a wise preacher who refused to include the words, "Until death do you part".

Frankly, she was wise. Marriages evolve and if the evolution does not maintain compatibility, it dies.

I agree with your comments on the adverse effect on children 100%.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 5 years ago from Chicago Author

Lak— Thank you for taking the time to come by and read my article. I appreciate your thoughtful remarks.

I do view the world through a Christian lens. But it is also true that everyone has a lens through which they view the world, the Jew through Judaism, the Muslim through Islam, the Atheist through Secular Humanism.

It is true that marriage predates perhaps all human institutions. It is for this very reason that it should be protected as the foundation for a healthy society. If we destroy the foundation of civilization it should not be done willy nilly—because a few thousand people want to marry one of their own sex. The slippery slope argument is most appropos on this subject. In modern society—in the West anyway—the spirit of the age is all about destroying all that is important to human beings, life, marriage, family, the self-image of the human race. It is a spirit of deception and destruction.

Marriage has changed very little in many millennia with the obvious exceptions of polygamy and age restrictions. Worldwide, marriage has probably been the most stable feature of human life. That is why the Evil One hates it and wants to destroy it.

As for homosexuality itself, I have previously published two Hubs about that:

http://hubpages.com/relationships/The-Homosexual-A...

http://hubpages.com/relationships/The-Homosexual-M...

As for the film that completely whitewashes Kinsey, the fact is that he was a sadistic, masochistic, homosexual child molester who had no experience in the study of human sexuality. He died of orchitis, caused by his years of constant, brutal, masochistic masturbation methods.


Lak 5 years ago

I am not a homosexual but I must say this post is seriously biased in favor of the traditional Christian mindset.

Marriage is older than any religion, then why should the Bible be used to define it? After all, religion has sanctioned marriage for the benefits it provides - stability, family and support in old age.

I am not Christian either and while the culture I come from may condemn homosexuality, my religion does not have any strong opinions on it , coming from God directly.

James and others, every religion is influenced by the society it was born in. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism everything was a product of certain eras and societies so one cannot always literally take a religious book word for word. It is the spirit of compassion, honesty and seeking a higher spiritual truth that religion should serve.

As for the fact that homosexual marriages never existed, the number one reason for marriage was procreation. Homosexuals obviously cannot produce a child therefore this question probably never arose.

At the same time, polygamy was practiced to ensure progeny and have social support besides the fact that society was in many cultures very patriarchical.

In modern society, people no longer marry only for procreation or security, we marry for LOVE. Therefore, the argument that marriage in a certain form existed in the past and is the only right way, is fallacious.

Marriage has changed over the centuries and will continue to change and that is why it has withstood the test of time. Institutions and individuals, languages and cultures that have remained static, have never lasted.

I believe in a Higher Power, too, but unlike some of you here, I do not believe that this power is defined by just a religious book. God is the essence of compassion, who treats all His/Her children equally and wants happiness for each of them. God did not invent marriage, humans did, God did not invent country and religion either, humans did.

Frankly, as a heterosexual, I cannot understand what difference it makes to me if gay people committed to each other for a lifetime, that commitment is noble, regardless of whether the state allows it or not.

As for the argument about whether homosexuals can be 'cured', if a man is attracted to another man or a woman to another woman and they have a consensual adult relationship, what is the harm or sin in it? Unless your idea of sin is only the DOs and DON'Ts in the Bible. What about the intention or the harming of another person? Isn't that where the idea of sin itself originates? There is a reason why rape and murder, cheating and lying are sins. I cannot see why two adults having consensual sex of any kind should be a sin.

There are people who are strictly homosexual or heterosexual, some who are bisexual. If you have not watched the movie 'Kinsey', I highly recommend it.

If you insist that your religion is the only right way, all this discussion is useless. We just have to agree to disagree, that is all.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 5 years ago from Chicago Author

Lita C. Malicdem— Yes, until I recently published by Hub "Darwin and Evolution" this Hub had far more comments than any I had published. It is still comfortably in second place out of 208 Hubs.

Yes, these comments have run the gamut and have been most interesting indeed.

Thank you for your kind words, my dear. And you are welcome. :D


Lita C. Malicdem profile image

Lita C. Malicdem 5 years ago from Philippines

The incredible volume of comments, the pros and cons you draw about marriage, points to an amazing fact that this subject will never be the same again in my limited view as a monogamous individual. I'm privileged to learn from you and your commenters about marriage with a more in depth meaning. Honestly, I'm really humbled by everybody's supports and negates here. They're all informative.

James, you're an icon, a very respectable writer with much to offer to this community. Continue to shine! Thank you.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

RTalloni— That is a heckuva lot of comments!! Whew!

Poor old Hezekiah. I love your last sentence.

Thank you for visiting my Hubs. I am encouraged by you and I appreciate it very much.


RTalloni profile image

RTalloni 6 years ago from the short journey

Whew. You weren't kidding. I should have guessed why the hub generated comments. Bravo.

Your comment, "Now, one can sense an attitude of "it won't affect me. I'll be dead before it happens," reminds me of the stupidity of Hezekiah in 2 Kings 20:19, "For he thought, "Why not, if there will be peace and security in my days?" Sadly, even in the face of judgement the man refused to bow his knee before God and plead for mercy from a merciful God.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

hello— And hello to you! :D


hello 6 years ago

hellohello


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

Sergemaster— Your comments are the best I have received about this subject. You have opened my eyes to a new reality. You have given me a new perspective. Welcome, Serge, to the Hub Pages Community.

I must agree that marriage is not the object of redefinition by the godless, but undefinition. That is a brilliant angle. This part of your post struck me:

"That is to say, they do not steadfastly, unabashedly, and definitively say, "Marriage is the union between any two adults and nothing else, and here is the moral basis for this conclusion." No, they would then be drawing a line just like the traditionalists, wouldn't they? They would be guilty of the kind of "bigotry," "exclusiveness," and "narrowness" of which they accuse their opponents. Relativists can't have that, so they offer no definition. All they do is imply that the traditional definition is incorrect."

Moral relativism: what a crock.

Thank you for these fabulous remarks.

James


Sergemaster profile image

Sergemaster 6 years ago

James,

I'm new here and I find your writings a breath of fresh air, please keep it up! Although I agree with the body of your post, one thing I disagree with you about is the term, "redefined" marriage when if anything they have UNDEFINED it..

Here is what the great Selwyn Duke has written on the subject of faux marriage in a recent article titled;"Lack of intellectualism is losing the marriage debate":

"But when we accept that a same-sex union can be marriage — a standard with no credible basis whatsoever in history (which renders the votes of the ultimate majority) or morality — the discussion about rights naturally follows. After all, if such a union is marriage and people have a right to marry, how can they be denied recourse to it?

Speaking of majoritarian folly, this brings us to another way most of us have undermined ourselves. While many say the Walker set has redefined marriage, this is nonsense that gives non-thinkers too much credit. They have not redefined it.

They have undefined it.

That is to say, they do not steadfastly, unabashedly, and definitively say, "Marriage is the union between any two adults and nothing else, and here is the moral basis for this conclusion." No, they would then be drawing a line just like the traditionalists, wouldn't they? They would be guilty of the kind of "bigotry," "exclusiveness," and "narrowness" of which they accuse their opponents. Relativists can't have that, so they offer no definition. All they do is imply that the traditional definition is incorrect.

And this is another hole in the Walker set's argument. After all, while they scoff at the claim that legalizing faux marriage paves the way for polygamy and everything else, an "undefinition" excludes nothing. Sure, they can oppose such things, but only as the renegade football referee saying "me no likey."

The reality is that if they cannot definitively say what marriage is, how can they be sure they know what it is not? And this is why their criticism of traditionalists deserves no respect: If they cannot say what defines a "right" marriage, they cannot credibly say the traditional definition is the wrong one.

Yet they don't have to because, while they can reliably define nothing, we allow them to define the terms of the debate. Know this: Every time you use the term "gay marriage," "homosexual marriage," or even "traditional marriage" (the Lexicon of the Left), you undermine yourself. If one of the first two, it is because you are explicitly acknowledging an imaginary institution's existence. If the last one, you are implying it. For what is the other side of the coin of "traditional marriage"? And if the American psyche is imbued with the idea that "marriages" between same-sex individuals exist and that marriage is a right, well, you can forget the legal and political battles. If you lose the cultural one, everything else follows. It's just a matter of time."

By using the term redefine, you need to replace the current meaning with its replacement, but by UNDEFINING a term, it then can mean anything as Moral relativism wants it too be..

Cheers,

Serge


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

rls8994— Welcome back! I hope you have been away from HP because something good happened. Thank you so much for reading my work. I greatly appreciate the accolades, too. As you can see, there has been quite a discussion going on. Good to see you again.


rls8994 profile image

rls8994 6 years ago from Mississippi

James

Excellent writing as usual! Very indept and thought out. You covered the subject very well and as I have told you before, you are truly a talented writer! I was not aware of these people that are trying to change maritial law to allow "group" marriages as well as those wanting to marry immediate family members. This is just unreal to me! What is wrong with these people? lol! I have been away for awhile and see that I have alot of great hubs to catch up on. :)


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

SirDent— It appears so. Thank you for your participation in it.


SirDent 6 years ago

I imagine the discussion may be over for a time James.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

SirDent— Pretty sobering stuff on the other side of that link, my friend. I'm surprised Alex had never heard of those guys quoted at the top ("After the Ball").


SirDent 6 years ago

Health risks for men who engage in homosexual intercourse.

http://www.ncfamily.org/FNC/0707S3.html


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

spiderpam— You're quite welcome, my dear. That is good news! I think it calls for a celebration. :)


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

Thanks James, I really appreciate your kind and uplifting words.

This just in!

Hawaii vetoes same sex civil unions!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_hawaii_civil_unions


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

spiderpam— Thank you for coming back with hard-hitting vim and vigor. I loved reading your commitment to the truth and your refusal to bow down to the idol of Baal. Great work!!


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

Alex— Homosexual behaviors are far more dangerous than using sexual organs according to their design. If you take a good look at a penis and a vagina there is some kind of connection there. Dangerous behaviors should not be encouraged. Abnormalities should not be called normalities. Why? Because man's high purpose is the pursuit of the truth. No man should call untruth the truth. Having abnormal sexual desires is no basis for special rights and certainly not for marriage. I say it is a mental illness. Maybe you would call it a mental defect. How about the person with a craving to have others poop in their mouths. Is that a sickness? Or are people born with it in their genes? Should it be encouraged by society as good and healthy behavior? Should people who like to have poop in their mouths hold parades and demand that schoolchildren be taught it is normal behavior? If a 12 year old tells his parents he wants people to poop in his mouth should they affirm this urge as just another lifestyle choice?


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

spiderpam— You have presented an airtight case. Well done! What a diligent effort. People can pick around at the edges but there is no way to refute your argument head on, at its core. Thank you very much.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

SirDent— I thank you brother for helping us fight the forces of darkness. You are a good man.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

Alex— I do appreciate you for hanging in there and presenting your case with conviction. Thank you for your contributions to this conversation.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

spiderpam— I have carefully read all of your posts and I thank you for speaking the truth with force and conviction. Everything you wrote is absolutely true. Thank you very much for standing up to be counted. You are great!!


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

Alex— You claim that homosexuals do not have higher rates of disease and lower life expectancies but I have provided ample evidence that you are wrong on both counts. Perhaps you think if those who practice homosexual behaviors were less promiscuous they have live longer and have less disease but the fact is they are promiscuous, as you have already admitted.

You mention Christian Lesbians but there is no such thing. There could be celibate, chaste Christians who have the impulse that they do not act on to engage in homosexual behaviors, and there can be Christians who fail sometimes sin and engage in homosexual behaviors after which they repent with a contrite heart and vow to never do it again. There are not Christians who vow to live a life of continual sin in defiance of God.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

Alex— Some of the studies I cited show the statistic outcomes are better with both biological parents in the family home; others are more focused on the fact that children do best with a mother and a father in the home, due to the differences in maternal and paternal love and parenting styles. I am not aware that the studies I cited got into adoption per se and this is not something I reseached as my article is about the Definition of Marriage, not about adoption. I assume there have been many studies done about the success of adopted children.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

“I COMPLETELY have not, I have addressed from the very beginning that homosexual behavior/SEX is medically dangerous.” There you go.

YES YOU HAVE! I cited the same sources GG has that you deceivingly weaseled around or completely ignored which caused her get to give up on you and leave. Btw no offense to GG but I’m only 25.

Please CITE where heterosexual sex will take up to a 20 years off your life?

But homosexual acts do.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron2.html

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/homosexualit...

http://americansfortruth.com/news/pro-homosexual-w...

“Says the world. I find it hilarious that you think people have read the bible with an attempt to see factual errors and have come out believers. Religion and science are separate things.”

HA! The bible says this too. They exchange the truth of God for a lie. And Scoffers will come walking after their own lust. I didn’t ask about the world I asked you. CS Lewis, Jobe Martin are to prominent voices you read the bible and became Christians. Ummm No my faith is supported by real science, archeological evidence, and empirical evidence. Your beliefs are just that beliefs based on solely feelings.

“Harm” You have not cited where those you sought help got hurt by any of the people or groups I cited.

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

“I have not mocked the gospel, I have refuted your claim that the gospel is all that goes on in conversion therapy”

You refuted no such thing.

Did I say the gospel was it? No.

I said “See, when the ex homosexual hears and every other sinner including me hear and understand the gospel he/she realizes how much God loves us and we want to live a life that honors Him and we what honors him by His word.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzF45fGb6AI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qceWJb9WKFU

After hearing and receiving to gospel, recovery from such a destructive behavior as homosexual usually takes outside help. And recovery like the recovery of drug addicts or alcoholics. Unethical treatment were seldom practiced and are now no longer practiced and you know this.

http://www.homosexinfo.org/Change/HomePage

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/07/living-proof-th...

You still have not address the lesbian study. If I were you I wouldn’t either.

No good parent would support a behavior that has been proven to take 20 years off a persons life that’s not love it’s false compassion and it kills.

http://pfox.org/default.html


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

I’m typing too fast sorry for the errors. I would like to correct one thing my Christian worldview will NOT be stifled.

“Only can cite that it was once considered a paraphilia, and now is considered a sexual orientation? Okay”

Are you kidding? You love the repetition, because either you’re NOT reading ALL my previous posts or you intentionally ignored the FACTS. I said the homosexuality was once considered paraphilia, and I confirmed the it is still a paraphilia based on the current definition. Then I went on to say that pedophiles are following in homosexual footsteps.

http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/dictionary/Paraph...

“Homosexuality is no more a paraphilia than heterosexuality.”

You cannot be serious!

Homosexuality is NOT like heterosexuality! Heterosexuality has benefits that we all benefit from. Homosexuality is a paraphilia! Everyone on earth benefits from God ordained nature or heterosexuality if you will. These same benefits cannot be said for homosexuality, pedophilia and all other distortions or paraphilia. 1 man and 1 woman that's how we began that is the ideal. Traditional marriage is BEST for children and everything else is a distortion.

Americans find the practices of homosexuals DISGUSTING. Test it out yourself post the homosexual behaviors on a flyer pass them out at an anti traditional marriage rally and watch how many heterosexual supporters you lose. You avoided discussing the behaviors. Why? I already know why but why don’t you admit why?

Here a sample for that flyer due to the disgusting and graphic nature just look up the definitions yourself. http://www.homosexinfo.org/Sexuality/Slang

TROLL:

SLURPING:

SCATTING:

PICKUP: .

HANDBALLING:

GOLDEN QUEEN:

GLORY HOLE:

COFFIN QUEEN: .

WALLOWING:

WATER SPORTS:

To name a few

These BEHAVIORS are EXCLUSIVE to homosexuals and are medically dangerous deal with this. Are these the behaviors you want to promote as good, moral, normal(just heterosexual) and you to encourage kids to experiment with? Homosexuals can already and do already do these things without conflict. They want endorsement.

“Gay men have the opportunity to engage in sex with more people than do most heterosexual men, and some practices common among gays — especially rimming [oral-anal stimulation] and anal intercourse — are highly efficient ways of transmitting disease.” — Homosexual writer Jack Hart, Gay Sex: A Manual for Men Who Love Men (Allyson Publications: 1998), pp 212-213

So YES since you support and promote homosexual behavior, you endorse medically dangerous behavior. How is that humane? You can’t hide behind civil rights, it doesn’t fit.

“Please do not lie about what I have said. I have never said anything of the sort. If you do not wish to engage in honest discussion I will leave. I will continue to compare civil rights movements”

You want to have honest discussion you would left after you first post. You’ve being nothing but dishonest. Please leave you’ve done more to hurt your cause then help it.

Whose lying you’re comparing an immutable human trait race and sex(male/female) to something that not immutable, that is changeable and by all intensive purposes a mental illness and an addictive, destructive choice. Do you see now why your argument is invalid?

“The problem with the “right” slogan is that, when it comes to marriage, everyone in America already has equal rights. We are all playing by the same rules—we all have the same right to marry any qualified person from the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone—every male and female has the same right to marry. What certain males and females in our society want is special rights—the special right to marry someone of the same sex. But if we grant special rights for same-sex couples to marry one another, on what grounds can we deny special rights for consenting adults who desire marriage for other socially destructive or unhealthy relationships such as polygamy, incest, or bestiality? Should bisexuals get to marry two people?

You say, “We won’t allow polygamy, incest, and bestiality because those are unhealthy and destructive relationships!” Yes, but so are homosexual relationships as we saw in point 2 of the six-point case. Second, as I have already mentioned, the government is not denying the “rights” of homosexuals to have relationships or to pledge themselves to one another “till death do them part.” Homosexuals do that all the time. But homosexuals have no “right” to have that relationship endorsed and granted benefits by the state. Government endorsement is the central issue in this debate.

Third, desires do not constitute rights. Just because you have a desire to do something doesn’t mean you have a right to do it. Even among “consenting adults,” there is no right to prostitution, polygamy, adultery, or incest. And even if you were to claim a private right to such behavior, you certainly have no right to government endorsement of that behavior.

Yet that’s what homosexual activists demand for homosexuality. Fourth, while proponents of same-sex marriage cast this as a moral issue (that’s why they use the word “rights”), they lack any moral authority for their position. By whose standard of morality must same-sex marriage be established? Certainly no founding Constitution of any state, or the federal government, says anything about same-sex marriage. Is there a standard beyond the Constitution? Yes, God—but God is the last subject homosexual activists want to bring up. If they appeal to “nature’s God”—or the “self-evident” “laws of nature” that come from God as the Declaration of Independence declares—then they have to make the case that God believes homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage is a right. That’s anything but self-evident, as virtually the entire history of religion, the “laws of nature,” and the design of the human body attest.

Finally, notice that homosexual activists cleverly avoid the real issue. When speaking of homosexuality, they always talk about rights rather than acts. They know they won’t win if they describe the acts that they want us to endorse through government-backed same-sex marriage. Since a majority of Americans find such acts unnatural, immoral, and repulsive, homosexual activists hide the real truth about what they do behind the word “rights” because no one can be against that. This language manipulation extends to other terms they use (such as “gay” and “pride”) and is a common propaganda technique used by radical abortion rights proponents as well. It’s too difficult to advocate child dismemberment, so partial-birth abortion advocates talk about “choice.” We should ask the manipulators the following: “A right to choose what?” and “A right to do what?” They won’t call it what it is because the naked truth would hurt their case with most Americans.”

allaboutlove.org


Alex 6 years ago

"How is endorsing medically dangerous at all humane? You continue to side step the BEHAVIOR, it’s a common tactic."

I COMPLETELY have not, I have addressed from the very beginning that SEX is medically dangerous. The very behaviors of sexuality is medically dangerous. That's true regardless of sexual orientation, because all sex carries risk. I have not ignored behaviors, I address all of them when I say people should know the risk of sex. And I have never endorsed any sexual behaviors. I tire of this lie.

Says the world. I find it hilarious that you think people have read the bible with an attempt to see factual errors and have come out believers. Religion and science are separate things. If you can't see this I'm not going to go into the discussion, you are free to believe what you like but belief and fact are separate. I agree, we should leave this hub to the issue at hand.

Those who choose to seek help CAN be harmed by people who do not have ethical guidelines for how they conduct therapy. Could you cite what you are talking about with people forced experiencing minor issues that don't measure to what I have mentioned?

"You keep mocking the gospel that’s very unwise and so childish."

I have not mocked the gospel, I have refuted your claim that the gospel is all that goes on in conversion therapy.

"Which conducted by homosexual and/or homosexual advocates now that clear."

I'm sorry, your sentence structure is failing again but I think I understand what you mean... but this isn't clear. Which of the researchers were homosexual, and can you cite how you know that? It seems instead you are engaging in confirmation bias, if they disagree with you, they must be homosexual or homosexual advocates, but you haven't even done any information gathering on these people when you claim that. I ask a third time, Which of the researchers who conducted the study were homosexual?

"First the study has not been peer reviewed or reapeat or tested"

For the third time, how is it that this article was in Biological Psychiatry wasn't peer reviewed? And who has attempted to repeat this study, and not reproduced the results?

"Third it fails to answer very basic question"

It says they are linked, that's all it answers, it doesn't explain everything. Just how the study that found the gene linked to left-handness says they are linked, and doesn't explain everything. We need more studies to know more.

The rest of your post I already responded to three weeks ago, I have no use for your copy and paste. I've responded, if you agree or disagree that's fine but to repeat the same thing as if I didn't repsond shows more you're unwilling to listen to my statements.

"Being able to repeat a study in part of the scientific method the facts that none of your studies articles have been and mine have prove science is not on your side."

What on earth are you talking about? You haven't shown any studies regarding conversion therapy, and you haven't shown additional studies to refute that when these were repeated, the same results weren't found. You haven't proved how it was bogus at all!! WHEN DID THEY TRY TO RECREATE THE RESULTS OF THIS STUDY?

Having sex doesn't make something a mental illness. No legit psychiatrist will say that exporing sexuality with your partner is a mental illness. You are free to think that anyone who engages in oral sex, or anal sex, or any other type of sex is mentally ill, but that's not the case.

And it's definitely true that homosexual people are at risk for actual mental health issues, which is why we need to support them not disown or atack them as I've always said since that is shown to show the best results, like from the parental acceptance study i showed before.


Alex 6 years ago

So you've found no definition of paraphilia that is exactly as you stated? Only can cite that it was once considered a paraphilia, and now is considered a sexual orientation? Okay.

Homosexuality is no more a paraphilia than heterosexuality. By definition, homosexuality is simply attraction to people of the same sex, and heterosexuality is attraction to people of the opposite sex. Neither is a mental disorder, neither is characterized by an obsession with unusual sexual practices but just about sex with a partner. Many heterosexual and homosexual behaviors of course include different forms of sex. And sexual attraction doesn't behave like a mental disorder. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals can have paraphilias or odd sex practices, but their sexual orientation isn't the problem.

It interesting to note that your second link says that only under some conditions are paraphilias considered mental disorders, and says that these definitions vary from society to society. So basically, it's just statistically different sex. Nothing wrong with that strictly itself, nor really do people who have any fetish suffer from a mental disorder of paraphilia.

As your first wiki link, do you really agree with the discussion in there about paraphilia that it nothing more than a sexual desire different from that of the majority? Or do you think it's a mental disorder? It seems you're trying to merge two definitions, use this definition to get people to the conclusion that it's bad, when all of these discussions don't say that at all.

You really love saying "pious fraud" but I wish you'd actually explain rather than just accusing me, but I'm glad that you've actually admitted now that you attempted to fraud people by manipulating a definition you found elsewhere to get it to say what you wanted.

Anyway, I totally agree that homosexuality is statistically abnormal, and therefore fits as unusual sexual attraction/practices.

"This is NOT a civil rights issue, we’ve been through this over and over again."

I've heard you say that over and over, and submit your claim, and yet I still disagree. This is a civil rights issue, as people are fighting for equal civil rights as heterosexuals have.

"Being a woman or being black was NEVER considered a mental illness. How dare you!"

Please do not lie about what I have said. I have never said anything of the sort. If you do not wish to engage in honest discussion I will leave. I will continue to compare civil rights movements.

Equality is a civil right, and legal marriage equality as part of racial equality and gender equality must exist under the law. If homosexuals have not been outspoken about their rights being trampled on as they were in Stonewall, just as blacks and women had to, they could have gone on as being as mistreated as they were before, but that isn't an option for any group.

If all you're going to do is copy Golden Gurl's posts which I've already replied to, I'm also done. As James noted, it gets annoying when people repeat themselves. And yes, I did reply to that 13 days ago, see the post started "I never cited that denial of truth is evidence". Are you Golden Gurl, spiderpam?


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

“I base my stance on humanity, knowing that everyone has flaws.”

No that’s what I’m doing How is endorsing medically dangerous at all humane? You continue to sidestep the BEHAVIOR, it’s a common tactic,

The very behaviors is homosexual is medically dangerous.

http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/homosexuality/maf/...

http://www.homosexinfo.org/eblog/article/resin-in-...

You keep ignoring the BEHAVIORS.

“Okay, then you can please stop citing God and religious purposes.”

You will NOT set the term for this exchange, okay. If this were about logic science and facts alone you have no grounds to stand on, but your purely secular emotional worldview hinders your comprehension capabilities. My Christian worldview has will be stifled. Got it?

“I mean religious beliefs are not based in fact and research, not testable and provable and falsifiable. Religious beliefs or texts are not reliable sources. Is that clearer now?”

Says who? You, my beliefs are supported by facts, faith, science, logic. The old testament and new testaments texts have been confirmed repeatedly. So why don’t do your own inquiry and read the bible for yourself and try to refute it. Many have tried and end up believers, please refer to my hubs on the subject. Leave this hub to the issue at hand.

As for reparative being bad, are you even reading your own links, It’s about choice those who CHOOSE to seek help for homosexuality do not report harm AT ALL. Those who are forced or don’t think they have a problem report minor issues nowhere near what you’re trying to convey, recovery centers deal with UNWANTED homosexuality.

http://peoplecanchange.com/whatispcc.htm

NARTH.com

You keep mocking the gospel that’s very unwise and so childish

http://www.porn-free.org/homosexual_recovery.htm

“The study”

Which conducted by homosexual and/or homosexual advocates now that clear.

First the study has not been peer reviewed or reapeat or tested

Second the article states the results are VERY inconclusive.

Third it fails to answer very basic question

FROM YOUR NON PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE:

“In the largest genetic study involving transsexuals to date, researchers in Australia said they found that transexuality MAY be linked to the androgen receptor (AR) gene - which is known to modify the effect of the male sex hormone testosterone."

Such a statement is quite a backtrack from the conclusiveness of the headline, and the reason for the backtracking becomes clearer when the data collected in the study is examined.

"The longer AR gene was found in 55.4 percent of people in the transsexual group and 47.6 percent of the non-transsexual men, they wrote in an article published in Biological Psychiatry."

Taking a good look at these percentages, one has to do a double take when reading the headline again. This data provokes SEVERAL QUESTIONS.

Is the "transsexual gene" dominant or recessive? Why is there only 7.8% difference in the number of transsexuals vs. non-transsexuals who have this gene? How come 44.6 percent of transsexuals do not have the transsexual gene? If the headline of this story would be remotely accurate, I would expect 100 percent of the transsexual group to have the gene, or at least in the high 90s.

The biggest question of all, why even publish a study that is as inconclusive as this one? Again I ask: Why would you even reference it? Again we see homosexual advocates taking small and very inconclusive study and propagating it as absolute fact.

Being able to repeat a study in part of the scientific method the facts that none of your studies articles have been and mine have prove science is not on your side.

So yes the study was bogus it hasn’t been repeated, tested or peer reviewed so it falls more in line with biased opinion.

“It was falsely considered a mental illness, and they corrected themselves, how is that fraud?”

It was not falsely considered a mental illness. You forget or are unaware why homosexuality was first diagnosed as a mental illness. Because of the behaviors and mental health issues associated with the homosexual which cannot be match by any heterosexual ie the norm. Behavior, “Around 99% of homosexual males engage in oral sex; 91% engage in anal sex; 82% ENGAGED IN "RIMMING", touching the anus of one's partner with one's tongue and inserting the tongue into the anus;22% engage in "fisting", inserting one's fist into the rectum of the partner; 23% engage in "golden showers", urinating on each other; 4% engage in "scat", the eating of feces, and in "mud rolling", rolling on the floor where feces have been deposited. “The evidence shows the homosexual lifestyle to be rightly described as "lethal". The medical consequences are so devastating that the average actively practicing homosexual person loses from 30% to 40% of his/her lifespan, typically not living beyond 50 in a culture where we average well into our 70's” Type ‘homosexual’ along with any of the behaviors above into the Google search engine. These practices are widespread.

http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/gaystudy.ht

http://www.homosexinfo.org/Sexuality/Slang

And the mental health issues

"According to LifeSite News, researchers at UCLA discovered that homosexuals seek treatment for either mental health issues or substance abuse at a rate that’s about twice that of heterosexuals. This tendency was even more pronounced among lesbians and bisexual women."

“Historical and current research provides significant concerns about the mental health, physical health and longevity of homosexual individuals, as well as stability of homosexual relationships. The mental health data is alarming. Herrel, Goldberg, True, Ramakrishnan, Lyons, Eisen (1999) concluded, "same-gender sexual orientation is significantly associated with each of the suicidality measures . . . the substantial increased lifetime risk of suicidal behaviors in homosexual men is unlikely to be due to substance abuse or other psychiatric co-morbidity" (p. 867). Fergusson, Horwood, and Beautrais (1999) concluded,

Gay, lesbian and bisexual young people were at increased risks of major depression . . . generalized anxiety disorder . . . conduct disorder . . . nicotine dependence . . . multiple disorders . . . suicidal ideation . . . suicide attempts. (p. 876)” Thanks James

“The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973, despite substantial protest (see Socarides, 1995). The A.P.A. was strongly motivated by the desire to reduce the effects of social oppression. However, one effect of the A.P.A.'s action was to add psychiatric authority to gay activists' insistence that homosexuals as a group are as healthy as heterosexuals. This has discouraged publication of research that suggests there may, in fact, be psychiatric problems associated with homosexuality”

http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=21474...

“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusiv...

http://www.gcmwatch.com/3156/gays-used-as-mental-h...

This why homosexuality was considered a mental issues and these facts have NOT changed which proves the removal of homosexuality was not based on science but bullying and pressure by the rabid homosexual activist And pedophiles are following in their footstep and this has NOTHING to due with civil rights, but the desensitization and promotion of immoral destructive behaviors. PERIOD.

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/What_God_Say...


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

“You can believe whatever you like, and so can pedophiles. All they have to do is follow in interracial couples footsteps, or women's equal rights footsteps, and a lot more (since there's a big difference between consenting adults and youth). All civil rights movements mirror each other.”

This is NOT a civil rights issue, we’ve been through this over and over again.

It’s amazing that you homosexual advocates still try to frame it that way. It’s a deceitful practice meant to deceive the public

Being a woman or being black was NEVER considered a mental illness. How dare you!

“Marriage is a civil right, but homosexual coupling is not, and cannot be, a marriage. Homosexuals already have privacy in their bedrooms, just like everyone else. Had they not forced their issue into public view, right or wrong, they could have gone on as before in private.

Homosexual activists themselves have , with coercion, deceit, and strategy, forced homosexuality into the public realm precisely to force public acceptance. In some cases, they insist on the right to have sexual relations in public places. Their cry for privacy is nonsense. They want absolute moral approval. Homosexual activists are asking to redefine marriage based on special rights sought by who make up less than 4 % of the population. Marriage has been defined by civil law, church law, and nature law as the union of one man and one woman. Rights do not come out of the air, or from civil government, but, as our Declaration of Independence recognizes, from our Creator. Our first obligation is to follow the Creator's purpose for our existence, the ultimate basis of all rights, without which there are neither obligations nor rights. Our basic rights are to pursue truth, righteousness, and love, not to "have our own way" -- which means moral chaos. All rights for me require obligations (to honor my rights) on other people. Rights cannot be separated from obligations.”

“Special protection legislation has always been reserved for classes of people who display immutable characteristics, which they cannot change, such as race, gender, or national origin. The criteria is based on "being" not on "behavior." Homosexual persons are the first group to demand special laws because of their "behavior" -- i.e. having sex with partners of the same sex. "Behavior" is the only distinguishing characteristic which defines homosexual persons as a group.

“Homosexual advocates seek to sell the public a "pig in a poke" (Scottish for 'bag'). They wish to gain rights for homosexual behavior with (deliberately) no public discussion of the behavior. They seek to focus attention on a specious "identity" supposedly based on genetics or biology. No study alleging such has survived scientific peer review.”

“If homosexual orientation were completely genetic, one would expect that it would not change over the course of one's life. For females, sexual preference does seem to change over time. A 5-year study of lesbians found that over a quarter of these women relinquished their lesbian/bisexual identities during this period: half reclaimed heterosexual identities and half gave up all identity labels. In a survey of young minority women (16-23 years of age), half of the participants changed their sexual identities more than once during the two-year survey period. In another study of subjects who were recruited from organizations that serve lesbian/gay/bisexual youths (ages 14 to 21 years) in New York City, the percentage that changed from a lesbian/gay/bisexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation was 5% over the period of just 12 months (the length of the survey). Other studies have confirmed that sexual orientation is not fixed in all individuals, but can change over time, especially in women. A recent example of an orientation change occurred with The Advocate's "Person of the Year" for 2005. Kerry Pacer was the youngest gay advocate, chosen for her initiation of a "gay-straight alliance" at White County High School in Cleveland, Georgia. However, four years later, she is raising her one year old daughter, along with the baby's father. Obviously, for at least some individuals, being gay or straight is something they can choose.” Please deal with this argument. This is my 3rd or 4th time posting this.

Why Homosexual Behavior Is More like Consensual Incest and Polyamory than Race or Gender

PLEASE READ!

http://www.robgagnon.net/homosexIncestPolyAnalogy1...

PLUS

The growing number of former, recovered homosexual persons clearly establishes the fact that homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic, such as race or gender. Thus, there is no rational basis for setting aside centuries of legal precedent, religious teachings and good social order in order to give a preferential place in society to homosexual behavior.

Homosexual persons, whose primary identifying characteristic is their sexual behavior, have repeatedly been found by the courts not to be deserving of special legal protections, because of the moral, health and social issues involved.

People who engage in homosexual behavior have the same rights as other citizens, but should not be given additional rights based on their willingness to perform peculiar–and medically dangerous–sex acts.

"Sexual orientation" is an expansively inclusive term. The term is expanding to included pedophiles, pederasts, transsexuals, transvestites, sadists, masochists, and others. If the General Assembly adds "sexual orientation" to the non-discrimination section of the Code of Virginia, these classes of deviant behavior may be legally protected, and lawmakers will have provided instant special legal protection for any kind of sexual behavior, however aberrant or perverse. Litigation is already expanding in that direction.

The claim by homosexual rights advocates for minority rights discrimination is legally frivolous and irrelevant because are defined by their behavior, not by any identifiable state of being.

Since no scientific, medical, or biological evidence exists showing that homosexuality is either inborn or unchangeable, no one can authenticate that he or she is homosexual--it is only declared. In their declaration, such persons can lay claim only to being a practitioner of sodomy in one or more of its many forms--oral and anal sex, anilingus, multiple partners, "fisting", cross-dressing, bestiality, and other bizarre sexual expressions. Accordingly, any claim that those who engage in sodomy are entitled to minority status has no more legal merit than that of persons engaged in such similarly aberrant sexual behaviors as adultery, incest, or polygamy. Your analogy is not valid. Laws against interracial marriage served only to preserve a social system of racial segregation. This was an unworthy goal, irrelevant to the fundamental nature of marriage.

For a black woman to marry a white man does not change the definition of marriage, the basic requirement for which is one man and one woman. Allowing two men or two women to marry would change that fundamental definition. Banning the "marriage" of same-sex couples is therefore essential to preserve the nature and purpose of marriage itself.”

This the third time saying this, you’ve NEVER refuted this you just weasel.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

Thank you Sirdent, “alex” is trying the "pull the audience" tactic and emotive victim play it works well, but in no way is an honest inquiry. Thank you for sticking up from me. God Bless.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

My mistake it was a spelling error. The ORIGINAL definition of homosexuality of that of a paraphilia

I should of made that more clear and for that I apologize.

Proof and citations of the fact of the original definition can be found here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paraphilia/Archi...

http://www.jahsonic.com/Paraphilia.html

I then found the current definition to accurately describe homosexual behaviors still.

By listing unusual sexual practices of homosexuality I proved that the word paraphilia still applies to homosexuality.

The type of mental disorder characterized by a preference for or obsession with unusual sexual practices.

http://www.homosexinfo.org/Sexuality/Slang

With the current definition I showed why homosexuality should be still considered as much.

See again you’ve committed the pious fraud you tried to make is seem they my definition had so basis in truth thus deflecting from your absolute refusal to deal with the behaviors of homosexual that directly confirm the definition and how the current definition still apply to the current behaviors of homosexual .

Any more questions on this please inquire.

Stay tuned


Alex 6 years ago

Then can you tell me where she got the "homosexuality" from in that definition?


SirDent 6 years ago

She most likely typed the word out instead of pasting. Hence typos. Sometimes when trying to sopy a link it doesn't copy but keeps whatever was copied on your browser at the time.

I know Pam well enough to know she isn't trying to deceive you.


Alex 6 years ago

Thanks, SirDent, but I'm still confused as to why she used paraphilia for a long time and then switched to perihelia, and seems to be directly quoting something. If she is getting that word from that website, then she is definitely deliberately lying and adding "as homosexuality" as I said previously, because you can see that isn't in that definition.

It seems more than a typo.


SirDent 6 years ago

The word is actually Paraphilia, Alex. A typo on Pam's part I am sure. The word is defined at that link, but a tad different. The same definition she posted can be found at the link below.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexual+devi...


Alex 6 years ago

Or, she, I apologize, since I believe pam is female.


Alex 6 years ago

James, you follow spiderpam's posts too, right? Could you help me find where he found this?:

"Perihelia- a type of mental disorder characterized by a preference for or obsession with unusual sexual practices, as homosexuality, pedophilia, sadomasochism, or exhibitionism."

http://www.homosexinfo.org/Psychiatry/Glossary


Alex 6 years ago

"To your original comment- Says who? The ever changing APA opinions"

No, the dictionary, as I cited. You can believe whatever you like, and so can pedophiles. All they have to do is follow in interracial couples footsteps, or women's equal rights footsteps, and a lot more (since there's a big difference between consenting adults and youth). All civil rights movements mirror each other.

It's most people here that are leaving logic behind and basing their stance on feelings. I base my stance on humanity, knowing that everyone has flaws. I have plenty of friends straight and gay and a couple who are nice, but have destuctive and addictive behavior - and it has nothing to do with their sexual orientaiton. Do I promote it and encourage it? No! Nor do I promote nor encourage their sexual orientation, as if that were possible.

"NARTH is not non-credible just because YOU say it is you are the on with the illogical bias."

No, not just because I say it is, I never said where I stood. NARTH was founded in 1992 because they cite professional organizations "had totally stifled the scientific inquiry that would be necessary to stimulate a discussion [about homosexuality]." This of course not true as all of these professinal organizations still have plenty of research on homosexuality, whereas NARTH does rarely their own research at all, and cites others.

No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and most of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. These include the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers in the USA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Australian Psychological Society.

Just last week, British Medical Association rejected conversion therapy as discredited and harmful.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and...

This of course comes after someone's journey into conversion therapy to see how it works (and as I told you, it's more than just reading the Gospel). It's a good read:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and...

And of course I believe the APA themselves, that NARTH is discredited. And I do believe the APA members themselves as they put it, not how NARTH selectively reinterprets what they say, as is their entire agenda. And yet these APA members who are writing aren't saying the same thing that you are, that homosexuals are fundamentally flawed, that the APA ignored non-existent evidence that sexual orientation is a mental disorder, etc. Those aren't scientific peer reviewed papers, though, you should know those come in scientific journals and involve research and study.

I've never been against someone's right to seek therapy, as you may be misinterpreting if you are sending that first link. But how can you treat a sexual orientation? We have no research that shows it's possible, and instead of trying to get some (because they can't), groups like NARTH attack others.

Your third link actually is something published in a peer reviewed journal, so good job! I don't like Spitzer as a source, because his work is very flawed, which is why I do not cite him.

I read much of them, but they don't say at all why NARTH should be trusted over APA or all of these other groups. They don't somehow invalidate the studies that HAVE been done, and make up studies that say what NARTH and you claim. Or maybe you have tried to get me to see something else, could you say what?

"Sex is a gift from God and it meant for the confines of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman for the many reasons stated above."

You are free to your religious beliefs, but that does not mean that people who have sex outside of this purpose are factually distorted or have mental health issues because they have oral sex or premarital sex.

"Ummm okay. This is not about religion per say, but morality."

Okay, then you can please stop citing God and religious purposes.

"I’m not sure about what you mean by 'unfounded in a discussion of research and science.'"

I mean religious beliefs are not based in fact and research, not testable and provable and falsifiable. Religious beliefs or texts are not reliable sources. Is that clearer now?

I don't believe I've said any study's conclusions are absolute fact (that must be what you're saying), this is something you are reading that isn't there. And his studies do support the idea of a biological basis, while the studies have found no lifestyle choice reason for it. And I'm completely lost again why you say his statement is both biased and a lie when it doesn't contradict the research. Of course, you are free to critique the media article as much as you are (by focusing on the article's headline and not the study). Media is often a bit wrong. The two are linked, just as we have found a link to the left-handed gene, we just don't know how they are linked. We wouldn't see this statistical difference in other random populations.

The study, as I've said, is published because it's about something we've learned, we've learned the two are linked. And it's not about homosexual activists bringing this to the foreground, the researchers themselves have done that.

So the study is not bogus, as you claimed, you just think it's not as conclusive as others have apparently said? You didn't cite which of the researchers who conducted the study were homosexual, as you claimed before, could you now? You said it hasn't been repeated, could you cite who has attempted this study again and has not found the results they did? How is it that this article was in Biological Psychiatry wasn't peer reviewed, as you said it didn't meet peer review? Please CITE specifically instead of just claiming this.

"You already admitted that homosexuality was considered an mental illness along with pedophilia so why are again committing the pious fraud?"

Again, what fraud? It was falsely considered a mental illness, and they corrected themselves, how is that fraud?

" http://www.homosexinfo.org/Psychiatry/Glossary "

Are you sure that is the correct link? I searched it for "Perihelia", "pedophilia," "sadomasochism," or "exhibitionism" and they didn't appear. I even searched homosexinfo.org's search page for perihelia, and I found nothing. Could you check the link again and provide the correct one? I can understand the definition as you write it, it just seems completely wrong when it's a word used for the orbits of planets.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

“You are free to religious beliefs but they are unfounded in a discussion of research and science.”

Ummm okay. This is not about religion per say, but morality. Religion is our duty to God

Morality is our duty to each other. You don’t have to be a Christian to oppose homosexual marriage NARTH alone proves that. I’m not sure about what you mean by “ unfounded in a discussion of research and science.” You must be referring to yourself here, I’ve used science research and the bible without conflict. So your statement is a false one. I write on science too so please refer to my hubs. Your incapability to comprehend what I, GG, James are trying to convey with science, facts peer reviewed studies PROVES it’s about your worldview.

The study was INCONCLUSIVE at best. Again YOU refer to a very inconclusive study and propagating it as absolute fact. Typical and predictable. The persons who conduct the “study” exposed their bias by this statement, which is a lie according to HIS OWN research.

“There is a social stigma that transsexualism is simply a lifestyle choice, however our findings support a biological basis of how gender identity develops," said lead researcher Vincent Harley of Monash University's Prince Henry's Institute of Medical Research

Now back to his “findings” which have NOT been peer reviewed btw

From the article “In the largest genetic study involving transsexuals to date, researchers in Australia said they found that transexuality MAY be linked to the androgen receptor (AR) gene - which is known to modify the effect of the male sex hormone testosterone."

Such a statement is quite a backtrack from the conclusiveness of the headline, and the reason for the backtracking becomes clearer when the data collected in the study is examined.

"The longer AR gene was found in 55.4 percent of people in the transsexual group and 47.6 percent of the non-transsexual men, they wrote in an article published in Biological Psychiatry."

Taking a good look at these percentages, one has to do a double take when reading the headline again. This data provokes several questions.

Is the "transsexual gene" dominant or recessive? Why is there only 7.8% difference in the number of transsexuals vs. non-transsexuals who have this gene? How come 44.6 percent of transsexuals do not have the transsexual gene? If the headline of this story would be remotely accurate, I would expect 100 percent of the transsexual group to have the gene, or at least in the high 90s.

The biggest question of all, why even publish a study that is as inconclusive as this one? Again I ask: Why would you even reference it? Again we see homosexual advocates taking small and very inconclusive study and propagating it as absolute fact.

http://christianskepticism.blogspot.com/2008/10/sk

You already admitted that homosexuality was considered a mental illness along with pedophilia so why are again committing the pious fraud? You’ll have to find an old medical dictionary and look up homosexual from I hear the definition is more graphic and more offensive to homosexuals so you’ll probably won’t find it online(thank you liberal censorship).

Perihelia- a type of mental disorder characterized by a preference for or obsession with unusual sexual practices, as homosexuality, pedophilia, sadomasochism, or exhibitionism.

http://www.homosexinfo.org/Psychiatry/Glossary

This is the best definition, sorry if you can’t understand.

WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT. Shows obsession with unusual sexual practices, by homosexuals,

http://www.homosexinfo.org/Sexuality/Slang

http://www.homosexinfo.org/eblog/article/resin-in-...

Yes so based on the FACTS I think the definition I provided is nice considering the above info.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

“Anyway, heterosexuality IS THE NATURAL sexual orientation, while pedophilia, homosexuality and other paraphilias or not.” That’s better.

To your original comment- Says who? The ever changing APA opinions HA! Pedophiles believe pedophilia is an orientation just like homosexual did. All they have to do(and are currently doing) is follow in homosexual and homosexual advocate footsteps and make it official.

“If you get to know actual homosexual people…”

What an emotive play you ARE getting desperate.

“There are totally insufficient sociological data on the comparative effects of homosexuals unions on children's development; all the studies used by homosexuals are from small and thus possibly biased samples. An honest debate on the effect of homosexual unions on children requires samples of national size -- samples which Dr. Barbour must know do not currently exist. To formulate radically new policy in the absence of such data is unwise” This is true.

I know plenty of homosexuals, my best and childhood friend lives the homosexual lifestyle. We are still best friends and I love him very much and I don't back down from my convictions. See you’ve left logic behind and base your stance on this issue on feelings. If you had a friend who is really nice, but has a very destructive and addictive behavior, Do you promote and encourage it? I hope not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdytVMJ-Erg

Another example are Mormons they are really nice people, but they are in the same boat spiritually as the homosexual, the Buddhist and the thief.

"Real compassion ought to make us visit the prisoner, dry out the alcoholic, help the pregnant girl prepare for the baby, and encourage the young homosexual to live chastely. But how much easier it is to forget the prisoner; give the drunk a drink, send the girl to the abortionist, and tell the kid to just give in. False compassion is a great deal less work than true.”

Jay Budziszewski

NARTH is not non-credible just because YOU say it is you are the on with the illogical bias.

Would you believe APA members themselves?

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

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

http://www.narth.com/docs/spitzer4.html

Put YOUR illogical bias aside and read these scientific peer reviewed papers(you know the ones you begged for.)

“Sex isn't a mental health issue…”

Who said it was? Sex is a gift from God and it meant for the confines of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman for the many reasons stated above. Homosexuality, pedophilia and all other perihelias, are distortions and mental health issues and should considered as such.

“If homosexual orientation were completely genetic, one would expect that it would not change over the course of one's life. For females, sexual preference does seem to change over time. A 5-year study of lesbians found that over a quarter of these women relinquished their lesbian/bisexual identities during this period: half reclaimed heterosexual identities and half gave up all identity labels. In a survey of young minority women (16-23 years of age), half of the participants changed their sexual identities more than once during the two-year survey period. In another study of subjects who were recruited from organizations that serve lesbian/gay/bisexual youths (ages 14 to 21 years) in New York City, the percentage that changed from a lesbian/gay/bisexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation was 5% over the period of just 12 months (the length of the survey). Other studies have confirmed that sexual orientation is not fixed in all individuals, but can change over time, especially in women. A recent example of an orientation change occurred with The Advocate's "Person of the Year" for 2005. Kerry Pacer was the youngest gay advocate, chosen for her initiation of a "gay-straight alliance" at White County High School in Cleveland, Georgia. However, four years later, she is raising her one year old daughter, along with the baby's father. Obviously, for at least some individuals, being gay or straight is something they can choose.

It always amazes me when people say that they were born gay. Looking back on my own experience, I would never say that I was "born straight." I really didn't have any interest in females until about the seventh grade. Before that time, they weren't really interesting, since they weren't interested in sports or riding bikes or anything else I liked to do.”

Rosario M., E.W. Schrimshaw, J. Hunter, and L. Braun. 2006. Sexual identity development among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths: consistency and change over time. J Sex Res. 43: 46-58. Kinnish, K.K., Strassberg, D.S., Turner, C.W., 2005. Sex differences in the flexibility of sexual orientation: a multidimensional retrospective assessment. Archives of Sexual Behavior 34, 173–183. Whoops! Lesbian 'Person of the Year' in Gay Press Goes Straight With Baby by Tim Graham.

http://americansfortruth.com/news/latino-youth-que...

http://www.lifeandlibertyministries.com/archives/0...


Alex 6 years ago

Kaie, James responses are clear, I mostly understand every point he says, and hopefully you can see from my posts that I do read them properly and respond that I disagree, and he has posted that he disagrees with me.

Anyway, to answer your questions, I am mentally sane. And James had this quote which I was responding to, so I hope you respond to him in kind as well:

James: "Your desperation is showing. You won't acknowledge that every sociological study EVER done shows that the most healthy children, mentally and physically; the most productive, law-abiding citizens WHO THEN tend to create more of the same, are those who have been reared with their biological mother and father in the home?"

I have corrected him multiple times here, of course, saying that these study the effect of these parents against step-parent families and adoptive families, and so the accurate assessment would be to say it's important to have biological two-parents, not that the genders matter (when they haven't been studied specifically).

Anyway, the studies have been cited by others here. Golden gurl quoted this study earlier:

"In a similar way, studies indicate that “children residing in households with adults unrelated to them were 8 times more likely to die of maltreatment than children in households with 2 biological parents. Risk of maltreatment death was elevated for children residing with step, foster, or adoptive parents.” (Michael Stiffman, et al., “Household Composition and Risk of Fatal Child Maltreatment,” Pediatrics, 109, 2002, pp.615-621)."

So you should probably be focusing on the MANY OTHER PEOPLE here who are claiming that biological parenting is best, and that all others are flawed and perhaps should not be allowed to have children. I have done no such claim, and in fact do love parents who adopt, as some studies show that lesbian's adopted children fare better than the average child of heterosexual parents (likely due to adoption happening of course when parents are ready, and procreation does not always.

Your statement to me seems like you misunderstood me to be saying that all adopted children are fundamentally flawed, and/or are never better than biological children. Of course, I have never said this nor do I believe it.

I note that the value found in family lies not in blood relations, as many here try to say, but that family lies in bonds made between the individuals. It lies in the love and care you offer for each other. One of my friends in particular, adopted by lesbians, is an amazing mother with a great loving Christian family.

It is mostly all of the other people who have been syaing in multiple posts that you would have done better off with your biological parents, although they mean that statistically. It is my belief that this is not true, and that there's a reason plenty of people aren't with their biological family and it is a good one.

Perhaps you would be better off truly reading the things that I say, and that others have said. Thanks for your comment!

---

Could somebody tell me why everyone keeps putting my name in quotations? Golden Girl, Kaie, and spiderpam multiple times? I am not sure what that is supposed to mean, but I feel it is supposed to be offensive and I wish that people could address me without that.


Alex 6 years ago

"Yes, adultery and sodomy are both legal now, but both should be frowned upon by society, not celebrated."

Adultery is frowned upon. Sex is neither frowned upon nor celebrated, whether anal sex or vaginal sex, nor should it be.

"No good comes from homosexual behaviors whatsoever—only disease and death."

More accurately, you should say "No good comes from sexual behaviors for pleasure whatsoever - only disease and death." Of course that ignores the reason people have sex is for pleasure and intimacy with their partner. And yes, all sex does carry risks, but people know that and still find it unbelievably fun. You are free to say that any sex that doesn't produce children is of no good, and only brings disease and death, but good luck convincing people that sexual behaviors should stop.

Being gay is not the cause of rampand disease and early death, nor is being straight - promiscuous sex and risky behaviors, regardless of orientation, is.

"It was only a hundred years ago that psychologists pushed for it to be reclassified from a felony to a mental illness. Their notes indicate they thought they were doing y'all a big favor."

Could you provide a citation for this claim?

"Yes, the truths of science are subject to change, which is precisely why the eternal truths of God are a much more reliable guide to human affairs."

More accurately, you should say scientific models are subject to change, not "truths." It is true that the Bible is mostly consistent and will be much more reliable to not change, but I prefer a society that learns and grows and builds things like computers and medicine and the like. You can feel free to be Amish and shun science, I have no problem with that belief.

"But you are mistaken that homosexuality was removed because of science. In fact no new expert testimony or new scientific evidence was cited at all when the APA caved in to threats of personal violence."

Could you cite details of the proceedings that happened when the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental illness? Could you provide statements from people there of how the decision to reclassify it went?

"This may well be, but on the other side of that same coin, most of the studies you have cited have a decidedly pro-homosexual behaviors slant."

The studies themselves do, because that's where the facts lie. But thanks for agreeing with me about these organizations, spiderpam thinks to think these organizations are infallible just because they agree with her.

"Homosexual behaviors are defined as sin..."

And I most certainly do not encourage homosexual behaviors, nor promote it. Have I ever said that people should go out and have homosexual sex? Or heterosexual sex? Have I said that people who are straight should try being gay? No, I have done nothing of the sort.

No person ever who is abused or who has promiscuous sex is a good role models for adopted children, nor would I EVER say otherwise. But there are plenty of people gay and straight who are not victims of abuse and who do not have promiscuous sex who can and are good role models for all children.


Alex 6 years ago

No two things can be equated, spiderpam, but they can be compared. Anyway, heterosexuality and homosexuality ARE both sexual orientations, while pedophilia and other paraphilias or not.

As far as you just saying all studies that don't show what you want are only "studies" and they attempt to "debunk the truth" shows your bias, and is completely wrong, even you say that homosexuals must be behind all of these and they all lie. It's not just a fraud because you say it is. If you get to know actual homosexual people you start to see their human side, but I guess if you ever did see that you'd think it was another of their lies, eh?

You cannot show why the APA is not credible by citing NARTH, which is definitely known to be a non-credible source with only one anti-gay goal. Also, Golden Girl did not mention the APA or show that they are not credible, and James did not show that they are not credible either but just stated that they removed homosexuality as a mental disorder when it was brought to their attention.

Sex isn't a mental health issue, and anyone gay or straight who engages in risky sex should know the dangers of it, as all types of sex have some inherent risk to them.

And yes, it is common especially among LGBT youth to experience mental health problems from trying to deal with their sexual orientaiton, which is why struggling with their feelings, not relationships, leads LGBT youth to be at a much higher risk for suicide. So we need to help these individuals, support them and show they are loved. Studies have shown that parental acceptance leads to much lower problems in GLBT youth. You can't just tell someone to not feel attracted to who they are attracted to, and it'll all be better. It gets worse. Which is why we always need to look out for how we can help individuals, and that does include both gay and straight individuals who struggle. (Ryan (2009), Family Rejection as a Predictor of Negative Health Outcomes in White and Latino Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Young Adults, Pediatrics)

Could you please cite how destructive behaviors and mental health issues have doubled or tripled, and how removing homosexuality from the DSM-IV is the cause? Please cite how the APA is ignoring these facts, and is doing so to appease them, and that their statements are faulty. I do not deny that the APA had the issue of homosexuality brought to them, but there is no evidence they lied when removing homosexuality as a mental disorder, is there? There's also no evidence it should have ever been one, given it doesn't follow patterns of mental illness nor treatment methods, is there?

You are free to religious beliefs but they are unfounded in a discussion of research and science.

How is the Australian study bogus? Which of the researchers who conducted the study were homosexual? How is the data flawed? Who has attempted this study again and has not found the results they did? How is it that this article was in Biological Psychiatry wasn't peer reviewed? Please CITE specifically instead of just claiming this. This study is just as conclusive about a possible link between the two as the gene linked to left-handedness. None of your questions show it's not linked to transgenderism, as you seem to say, but your questions are great areas for further research.

Can you cite that the original definition was changed in the 1990-1995? Can you cite the original definition (not possible to refute without a citation, is it?) But you apparently do recognize that according to these current definitions, paraphilia and sexual orientation is different, and heterosexuality and homosexuality are sexual orientations, and those other things are paraphilias.

Also, this is the first you are mentioning of this word, perihelia, which is defined by Merriam Webster as "the point in the path of a celestial body (as a planet) that is nearest to the sun." Where is your definition of perihelia from? Also, why did you add "as homosexuality" to it, in a deliberate lie? I can see almost that exact phrasing everywhere on the web without homosexuality in it, could you cite where you got your definition?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/periheli...


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

Kaie Arwen— I am well pleased to welcome your presence yo these hallowed environs. We have been having quite a conversation here. Thank you for your outstanding contributions to our understanding. It is always stimulating to see you. :D


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

kimh039— This one is getting up around 500 comments, that that's a long one alright. I hope your weekend was great. Mine has been just fine as I have been writing my book. :D


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

SirDent— Amen Brother! Now you're talking. Thank you for bearing witness to the truth.


Kaie Arwen profile image

Kaie Arwen 6 years ago

James- I don't remember how long ago you published this, but hey........... it's back on the "hot seat," oops.......... I mean list! ;-)

For you, I have no comments, except to say that the barrage of comments above have been well handled, and your responses are pretty clear even if "Alex" chooses to either not read them through properly or just doesn't comprehend what you seem to have been repeating over and over again. I get the message..........

I have two comments to make, and they are of course for Alex. First, the following comment; "I see no reason why marriage should exclude relatives of legal age, so long as they do not knowingly cause potential harm to an individual child by procreating."

To this I will simply say, "ARE YOU CRAZY?"

Secondly, this comment, " Oh James, I absolutely agree that children raised by biological parents tend to do better off then adopted parents, I acknowledge that with no desperation."

I don't see where James made this statement; I only see yours. As an adoptive child, I will tell you point blank that you are wrong. Two of my best friends are adopted, my brother is adopted, I have met my biological brother, also adopted. I would like to see you make that comment at a dinner table with all of us present............... I can guarantee that you would quickly lose your appetite. To make a comment like that shows your complete ignorance of the value found in family. But even better, maybe I'd like you to have dinner with all of our parents instead; I believe I'd like to be a fly on the wall when you hit my Dad with that comment............. sadly, he's no longer here to respond, but let me tell you this............... my dad raised me; my mother raised me; my brother is my brother. What you've done here, in one simple comment as I will not even address any of the others is to attempt to say that I would have been better of with my biological parents; you know, the ones who didn't want the responsibility, or the controversy; it matters not. What they did was the best thing in the world for me............ better off? I HAD THE BEST, and I could fill a room with people who would tell you the same thing. If given the opportunity, I would have only one thing to say to the people who lent me their DNA, and that would be thank you. You sir, would be "better off" truly reading the things that people are trying to convey here.

Me, there's nothing further I can say that hasn't already been said................ Kaie


kimh039 profile image

kimh039 6 years ago

I was wondering where you've been James! Now I see you've been busy. This has to be the longest hub in hub history! I hope you're enjoying the 4th of July. Best regards.


SirDent 6 years ago

Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge

G1062

??????

gamos

Thayer Definition:

1) a wedding or marriage festival, a wedding banquet, a wedding feast

2) marriage, matrimony

Part of Speech: noun masculine

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: of uncertain affinity

Citing in TDNT: 1:648, 111

Definition of marriage according to Websters, 1812: Marriage

MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb 13

1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.

The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Mat 22.

2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev 19.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

spiderpam— You're welcome. Yes, you are so right that the homosexual movement playbook stresses never talk about what they actually DO but to divert attention to American-sounding ideas like "rights" and freedom and pride and justice and liberty and fairness and inclusiveness and tolerance. This has been an incredibly skillfully played hand and if they had stopped where it was wise for them to stop they already had enormous gains. Now they have far overreached and their most recent gains will be reversed. If man will not stop it, God will.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

spiderpam— I surely agree with your posts about loving those who are caught up in homosexual behaviors, just as we do those caught up in alcoholism or crack pipes. To justify their behavior is the opposite of love. It is to not care enough about them that leads some to simply abandon them to a life of sin, suffering and early death. I know love when I see it, and that ain't it.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

spiderpam— Thank you for that excellent link. I am familiar with some of the brilliant work of Satinover. I had not heard of NARTH before you came along but I have enjoyed many of their readings over these past few days.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

Thanks James we have to show exactly what homosexual and homosexual advocates are trying to force the government to promote.

"Homosexual advocates have consistently succeeded in framing the homosexual debate to avoid any possible discussion of homosexual behavior--their Achilles heel."

"Notice that homosexual activists cleverly avoid the real issue. When speaking of homosexuality, they always talk about rights rather than acts. They know they won’t win if they describe the acts that they want us to endorse through government-backed same-sex marriage. Since a majority of Americans find such acts unnatural, immoral, and repulsive, homosexual activists hide the real truth about what they do behind the word “rights” because no one can be against that. This language manipulation extends to other terms they use (such as “gay” and “pride”) and is a common propaganda technique used by radical abortion rights proponents as well. It’s too difficult to advocate child dismemberment, so partial-birth abortion advocates talk about “choice.” We should ask the manipulators the following: “A right to choose what?” and “A right to do what?” They won’t call it what it is because the naked truth would hurt their case with most Americans."


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

spiderpam— I appreciate the devastating truths you brought to this page. In particular, this is revolting:

"Homosexuals with lie about everything to promote their perversion"

That is an absolute fact.

'Behavior, “Around 99% of homosexual males engage in oral sex; 91% engage in anal sex; 82% ENGAGED IN "RIMMING", touching the anus of one's partner with one's tongue and inserting the tongue into the anus;22% engage in "fisting", inserting one's fist into the rectum of the partner; 23% engage in "golden showers", urinating on each other; 4% engage in "scat", the eating of feces, and in "mud rolling", rolling on the floor where feces have been deposited. “The evidence shows the homosexual lifestyle to be rightly described as "lethal". The medical consequences are so devastating that the average actively practicing homosexual person loses from 30% to 40% of his/her lifespan, typically not living beyond 50 in a culture where we average well into our 70's”'

This is a sick subculture, to be sure.

"Since removing homosexuality from the mental disorder list these destructive behaviors and mental health issues have not only increased but they have doubled and in some cases tripled based on the facts stated earlier. Which proves the APA is NOT credible because they IGNORE these startling facts in order to appease the homosexual bully. The fact that you deny that homosexual bullied the APA to the point of submission proves you have NO interest in truth."

Amen and AMEN!


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

Alex— You wrote:

"I most certainly do not encourage sin, nor promote it. Accepting who you are, and seeking monogamous relationships is not sin."

Homosexual behaviors are defined as sin by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—in other words by all monotheistic religions worldwide.

The lifetime prevalence for two or more psychiatric disorders for men who engaged in homosexual behaviors was 37.85 percent versus 14.4 percent for men who did not engage in homosexual behaviors. For women engaging in homosexual behaviors, the rate for two or more psychiatric disorders was 39.5 percent versus 21.3 percent for women not engaging in homosexual behaviors (Sandfort, et al., 2001). Society's oppression of homosexual people is a hypothesis unlikely to find support in this study, concluded the Netherlands, which is perhaps one of the most gay-affirming and tolerant countries in the world.

Shrier and Johnson (1988) found that homosexually assaulted males identified themselves as subsequently homosexual seven times more often as the nonassaulted control group. In half of the molestations, physical force was used. The mean age at which the molestation was reported was 18.2 with a range from 15 to 24. The mean age at the time of the molestation was from four to six with mean age of 10. Of the extension group, "one half of the victims currently identified themselves as homosexual and often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences" (p. 1192).

Additional data on molestation was found in a recent study by Tomeo, Templer, Anderson, and Kotler (2001). The researchers used a non-clinical sample of 942 adults to compare rates of childhood molestation between heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. The researchers found that 46% of the gay men and 22% of the lesbians reported homosexual molestation in childhood. In the compared heterosexual group, the homosexual child molestation rates were 7% of the heterosexual men as compared to 1% of the heterosexual women. The researchers noted that this was the first study to report substantial homosexual molestation of girls. The girls had a mean age of 13 at the time of the same sex abuse and the group of abused boys had a mean age of 11. This study was particularly important because the population was not dissatisfied homosexual men and women. Ninety-seven percent of those surveyed were participating in a gay pride celebration at the time they were interviewed. What was particularly intriguing about this study was that 68% of the men and 38% of the women did not identify as homosexual until after the molestation.

Not good role models for adopted children, sir.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

SirDent— You have made many great points. To NAMBLA, age is just a number. Civil and criminal law are based on moral law which is based on Judaism and Christianity in America. See Blackstone.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

Alex— You wrote:

"Scientific organizations to always re-evaluate when analyzing evidence, but they succumbed to facts in the end when removing homosexuality."

Yes, the truths of science are subject to change, which is precisely why the eternal truths of God are a much more reliable guide to human affairs. But you are mistaken that homosexuality was removed because of science. In fact no new expert testimony or new scientific evidence was cited at all when the APA caved in to threats of personal violence.

"The organizations you cite do not have the facts, because they are uncredible, most founded directly with anti-homosexuality goals"

This may well be, but on the other side of that same coin, most of the studies you have cited have a decidedly pro-homosexual behaviors slant.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

SirDent— You are so right, my friend. These words are so plain that the only defense is to sneer at Christianity. Not much of a defense when one considers there are a billion Christians in the world and growing, who have a right to their beliefs every much as does RuPaul. And it is not about religion, per se. It is about God the Creator and his ordinations for human life. This can be poo-pooed by deviants—always has been. But we can't let the tail wag the dog.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

Cont. reply to alex got cut off:

"As for parenting “That “study” performed by homosexuals and a prescreened sample of 20 homosexual couples not hardly enough to conclude homosexuals are better parents. There are hundreds of more reliable scientific studies, that reinforce the long held truth that mom/dad are BEST. The research shows traditional marriage is a foundational institution for the good of society because it is BEST for children. We need to work to restore traditional marriage for our children, all of whom have the right to the loving marriage of the man and woman who brought them into the world. There are totally insufficient sociological data on the comparative effects of homosexuals unions on children's development; all the studies used by homosexuals are from small and thus possibly biased samples. An honest debate on the effect of homosexual unions on children requires samples of national size To formulate radically new policy in the absence of such data is unwise.”

You flat ignored the amazing similarities between is homosexuals and pedophiles in getting their agenda passed. From changing definitions to desensitize the public to playing victim to changing laws. You completely ignored 2/3 of the last post if I were you I would have too.

Homosexuality IS a perihelia and a mental illness and is non beneficial, unnecessary and harmful, just like pedophilia and all the others. There, that’s more accurate.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

James I'm amazed at your willingness to endure our friend "alex".

I'm really not responding to alex, per say, but I'm really tired of the homosexual agenda and am amazed how many people buy into it without checking the facts. Frank Turek said it best “We’ve forgotten as a society what love is, because supporting and justifying homosexuality is not real love any more than glorifying drinking helps the alcoholic or celebrating smoking helps wipe out lung cancer . . . The most loving stance for others to take is not to serve as enablers of self-destructive and immoral compulsions, but to stand in patient but firm opposition. ”David Kupelian writes this well in his book, The Marketing of Evil:

Why don’t we stand in patient but firm opposition? Because it’s much easier to uncritically accept the half-truths put out by homosexual activists, and then have what seems to be compassion for them by giving them what they want. But that’s not real compassion. Jay Budziszewski observes that real “compassion ought to make us visit the prisoner, dry out the alcoholic, help the pregnant girl prepare for the baby, and encourage the young homosexual to live chastely. But how much easier it is to forget the prisoner; give the drunk a drink, send the girl to the abortionist, and tell the kid to just give in. False compassion is a great deal less work than true.”

Stay strong James and Thank you for your words of encouragement.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

Here's another scientific article of

How the Mental Health Associations Misrepresent Science

http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover....

Enjoy!


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

spiderpam— Strong arguments again! You are the best. Thank you so much. By the way, this was great:

"Homosexuals, pedophiles and ALL other paraphilias are based on feelings not facts and deviated for the what society and humankind was based on. The only difference is homosexuals are more aggressive and forced their destructive perversion on everyone. Pedophilia is not far behind

Let’s see pedophiles believe that they are born that way just like homosexuals do.

Pedophiles are now fighting to get pedophilia removed completely from the disorder list just like homosexuals did.

According to pedophiles they believe it is in fact a sexual orientation. These people actually see children as the object of their lust. Just like homosexuals see people of the same sex as an object of lust. If a homosexual is born a homosexual, a pedophile is born a pedophile."


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

Alex— You wrote:

"I do agree there's no gay gene, or genes, that if they are active make 100% gay. Wow, that was easy. I do notice that there are genetic influences that do seem to affect sexual orientation, but these are not determinant themselves."

I agree with this statement.

"I do know historically that people thought homosexuality was a paraphilia or mental illness, I agreed"

Actually, historically people thought sodomy a crime that should be severely punished, up to execution. It was only a hundred years ago that psychologists pushed for it to be reclassified from a felony to a mental illness. Their notes indicate they thought they were doing y'all a big favor. As in, we'll keep you from the gallows by saying you were insane.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

spiderpam— Once again, a tremendous riposte by you. I especially liked these words you wrote:

“The term sexual orientation covers more than 20 types of orientation many of which are classified by the APA as a mental disorder. Now that I’ve made that clear.

Since no scientific, medical, or biological evidence exists showing that homosexuality is either inborn or unchangeable, no one can authenticate that he or she is homosexual--it is only declared. In their declaration, such persons can lay claim only to being a practitioner of sodomy in one or more of its many forms--oral and anal sex, anilingus, multiple partners, "fisting", cross-dressing, bestiality, and other bizarre sexual expressions. Accordingly, any claim that those who engage in sodomy are entitled to minority status has no more legal merit than that of persons engaged in such similarly aberrant sexual behaviors as adultery, incest, or polygamy.”


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

Alex— Yea, but eyeglasses and music are immense goods for everybody. No good comes from homosexual behaviors whatsoever—only disease and death. These things cannot be equated by a sane person. Not in any way.

People are born with red hair, they are not born with homosexual tendencies. These cannot be equated. Being lefthanded is not the cause of rampant disease and early death—nor is it offensive to anyone, nor is it an abomination to God. Being lefthanded cannot be equated with homosexual behaviors. Nice try, though. I guess.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

spiderpam— Well said!! Marriage is indeed the foundation civilization. It should not be experimented with. It is far too important. Your comments are always excellent. Thank you for making them here.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

Alex— Yes, adultery and sodomy are both legal now, but both should be frowned upon by society, not celebrated.

I am sorry but I couldn't check out the YouTubes as I have no sound on my computer.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

You CANNOT equate homosexuality with heterosexuality! Everyone on earth benefits from God ordained nature or heterosexual if you will. These same benefits cannot be said for homosexuality, pedophilia and all other distortions or perihelias. 1 man and 1 woman that's how we began that is the ideal. Traditional marriage is BEST for children and everything else is a distortion. Those “studies” that attempt to debunk this truth are biased and show they homosexuals with lie about everything to promote their perversion. The pious fraud is used to divert attention from one’s own flawed statement and to point the opponent alleged falsehood you avoids admitting fault you’ve committed this repeatedly.

Of Course I, James Golden Gurl and others I’m sure have show why the APA is not credible when it comes to homosexuality.

You forget or are unaware why homosexuality was first diagnosed as a mental illness. Because of the behaviors and mental health issues associated with the homosexual which cannot be match by any heterosexual ie the norm.

Behavior, “Around 99% of homosexual males engage in oral sex; 91% engage in anal sex; 82% ENGAGED IN "RIMMING", touching the anus of one's partner with one's tongue and inserting the tongue into the anus;22% engage in "fisting", inserting one's fist into the rectum of the partner; 23% engage in "golden showers", urinating on each other; 4% engage in "scat", the eating of feces, and in "mud rolling", rolling on the floor where feces have been deposited. “The evidence shows the homosexual lifestyle to be rightly described as "lethal". The medical consequences are so devastating that the average actively practicing homosexual person loses from 30% to 40% of his/her lifespan, typically not living beyond 50 in a culture where we average well into our 70's” Type ‘homosexual’ along with any of the behaviors above into the Google search engine. These practices are widespread.

http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/gaystudy.ht...

And the mental health issues “Historical and current research provides significant concerns about the mental health, physical health and longevity of homosexual individuals, as well as stability of homosexual relationships. The mental health data is alarming. Herrel, Goldberg, True, Ramakrishnan, Lyons, Eisen (1999) concluded, "same-gender sexual orientation is significantly associated with each of the suicidality measures . . . the substantial increased lifetime risk of suicidal behaviors in homosexual men is unlikely to be due to substance abuse or other psychiatric co-morbidity" (p. 867). Fergusson, Horwood, and Beautrais (1999) concluded,

Gay, lesbian and bisexual young people were at increased risks of major depression . . . generalized anxiety disorder . . . conduct disorder . . . nicotine dependence . . . multiple disorders . . . suicidal ideation . . . suicide attempts. (p. 876)” Thanks James

“The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973, despite substantial protest (see Socarides, 1995). The A.P.A. was strongly motivated by the desire to reduce the effects of social oppression. However, one effect of the A.P.A.'s action was to add psychiatric authority to gay activists' insistence that homosexuals as a group are as healthy as heterosexuals. This has discouraged publication of research that suggests there may, in fact, be psychiatric problems associated with homosexuality”

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

Since removing homosexuality from the mental disorder list these destructive behaviors and mental health issues have not only increased but they have doubled and in some cases tripled based on the facts stated earlier. Which proves the APA is NOT credible because they IGNORE these startling facts in order to appease the homosexual bully. The fact that you deny that homosexual bullied the APA to the point of submission proves you have NO interest in truth.

You mentioned polygamy and incest in the beginning that was a necessity, period. Homosexuality is NEVER a necessity absolutely NEVER, it’s like all other perihelias is a deviation that is SOLELY which based only own ones feelings. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/who-w...

Plus when the earth became full enough God commanded polygamy and incest to cease as it was no longer necessary. One way or the other you need 1 male and 1 female. You simply refuse to acknowledge basic anatomy and the reproductive process. Something that homosexuals can NEVER accomplish without artificial means that why homosexuality is NOT natural and has no benefits(unless you are a homosexual which leads us back to feelings) . Before you back to your animal do it nonsense, please read the scientific peer reviewed article and the subject.

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

“Also the Australian researchers who have isolated a gene with influence on transgender”

Not the BOGUS Australia “study” again. We been through this. See this is why I repeat-- you’re dishonest. This study was conducted by homosexuals and homosexual advocates and cannot has not been repeated and has not been peer reviewed. It’s just another half truth put out as absolute fact.

From the article “In the largest genetic study involving transsexuals to date, researchers in Australia said they found that transexuality MAY be linked to the androgen receptor (AR) gene - which is known to modify the effect of the male sex hormone testosterone."

Such a statement is quite a backtrack from the conclusiveness of the headline, and the reason for the backtracking becomes clearer when the data collected in the study is examined.

"The longer AR gene was found in 55.4 percent of people in the transsexual group and 47.6 percent of the non-transsexual men, they wrote in an article published in Biological Psychiatry."

Taking a good look at these percentages, one has to do a doubletake when reading the headline again. This data provokes several questions.

Is the "transsexual gene" dominant or recessive? Why is there only 7.8% difference in the number of transsexuals vs. non-transsexuals who have this gene? How come 44.6 percent of transsexuals do not have the transsexual gene? If the headline of this story would be remotely accurate, I would expect 100 percent of the transsexual group to have the gene, or at least in the high 90s.

The biggest question of all, why even publish a study that is as inconclusive as this one? Why would you even reference it? Again we see homosexual advocates taking small and very inconclusive study and propagating it as absolute fact.

http://christianskepticism.blogspot.com/2008/10/sk...

Thank you providing a link to the definitions did you look at the date? This “definition was changed in 1990–95. 30 plus years after homosexuality was forced off the mental disorder list. And guess who demanded the change…the homosexual bully squad. Thanks for NOT refuting its original definition.

Perihelia- a type of mental disorder characterized by a preference for or obsession with unusual sexual practices, as homosexuality, pedophilia, sadomasochism, or exhibitionism.

When they removed homosexuality from the list the definitions changed, it took 30+ years because over half of the psychologist believed it was still a mental disorder and many still do.

As for parenting “That “study” performed by homosexuals and a prescreened sample of 20 homosexual couples not hardly enough to conclude homosexuals are better parents. There are hundreds of more reliable scientific studies, that reinforce the long held truth that mom/dad are BEST. The research shows traditional marriage is a foundational institution for the good of society because it is BEST for children. We need to work to restore traditional marriage for our children, all of whom have the right to the loving marriage of the man and woman who brought them into the world. There are totally insufficient sociological data on the comparative effects of homosexuals unions on children's development; all the studies used by homosexuals are from sm


Alex 6 years ago

"I wonder if pedophilia is also considered sexual orientation as is Homosexuality. Would they not be the same in that sense?"

And heterosexuality, right? Because heterosexuality is most definitely a sexual orientation.

Perhaps to you pedophilia is like heterosexuality and homosexuality, but according to accepted definitions pedophilia is a paraphilia, not a sexual orientation, as many have an adult sexual orientation and also the pedophilia paraphilia.


Alex 6 years ago

I most certainly do not encourage sin, nor promote it. Accepting who you are, and seeking monogamous relationships is not sin.

I'm sure the plan in the book has been followed, just like it has very similarly been followed for blacks, interracial couples, and women. Visibility is generally how civil rights movements work. Except these two people do not show by fact that the entire equality movement is based in lies, they just claim it.

"You are completely wrong about parenting. Homosexuals have no business raising children—especially through adoption."

Your opinion has been noted.

"There is no fact that has been established by social science literature more convincingly than the following: all variables considered, children are best served when reared in a home with a married mother and father."

With regards to comparing two parent, single parent male and female led households, and step-parent families, true. But studies go further, that state that homosexual couples as parents do nearly as good, and in some metrics oft better, than heterosexual parents. Children learn about relationships through modeling of their parents, and gay and straight committed families have a great model for marriage. Different styles of parenting do not mean parents who don't follow thier gender typical parenting style harm thier kids.

I know that people stereotypically have different parenting styles, but more importantly EVERYONE does. And gay people are stereotypically unlike others, having many manneurisms and thinking patterns that cross from their biological The evidence does clearly indicate that the absence of the father in a single mother family is detrimental.

---

"All behavior is by choice."

I have been talking about sexual orientation, attraction, not having sex. As I have said multiple times, yes, sex is a choice be it heterosexual, homosexual, same race, or opposite race. Sexual attraction has absolutely no evidence that it's anything by choice.

---

We should not encourage homosexual or heterosexual behaviors, we should encourage commitment and monogamy and building relationships. People who have parenting ability have business rearing children, just because someone loves a male instead of a female doesn't make them incapable. Studies of homosexual parents are often flawed since they compare children who went through a divorce to get to a homosexuality with intact heterosexual families. Some studies when comparing like heterosexual to like homosexual families have not found severe negative differences, and some have. Latter-Day Saint Williams of the 2000 critique you quoted is not published in a medical journal. He states that not only is all current research unreliable, but says that a lack of research finding effects on children is due to ethical constraints on social scientific research, but does not claim what ethics nor how it could impede research. But his essay isn't about research, he goes into conversations about court cases, which should be irrelevant to research.

And what study by Lewis is he mentioning? I assume Lewis, K. (1992). Children of lesbians: Their point of view. As the study even says, "Interviews with 21 children of lesbians in greater Boston area, ranging in age from 9 to 26, identified several major issues. Problems experienced involved parents' divorce and disclosure of mother's homosexuality. Problems between mother and children were secondary to the issue of children's respect for difficult step she had taken." We KNOW the negative effects divorce can have, to attribute them to homosexuality in parents would be flawed.

As for the other things, they mention mental health of adults, not specifically of youth or of the adults who take on youth.


SirDent 6 years ago

I wonder if pedophilia is also considered sexual orientation as is Homosexuality. Would they not be the same in that sense?

Of course the answer has to be yes. Then grown men could marry underage girls with the girl's parent's permission. Is it a sick idea? Yes it is.

Can morals be legislated?


Alex 6 years ago

"I copied nothing I"

Spiderpam, I mean you copied part of a post when you said the APA lists these 20 things as sexual orientations. Search "According to the therapeutic manual of the American Psychiatric Association..." and you'll see Golden Gurl's original post citing this exact thing 9 days ago, and then you saying it 3 times, all really copied from Robert Knight of fundamentalist Christain group "Converned Women for America" but not actually citing APA. What fraud have I committed?

Scientific organizations to always re-evaluate when analyzing evidence, but they succumbed to facts in the end when removing homosexuality. Thanks for not showing anything about who says they have no credibility, just that you don't want them to have credibility. The organizations you cite do not have the facts, because they are uncredible, most founded directly with anti-homosexuality goals.

"Where? The human genome project found no such factors."

They haven't isolated any specific genetics, but found from the fact that MZ twins have a higher concordance rate than DZ twins, the only thing they share more than the other is genetics. Just like genetics also explains why male homosexuals' female relatives have increased fertility and more children than average, and why it seems to run in families. Also the Australian researchers who have isolated a gene with influence on transgenderism.

"Says who?"

The defitions, not American Psychological Association, I don't know what they say. Gender identity is what gender you feel you are and identify with, and sexual orientation is who you are attracted to. Transgender people for instance can be attracted to men or women. They are separate definitions. Here's Dictionary.com:

gender identity: a person's inner sense of being male or female, usually developed during early childhood as a result of parental rearing practices and societal influences and strengthened during puberty by hormonal changes.

sexual orientation: one's natural preference in sexual partners; predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gender+iden...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexual+orie...

I haven't said sexual orientation is completely genetic, so no blinders needed there.

Homosexuality is not a paraphilia, homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations. It is true that heterosexuality, homosexuality, and paraphilias are all based on feelings and sexual arousal in the brain, but to say that feelings preclude things from fact is quite false. Homosexuals and heterosexuals aren't made up.

I am completely lost about why you say I'm wrong about pedophiles, I don't think I've made comments about them. When did you correct me? Could you quote specifically what I said that was wrong?


SirDent 6 years ago

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

__________________________________________________

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

__________________________________________________

In the Words of Jesus Himself, man is to cling to his wife, not his husband. Jesus did not mince words nor beat around the bush. He said it in a straightforward manner.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

SirDent— Yes! You are right, sir. God doesn't change his mind about what is an abomination. Homosexual behaviors are hated by God.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

spiderpam— Thank you for your kind words directed my way. I totally approve of your posts. I love the truth and you are providing it in spades. Those who live in the darkness hate having the light shown on their darkness.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

Alex— You wrote:

"we should give preference to committed relationships, regardless of their sexual orientation. We should certainly give preference to this stability of relationships that help perpetuate society and are a great basis for raising children!"

We should not encourage homosexual behaviors, and people who practice these behaviors have no business rearing children. children of lesbian parents were significantly more likely to have both considered and actually engaged in homosexual relationships. Likewise, Williams (2000) noted that Lewis found social and emotional difficulties in the lives of children of homosexual parents. A significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in homosexual behavior (six of 25) when compared with those raised heterosexual mothers (none of the 20). The "best interest of the child" test is often the most important guideline in the agency, and adoptive parents had to demonstrate that they were physically healthy, emotionally stable and had sufficient longevity to rear a child to adulthood. Historical and current research provides significant concerns about the mental health, physical health and longevity of homosexual individuals, as well as stability of homosexual relationships. The mental health data is alarming. Herrel, Goldberg, True, Ramakrishnan, Lyons, Eisen (1999) concluded, "same-gender sexual orientation is significantly associated with each of the suicidality measures . . . the substantial increased lifetime risk of suicidal behaviors in homosexual men is unlikely to be due to substance abuse or other psychiatric co-morbidity" (p. 867). Fergusson, Horwood, and Beautrais (1999) concluded,

Gay, lesbian and bisexual young people were at increased risks of major depression . . . generalized anxiety disorder . . . conduct disorder . . . nicotine dependence . . . multiple disorders . . . suicidal ideation . . . suicide attempts. (p. 876)


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

Alex— You wrote:

"there's absolutely no evidence that it's anything by choice"

All behavior is by choice. If you pick your nose right now it is because you have chosen to do so. You act like people just can't help themselves; they have to fudgepack.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago Author

Alex— You wrote:

"I never encourage sin"

You most certainly do. Every post you have made on this page is to promote sin.

I am surprised you claim to have never heard of the book I mentioned. The plan in the book has obviously been followed to the T. And its authors admit their entire movement is based on lies. You should not want to follow any movement that has its basis in lies.

You are completely wrong about parenting. Homosexuals have no business raising children—especially through adoption. There is no fact that has been established by social science literature more convincingly than the following: all variables considered, children are best served when reared in a home with a married mother and father. David Popenoe (1996). Children learn about male-female relationships through the modeling of their parents. Parental relationships provide children with a model of marriage--the most meaningful relationship that the vast majority of individuals will have during their lifetimes. (Greenberger, 1984). Complementarity is readily observable in differing parenting styles of mothers and fathers. Not only are fathers' styles highly complementary to the styles of mothers, but research indicates that the fathers' involvement in the lives of children is essential for optimal child-rearing. For example, complementarity is provided by mothers who are flexible, warm and sympathetic, and fathers who are more directive, predictable and consistent. Rossi's research (1987) noted that mothers are better able to read an infant's facial expressions, handle with tactile gentleness, and soothe with the use of voice (p. 113). Fathers tend to emphasize overt play more than caretaking.

Male and female differences emerge in ways in which infants are held and the differential ways in which mothers and fathers use touch with their children. Clarke-Stewart (1980) reported differences in mothers' and fathers' play. Mothers tend to play more at the child's level. Mothers provide an opportunity to direct the play, to be in charge, to proceed at the child's pace. Fathers' play resembles a teacher-student relationship--apprenticeship of sorts. Fathers' play is more rough-and-tumble. In fact, the lack of this rough-and-tumble play emerges disproportionately in the backgrounds of boys who experience gender disorders.The disciplinary approaches of fathers tend toward firmness, relying on rules and principles. The approaches of mothers tend toward more responsiveness, involving more bargaining, more adjustment toward the child's mood and context, and is more often based on an intuitive understanding of the child's needs and emotions of the moment. Gilligan (1982) concluded that the differences between paternal and maternal approaches to discipline are rooted in the fundamental differences between men and women in their moral senses. Men stress justice, fairness and duty based on rules, while women stress understanding, sympathy, care and helping based on relationships.

The critical contributions of mothers to the healthy development of children have been long recognized. No reputable psychological theory or empirical study that denies the critical importance of mothers in the normal development of children could be found. Recent research validates the importance of fathers in the parenting process, as well. Studies such as that conducted by Pruett (1987) concluded that six-month old infants whose fathers actively played with them had higher scores on the Bailey Test of Mental and Motor Development. Parke (1981) noted that infants whose fathers spent more time with them were more socially responsive and better able to withstand stressful situations than infants relatively deprived of substantial interaction with their fathers. A second female cannot provide fathering. In fact, McLanahan and Sandefur (1994) found that children living with a mother and grandmother fared worse as teenagers than did those adolescents living with just a single parent. Biller (1993) concluded that men who were father-deprived in life were more likely to engage in rigid, over compensatory, masculine, aggressive behaviors later. His research, based on more than 1,000 separate sources, demonstrated repeatedly the positive effect of fathers on children.

Pruett (1993) summarized the highly acclaimed work of Erik Erikson, one of the most esteemed developmental psychologists in the world, who noted that mothers and fathers love differently. A fathers' love is characterized by instrumentality and more expectancies, whereas a mother's love is more nurturing, expressive, and integrative. Mothers care for their young. Fathers baby sit. Mothers nurture. Fathers negotiate. Fathers focus on extra-familial relationships, social skills and developing friendships. Adolescents who have affectionate relationships with their fathers have better social skills, exude more confidence, and are more secure in their own competencies. When there is a father present in the home, there are lower instances of adolescent sexual involvement.

What are the consequences when fathers are not present? Alfred Masser, a psychiatrist at Northside Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, noted that more and more children who seek psychiatric help are suffering from father-hunger (1989). Blankenhorn (1995) concluded that father-hunger is the primary cause of the declining well-being of children in our society and is associated with social problems such as teenage pregnancy, child abuse, and domestic violence against women.

Based on extensive research spanning decades, the importance of mothers to the healthy development of children is irrefutable. Recent research has provided clear and compelling evidence of the importance of fathers to the healthy development of children. The evidence is equally convincing regarding the consequences of father absence and the relationship, not only to the severe difficulties in the lives of children, but the societal costs, as well.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

I copied nothing I used and cited the same source, which you claim you already read through. You’ve committed another pious fraud.

"You can't possibly."

Of course I do the APA has flip flopped and succumbed to bullying and pressure from rabid homosexuals that's why that have no credibility, The organizations I cited states the facts even when they are unpopular.

“notice that there are genetic influences that do seem to affect sexual orientation, but these are not determinant themselves.”

Where? The human genome project found no such factors.

“Gender identity and sexual orientation are separate issues”

Says who? You and the “reputable” APA HA! They are just trying to confuse the world both are feelings and are subjective, changeable unreliable. Unfortunately it’s much easier to uncritically accept the half-truths put out by homosexual activists. I don’t allow your spin.

“If homosexual orientation were completely genetic, one would expect that it would not change over the course of one's life. For females, sexual preference does seem to change over time. A 5-year study of lesbians found that over a quarter of these women relinquished their lesbian/bisexual identities during this period: half reclaimed heterosexual identities and half gave up all identity labels. In a survey of young minority women (16-23 years of age), half of the participants changed their sexual identities more than once during the two-year survey period. In another study of subjects who were recruited from organizations that serve lesbian/gay/bisexual youths (ages 14 to 21 years) in New York City, the percentage that changed from a lesbian/gay/bisexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation was 5% over the period of just 12 months (the length of the survey). Other studies have confirmed that sexual orientation is not fixed in all individuals, but can change over time, especially in women. A recent example of an orientation change occurred with The Advocate's "Person of the Year" for 2005. Kerry Pacer was the youngest gay advocate, chosen for her initiation of a "gay-straight alliance" at White County High School in Cleveland, Georgia. However, four years later, she is raising her one year old daughter, along with the baby's father. Obviously, for at least some individuals, being gay or straight is something they can choose.”

Keep the blinder on alex see what you want to see.

“Paraphilias are very different from…”

Homosexuals, pedophiles and ALL other paraphilias are based on feelings not facts and deviated for the what society and humankind was based on. The only difference is homosexuals are more aggressive and forced their destructive perversion on everyone. Pedophilia is not far behind

Let’s see pedophiles believe that they are born that way just like homosexuals do.

Pedophiles are now fighting to get pedophilia removed completely from the disorder list just like homosexuals did.

According to pedophiles they believe it is in fact a sexual orientation. These people actually see children as the object of their lust. Just like homosexuals see people of the same sex as an object of lust. If a homosexual is born a homosexual, a pedophile is born a pedophile. Homosexual claim this when comparing themselves to heterosexuals. It is their orientation and there is no successful therapy to alter that orientation. Says homosexuals and pedophiles. So don’t lump yourself up with hetros you are better categorized with pedophiles there are many more similarities.

Classifying it as a "sexual orientation" serves to remove a stigma and normalize the behavior. "I can't help it, I was born this way!" The same argument we hear from homosexuals. There is no research or system of therapy offering a cure. Homosexual claim the there nothing wrong with them and there is no “cure” despite ex homosexual testimony.

All evidence from pedophiles and pedophile advocates does suggest it is in fact pedophile is a sexual orientation and it is not going to change. Just like homosexual and homosexual advocates claim. Homosexual claim ‘One homosexual always homosexual” Pedophiles claims “Once a pedophile, always a pedophile.” Those are the statistical facts. See you’re wrong. Now that I’ve corrected you can drop the word games.

‘During the late 1950s to early 1990s, several pedophile membership organizations advocated age of consent reform to lower or abolish age of consent laws, and for the acceptance of pedophilia as a sexual orientation rather than a psychological disorder,”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/technology/21ped...

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/SexualO...

See pedophiles are playing the same words games homosexual did.

http://pedophileophobia.com/what_is_a_pedophile.ht...

Sources: Seligman, M. (1993). What you can change and what you can't, page 235. New York: Fawcett Columbine. ^ a b Jenkins, Philip (2006). Decade of Nightmares: The End of the Sixties and the Making of Eighties America. Oxford University Press. p. 120. ISBN 0-19-517866-1. ^ Spiegel, Josef (2003). Sexual Abuse of Males: The Sam Model of Theory and Practice. Routledge. pp. 5, p9. ISBN 1-56032-403-1. ^ "The Case for Abolishing the Age of Consent Laws," an editorial from NAMBLA News (1980), reproduced in We Are Everywhere: A Historical Sourcebook of Gay and Lesbian Politics. Ed. by Mark Blasius and Shane Phelan. London: Routledge, 1997. pgs. 459-67.

YUCK! EWWW! GROSS! I need a shower after this exchange. GEEZ


Alex 6 years ago

"Again I stated REPEATEDLY the APA has little or no credibility when it comes to homosexuality, even in the scientific community agrees because they based their “findings” on feelings not facts you've ignored every article from peer reviewed journals."

So then why did you bring up that the Amercian Psychiatric Association said these were all sexual orientations? (Or I should ask why you copied and pasted Golden Girl's post).

Do you believe the organizations you have been citing have more credibility than the Amercian Psychiatric Association or the Amercian Psychological Association? You can't possibly.

Could you please cite how the scientific community in general things that the APA has no credibility, and not just quote people from other organizations who are actually the ones with no credibility? Could you cite how they based their findings about sexual orientation on feelings and not facts?

You say I ignored articles from peer reviewed journals, but I don't believe I have. Was there any specific thing supported by studies in peer reviewed articles you don't believe I understand?

"Why don’t agree with APA when they admitted that there is no gay gene(s)."

I do agree there's no gay gene, or genes, that if they are active make 100% gay. Wow, that was easy. I do notice that there are genetic influences that do seem to affect sexual orientation, but these are not determinant themselves.

Gender identity and sexual orientation are separate issues.

"They’re both desires you trying to play a word shell game. I got you."

Paraphilias are very different from sexual orientation of heterosexuality or homoesxuality. I was just trying to get you to admit that, and it seems this is as close as I get, mostly acknowledging that these are separate. It appears you won't admit you were wrong when you said sexual orientation though. Hopefully now I have corrected you to know the difference between sexual orientation and paraphilias.

I do know historically that people thought homosexuality was a paraphilia or mental illness, I agreed. Why are you restating that? Transgender isn't a sexual orientation, it doesn't fit in the definition of sexual orientation.

The term paraphilia, NOT sexual orientation, covers more than 20 types of attractions many of which are classified by the APA as a mental disorder. Do not confuse the two words.

"Since no scientific, medical, or biological evidence exists showing that homosexuality is either inborn or unchangeable, no one can authenticate that he or she is homosexual--it is only declared."

These seem to be different statements that don't really relate. If homosexuality is inborn or not, changeable or not, that doesn't really indicate whether or not people can authenticate their sexual orientation. Mostly we trust people's sexual orientation, but there are ways of observing people's biological reactions to determine their sexual orientation - such as reaction to sex pheromones in which gay men react the same as women, penile arousal during pornography, patterns of brain activation during visually evoked sexual arousal, etc.

In these tests, you do not have to participate in any sexual activity to determine which gender(s) is the object of your sexual attraction, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

How does homosexuality fall under my definition of mental disorder?

People choosing to sin (which is a religious concept and not a scientific one) does not explain why some people have sexual attraction to people of the same sex, and some to people of the opposite sex, and what causes this difference. The reasons behind why people choose sex is varied, and that definitely comes to a choice, but it's not a choice to choose sexual orientation.

It is quite false that people have ever said homosexuals cannot help their behavior, as EVERYONE can help their behavior. Homosexuals cannot help their orientation.

If all your posts are just going to accuse me of weasel wording and double talking without explaining what specifically that is or what specifically I should reword better, then you won't help me meet your expectations. I'm not sure how I can be more clear.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

Again I stated repeatedly the APA has little or no credibility when it comes to homosexuality, even in the scientific community agrees because they based their “findings” on feelings not facts you've ignored every article from peer reviewed journals. APA is not credible on this issue you only use them because you believe it supports your cause, but it just shows your lack of actual science.

Why don’t agree with APA when they admitted that there is no gay gene(s). "For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a "gender-identity" problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following:

"There is NO consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the POSSIBLE genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by ANY particular factor or factors.”

That contrasts with the APA's statement in 1998: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

Again we see the flip flop of the APA, the same way we see now with pedophilia. The APA more recent statement is an important admission because it undermines a popular propagated hypothesis.

"PLEASE cite where the APA defines paraphilias as sexual orientations."

They’re both abnormal desires you keep trying to play a word shell game. I got you.

I did repeatedly if you looked at ALL my links and scientific peer reviewed journals. I showed that homosexuality was once classified as a paraphilia them was changed to orientation and I showed that pedophilia and transgendened are still on the paraphilias list and pedophilia is not up up review just like homosexuality and transgender(even though is still considered a paraphilia) is now classified as an orientation LGBT. You're committing the pious fraud and presenting a false compromise. I told you earlier I know you’re game that why you’re losing.

I repeat: ALL So homosexuality biological inborn hypothesis is inclusive at best or a propagated lie at worst, I’ll go with the latter.

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

“The term sexual orientation covers more than 20 types of orientation many of which are classified by the APA as a mental disorder. Now that I’ve made that clear.

Since no scientific, medical, or biological evidence exists showing that homosexuality is either inborn or unchangeable, no one can authenticate that he or she is homosexual--it is only declared. In their declaration, such persons can lay claim only to being a practitioner of sodomy in one or more of its many forms--oral and anal sex, anilingus, multiple partners, "fisting", cross-dressing, bestiality, and other bizarre sexual expressions. Accordingly, any claim that those who engage in sodomy are entitled to minority status has no more legal merit than that of persons engaged in such similarly aberrant sexual behaviors as adultery, incest, or polygamy.”

Homosexuality falls under your definition of mental disorder.

“I have cited and even spiderpam has cited the studies that show influence of biology or genetics”

Did I? No I cited the studies and reveal the numerous flaws the results are inconclusive at best and how homosexuals use the lie to propagates the bigger lie.

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html

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

"People need to understand that the 'gay gene' theory has been one of the biggest propaganda boons of the homosexual movement over the last 10 [or] 15 years," he points out. "Studies show that if people think that people are born homosexual they're much less likely to resist the gay agenda."

The reason scientist have not found a single factor for homosexuality is because they continue to look in the wrong places. They start with the assumption that there must an external factor which causes people to desire homosexual sex, so they have looked at pre-birth factors, genetics, hormones, environmental factors and the like. But the simple answer is that people choose to sin. The reasons behind those choices are varied, but it comes down to a choice.

One of the consequences of the push for an external cause to homosexuality is that people accepted the lie that homosexuality cannot be "unchoosen" or rejected. For quite a while people have been told that homosexuals cannot help their behavior. Thus, we have a generation of young people who have become convinced they must be homosexual because they faced temptation involving homosexual desire. They fear what they will become and fear what might be the consequences. The realization that they have a choice is freeing. "But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness"

You mention “child molesting is illegal….” Sodomy was illegal too.

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

Keep it up “Alex” your grasping at straws with your weasel- wording, denial, double talking and desperate lies. it’s quite entertaining, but more sad.


Alex 6 years ago

"Oh yes, they are. Heterosexuality is grounded in nature, ordained by God, rooted in biology, and necessary for mankind to carry on. Homosexual sex is a deviation, a perversion, unnatural, unnecessary, unwholesome, vicious, a sin, abnormal, and the cause of a host of illnesses, violence, and premature death."

These are subjective measures of good and bad. If something is grounded in nature, does that make it good? No (and homosexuality occurs in nature). You are free to your religion. If something is rooted in biology, such as disease, does that make it good? Heterosexuality isn't necessary for mankind to carry on, reproduction is. If something is a deviation from the norm, like red hair, does that make it wrong? Perversion simply means different from the norm too, does that make it wrong? Homosexuality definitely is found in nature, but are things not found in nature like eye glasses wrong? If something is unnecessary, like music, does that make it wrong? Homosexuality or hetersexuality can be wholesome, or can not be. Heterosexuality and homosexual can be vicious, or can not be. If something is statistically abnormal, like being left-handed, does that make it wrong? If something is the host of illnesses, like all sex, does that make it wrong? Heterosexuality is also a cause of violence and premature death, that doens't make it wrong.

"Absolutely none. Another bald-faced lie."

I have cited and even spiderpam has cited the studies that show influence of biology or genetics.


Alex 6 years ago

I said please spiderpam, if you don't want to adhere to commonly accepted standards of debate and spam everything and not directly cite things, and for whatever reason obscuring the truth, so be it. I got you.

Spiderpam, I see you did not acknowledge my question about citing that from the APA. I have to therefore conclude that you were lying before, and I've yet to see you admit that you were either wrong or lying, which you said you'd admit.

Thanks for your citation on the difference between sex and gender, though I am unsure if you had a point when discussing that. You talk about sex being immutable, but we are talking about sexual orientation. I agree that no feelings should be granted special protection, whether these are feelings of attraction to the same sex, opposite sex, same race or opposite race. I have been advocating for equal protection for all, not special protection for some.

Again, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say about your dump of the text of these studies, except for isn't it interesting the influence that biology or genetics may have as indicated by these studies, when twins have a higher concordance rate than the general population? There have been many studies out there about this, and while many are subject to some flaws, there is plenty of evidence of biology or genetics having influence, while no evidence strictly given of anything else being the one cause, or yet have their been studies on what else may have an influence.

I am aware that homosexuality was once considered a mental illness, until it was removed citing there was not enough evidence to classify it as a mental illness. I am grateful to gay activists who realized there was nothing wrong with them, and got the APA to review the evidence for their position.

The APA defines a mental disorder as "a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress or disability or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom." - http://www.minddisorders.com/Del-Fi/Diagnosis.html

Whether or not pedophilia would be considered a mental disorder, child molestation would still be a crime. Just as anger is not generally a mental disorder, a crime committed in anger is still a crime. I look forward to the day we learn much more about pedophilia, as we would be able to help pedophiles very much.

I didn't ask you if listing paraphilias is correct, I asked if the APA listed these as sexual orientations, and they did not. Homosexuality is not a mental illness according to most groups of professionals. It does not manifest like one, treat like one, or anything else. Mental illnesses are generally not cured as you think this one is cured, by reading the Gospel.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

"Marriage is much more than the private relationship of two people in a marriage. Marriage is a social institution that provides society with the very foundation of civilization—the procreating family unit. There would be no stability for children and, therefore, no community without marriage. In fact, marriage is the oldest and most basic of the three foundational institutions of Western civilization (the other two are government and the church). It is the most basic of the three because without children there would be no need for a government or a church, and no government or church can parent like a mom and a dad.

The benefits of natural marriage cannot be overstated. It benefits the married couple, their children, our economy, and the nation as a whole. In fact, natural marriage serves as a kind of national immune system. When our marriages are strong, our nation is strong and our social problems are few. When our marriages are weak, so is our nation."

http://www.allaboutlove.org/natural-marriage.htm

What really is going on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93SOETZhDoA


Alex 6 years ago

Sexual orientations do not need nor should be promoted or encouraged, but natural relationships regardless of sexual orientation, why shouldn't they be sanctioned? Adultery is not consentual between all parties involved, and yet it is legal. These aren't encouraged, or promoted, are they, but they are legally sanctioned.

I have NEVER said just because someone has an urge, it should not be discouraged, have I? Please cite where I said this, or apologize James. As for "homosexual lifestyle" it is not gay people who have promoted that phrase, where do you get that? Please cite sources.

I don't know why you keep relating things to unconsentual acts.

"Not specifically homosexual sex?! Then pray tell why do so-called gay men admit to having seventy times the sexual partners of straight men? How do you explain that?"

Because they're having sex with men, first off, and men have a much higher sex drive. Many straight men just as many gay men seek out plenty of sexual partners, and we see that men are more willing than women. It's also that there isn't as much pressure on gay people to find a partner, settle down and be monogamous as there is when it comes to straight people.

The fundamental nature of marriage is the commitment, not the people in it. It's been around for millennia, and the people in it have always changed, and the people outside of it have always changed, where polygamy has gone in and out, incest has gone in and out, gay couples have existed and gone in and out, though admittedly all of these were fairly rare.

Ask people what marriage means to them, and you'll get an idea about the fundamental nature of marriage. Listen to a marriage proposal and you'll get an idea about the fundamental nature of marriage. Here's some testimonies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GvAGfXh2kw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7mWp9qKWsw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpKBRssat5w

I guess you don't think the committment and the relationship is the important part of marriage. In which case, I am sorry for you. But in any case, no other people getting married will change the fundamental nature of anyone else's marriage.


SirDent 6 years ago

Something that was an abomination to God thousands of years ago is still an abomination to Him still today. He has never changed.

Temptation comes to everyone and Jesus was even tempted as we are tempted.


    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article

    Menu

    Resources