Homosexuality is an anomaly

[M.Dancer]

I was not curious as to gays in history, I know there are many. What I'm talking about is gays being accepted in cultures historically. Now the problem in objectively studying this is the recent attempt to rewrite history. All sorts of historical figures have been outed on the weakest evidence possible. There was even an attempt to say that Alexander the great was gay, like thousands of years after the fact they can actually PROVE it.

Well, as far as Alex goes, I think the writing of contemporaries might lead people to that conclusion...you know...the stuff that was written about him prefering the company of his young catamite over all others....

But the real difficulty of finding what you ask is that the concept of being exclusively homosexual is modern. Even in recent times, men and woman who had gay sex would almost always be married folk. Gay sex was something you did, it may be tollerated or reviled, but it wasn't talkied about much. for that matter, up until recently, neither was straight sex. Take Oscar Wilde....a happily married father, buggerer of young men....George Sand...transvestite, mother.....

In Classical times the sophisticated Athenian would always have a respectable wife and endeavor to raise good children.....but at the symposium where wine would flow freely, if the sophisticated athenians wanted some rough play with the boys, no one would say otherwise....

http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/wp-con...greekorgy-1.jpg

The point being, except for the modern era, the gays amonst us hadpressing social obligations like wives and children....but what they did in the off hours......as is today, is no ones business but their own

[sharkman]

Er I am not sure if the word "pull" is appropriate. You might get reported. I actually met KD once. She had like 20 women fighting to be with her. I don't get it. This was awhile back. She was thinner then but mind you still looked like Elvis Presley without the sideburns. I said to her "man you vegetarians are popular" and she said " yep you gotta know what to eat ".

Let's just leave it at that cuz I don't want to be reported but its a true story.

Well uh, hmm, how nice for you. I'm afraid I have no such straight stories to regale you with, you cheeky monkey!

[Kapitän Rotbart]

I again repeat there are absolutely no statistics that have stated the above. This is a complete fabrication by yourself.

I was using a mid-point between the numbers you found and the ones I found. I was saying "roughly" for the purpose of my point, precision doesn't matter too much in this case; +/-5%.

"I never said that gays are pedophiles.... A pedophile may prefer those of the opposite sex, but if they have same-sex relations, they have had homosexual relations and are therefore a homoseuxal"

Read the above that is exactly what you continue to state.

Please learn the diagramme if you haven't, and if you had, please read it again! Here's the link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram

Firstly, what you've mentioned in your response of sexual relations with a child being neither straight nor gay is totally absurd, because pedophilia is not a sexual orientation; it's a disorder.

Back to the Venn diagramme. Get your colored pencils and a sheet of paper if you need a visual. Lets say you have cirle A: those practicing heterosexual relations. Cirlce B: those practicing homosexual relations. Circle C: those having sexual relations with minors. Those practicing abstinence stand outside the three circles (say in area G).

Most people are in and only in Circle A. Circles A and B have a very small overlap (bisexuals). No one can be in circle C yet neither pertaining to circle A nor circle B.

To say that gays are pedophiles is to suggest that most in circle B are also in circle C. That is not at all what I stated. Circle C is much smaller than circles A and B. In fact, even if everyone in circle C were also in circle B (if all pedophiles were gay), they would still be a very small minority within circle B. I'm fully aware that a majority of those in circle C are in circle A and not in circle B. However, due to circle B's small size, there is a higher proportion of pedophiles in group B than in group A. Please understand this thouroughly before you acuse me of saying that gays are pedophiles. The only reason I mentioned this is because you stated earlier that gays are not pedophiles, and I'll agree that most aren't, yet a higher proportion of those falling in group B are also in group C than those in group A.

"Someone is guilty of their acts until forgiven. It only takes once... if one commits theft once, they are a thief. If one participates in homosexual relations once, they are homosexual (or bi-sexual)."

The above represents your personal religious views which you are imposing non gay people and establishes clearly you are morally judging them and discriminating against them and use your religious views as the pretext for such behaviour.

" A homosexual is someone who has sexual relations with someone of the same sex. The definition I have from WordWeb is "Someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex". No mention of age in that definition"

The above is typical of what you have done in this debate. Simply look for what you want to see. Now you called me absurd, who is being absurd? Of course the definition for homo-sexual does not comment on age. Go read the definitions for hetero-sexual or bi-sexual and show me where it says age either!

Moral judgment? Nonsense. How many times does someone have to commit theft before they are a thief? It only takes once for someone guilty of theft to be caught and identified by the law as a thief. This has nothing to do with religion. You tell me, how many people do I have to kill to be a murderer?! How many walls must I spray-paint to be a vandal? You tell me.

No age for hetero- nor bi-sexual relations? Red herring. I'm aware of this, it doesn't change anything. If a man has sex with a girl, he's sexually active. If that man has sex with a boy, he's homosexual or bisexual. Same deal if that man has sexual relations with an adult of the same/opposite sex; however having sex with a child makes him a pedophile, aswell as sexually active (and in the case of man-boy, gay aswell).

What I specifically advised you and you have deliberately ignored and continue to refuse to acknowledge is that having sex with someone of the same gender who is a child is NOT homo-sexual behaviour. You think it is because in your definition if the sex of the child is the same the pedophile becomes a homo-sexual. You are wrong. You have been explained why the medical community does not define homo-sexuality as having sex with children but you persist in using this prejudice and incorrect slur against gays.

I repeat again, a man who has sex with a girl or a man who has sex with a boy is NEITHER straight or gay and you are using the terms incorrectly precisely because you feel being gay is evil and is the same as peophilia otherwise you wouldn't keep using the terms interchangeably.

For those of us who do not engage in Christianity to preach about gays being evil, we use the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, edition IV.

Under this diagnostic manual it is pedophilia is clearly defined and it makes clear that engaging in sex with children is pedophilia it does NOT refer to it as homo-sexuality nor does anyone who does not have your prejudice use the term homo-sexual or hetero-sexual to define the sexual activity of pedophiles.

Pedophilia may not be typical homosexual behavior, (fancy that, most gays are not pedophiles!) however a case of man-boy is a case of homosexuality.

I do not preach that gays are evil. In fact, I'm sure gays are overall law-abiding citizens (unless they are active homosexuals in countries where the practice is forbiden). I believe that extra-marital relations are immoral and mariage can only be shared between man and woman. I'm glad there are objective people like you who would disagree. That's why I propose the desecularization of marriage, that way the church I belong to can marry whoever they like without pressure from the liberals (and if I disagree with my church, I can simply leave, whereas simply choosing to not pay taxes to a gov't I disagree with isn't so easy), and gays can freely consider themselves married or not by their definition if they please. If my gov't doesn't have an opinion and lets people marry on "their own terms", it's best for all of us.

"These Christian groups are giving an objective look at some data. There was no "hate" (to my knowledge) in the source I quoted. Quoting numbers presented by a certain group in itself is not un-"Christian like"."

The hate is blatant and no different then yours. Don't come on this forum and tell me you are a Christian and then in the same breath define gays as sinful and not expect me to say anything. You are using your

interpretation of Christianity to define gays as sinful and that is hateful.

The hate?! I don't hate gays, nor do the people who wrote that page hate 'em. Westboro Baptist Church hates gays, and they base their beliefs on Calvinism, believing that people are born a certain way. Hey, that's essentially what you believe, isn't it?

Gays are sinners and so am I. We commit different sins though (well, not necessarily in the case of inactive homosexuals who practice no sexual immorality because they do not participate in extra-marital sex).

"I'll admit that I am Christian, but you are using a personal attack (refering to religion) by your nonsensical comment. "

I never attacked you personally but I sure as hell atack you when you use Christianity to define gays as sinful or when you make such idiotic comments that if someone engages in one same sex act they are sinful and a homo-sexual.

"I pray for whoever I please, and if I pray for a homosexual, I make the same prayer I make for straight people; that God's will be done."

Oh isn't that Christian of you! You pray to God that the sinful gays will be saved! Talk about someone who hides behind their religion to couch their hatred!!!!!You think because you pray to God that makes you unhateful? The fact that you believe it is your right to morally judge people as sinful and classiy them as such make syou hateful only you think because you call yourself Catholic, its o.k.

I do not define gays as sinful. I define the practice of homosexuality a sin, amongst many other things. In terms of morality, all extra-marital relations are equal. In practice, homosexuality is something else, because it's an extra "point of no return" in one's life. Those practicing heterosexual extramarital relations are just as wrong, but it would be less of a challenge for them to later practice sexual relations within marriage than for those who have known the homosexual relations (going by the definition of marriage that it be between man and woman... gays can consider themselves married if they want, but I still have the freedom to not recognize such a marriage, and every institution should also have the freedom to choose whether they recognize it aswell).

I pray to God that the sinful gays be saved?! Where in the world did you find that? Did I say that was my prayer? I don't know God's intentions with certainty, and human intentions only get in the way with God's plans. I'd rather keep my prayers without the intervention of my intentions in case my intentions are wrong. I will assume that God knows better than all of us what's best for each of us. I don't hide behind religion, I'd prefer with keep this discussion secular. Even if I weren't Christian, I still would have quoted the same source, because they provide an objective perspective on the topic, and it is written professionally (hate-free that is).

" I just said that there is an existing correlation (as weak as it may be, gays are still more likely to be pedophiles than straights)."

You din't just say. You continue to repeat pedophiles are gays after being shown the statistics, and given reference to the studies and after being told to go to the psychiatic manual classification and get the terms straight. (excuse the pun)

I appreciate the pun. I never stated that pedophiles are gays. I am fully aware that most pedophiles only do man-girl relations, but due to the fact that the GBLT is very small to begin with, there is a higher proportion of pedophiles who have man-boy relations in the GBLT than those having man-girl relations in the straight group (see my earlier explanation in this reply using the Venn diagramme).

"My point for this thread is that homosexuality is not normal"

And my point is who do you think you are defining what is or is not normal? That is your personal opinion only. How would you like it if I stated Catholics are abnormal and I pray every night that all of you are saved and forgiven for your sins? Get real.

Please pray for our salvation. Every prayer helps. IMHO, if you pray with bad intentions, you're only wasting your time.

Is everything relative to you?! Is there anything absolute? The absence of absolute truth is an absolute truth in itself. A certain "norm" must exist. By the way, I post my opinions, so stating "that's your personal opinion" is absurd because if it weren't my opinion, I wouldn't state it (I might refer to it, but I wouldn't include it as my own statemeny). Please don't use the typical liberal response of "that's your opinion". I've heard it only too often and it doesn't mean anything because I clearly wouldn't make a statement I believed were false.

Face it, humans were created in a certain way. People go through puberty, opening their eyes to the possibility of having a relationship open to fertility. Any distortion in this process is abnormal.

It is completely normal to have homoerotic fantasies, but such fantasies do not make someone gay; it's only if they act upon these fantasies resulting in homosexual relations.

I think what has happened is this debate has evolved to another level and one where you are simply stating personal, subjective, remarks that have nothing to do with pedophiles and gays and everything to do with your need to refer to homo-sexual behaviour and pedophile behaviour as being the same.

I will say it one last time. A man who has sex with a child of the same sex is NOT a homo-sexual and your use of the word homo-sexual is ignorant. The fact that his victim of the same sex doesn't make it homo-sexual it makes it same sex. If you want to blur the definition to suit your prejudice then that is absolutely no different then me saying all Catholics are evil and engage in hatred against gays because you do.

I hope it's the last time you say it, because it's absurd. No sexual relations can be neither homosexual nor heterosexual. Pedophilia not a sexual orientation (nor is beastiality).

You are making an accusation. I do not hate gays and I never said I did. If you please, let's keep this thread secular. You seem to be losing it over religion, which should be saved for another post.

If you feel I am personally attacking you think again. I could care less who you are, what you think and who and what you pray to and for. However I most certainly challenge anyone coming on these posts engaing in the gays are pedophiles stereotype, denying he said it, saying it again, then hiding behind his religion to make it sound all nice and brotherly.

Its no wonder the Catholic Church can't deal with its homo-sexual priests and then its pedophile priests if you are any indication of the confusion its followers are under.

I couldn't care less who you are aswell, however you ridicule my comments with nonsense. I ask you to please be concise, because your posts are much too long and say too little.

Please quote where I litteraly state that gays are pedophiles. I've never heard of this stereotype before you mentioned it on this post, all I knew was to prove that there is a higher proportion of those involved in male-male relations (of any age) who are pedophiles than those involved in male-female relations (of any age). Even your numbers prove this.

I'll use an example with numbers to make this more obvious (using hypothetical, feasible numbers so don't argue the accuracy). Let country Lummerland have a population of 100 000.

Say 10 000 are GBLT. The remaining 90 000 are straight.

Say Lummerland has 4 pedophiles.

1 pedophile molests boys (he may molest girls aswell, this is irrelevant). The remaining 3 only molest girls.

3 of 90 000 is 0.000033333%. 1 of 10 000 is 0.0001%. The latter is a higher proportions, however small it may be. That was my point.

[Black Dog]

People go through puberty, opening their eyes to the possibility of having a relationship open to fertility. Any distortion in this process is abnormal.

Just to be clear: do you consider any non-procreative sex act to be abnormal?

[JerrySeinfeld]

People go through puberty, opening their eyes to the possibility of having a relationship open to fertility. Any distortion in this process is abnormal.

Just to be clear: do you consider any non-procreative sex act to be abnormal?

I don't. hey if ya like it in the bum - more power to ya!

[Drea]

People go through puberty, opening their eyes to the possibility of having a relationship open to fertility. Any distortion in this process is abnormal.

This is funny!

Yessiree -- my teenage niece was just ITCHIN' to have a baby (so was her boyfriend) so they had sex. And a baby.

Sheessh. They are not opening their eyes to the possibility of fertility -- it's the opportunity to get laid and have an orgasm.

Heck even old people and infertile people have sex -- imagine that, those abnormal folks.

I laugh! This quote sounds like an old lady I knew in the 70's "Well if she didn't want a baby she should not have had sex!"

Obviously people like this have lousy sex lives.

[Rue]

Kapitan in regards to your continued exercise of trying to take statistics to suggest gays are pedophgiles you have again completely missed the point and continue to use the statistics incorrectly. Nowhere in the stats I reported to you, nor in anything I said or reported to you, did it ever state that being a pedophile and being a homo-sexual is one and the same and so the statistics should be used interchangeably to suggest this.

You are using the statistics to call pedophiles who also engage in homo-sex with adults, homo-sexuals. A person who engages in sex with an adult and a child, a pedophile not a hetero-sexual or a homo-sexual-something you keep deliberately misrepresenting to further your agenda that being a homo-sexual and a pedophile are the same thing. They are not. They are two distinct categories of sexual behaviour.

A person who has sex with a child of ANY sex is not a homo-sexual or a hetero-sxual they are a pedophile. A homo-sexual only engages in sex with a consenting adult something you refuse to accept because of your religious and personal views that you continue to repeat in your responses.

Now you stated;

"Please don't use the typical liberal response of "that's your opinion". I've heard it only too often and it doesn't mean anything because I clearly wouldn't make a statement I believed were false."

Well Sir the point is every time you repeat the myth that a person who engages in same sex wth an adult and who also engages in same sex with a child is a homo-sexual when in fact they are a pedophile, is in fact a personal opinion NOT a clinical one. You have chosen to ignore clinical psychiatry and psychology and create your own definition based precisely on your personal belief that if you have sex with anyone of the same sex regardless of age, it makes you gay. That Sir is a personal opinion. It has no scientific merit. It is a subjective value you impose. Now then, you may believe you don't make false statements but that is precisely the point...this is not about what YOU believe-its about how clinical psychiatry and psychology and forensic psychiatry classify pedophilia as. Your statements as to what you believe are just that-personal opinions and that is precisely why I stated they were. Your comments about "typical liberal response" is about as meaningful as me calling your responses typical Christian homophobe responses.

Now you also stated;

"I've never heard of this stereotype (gays are pedophiles) before you mentioned it on this post, all I knew was to prove that there is a higher proportion of those involved in male-male relations (of any age) who are pedophiles than those involved in male-female relations (of any age). Even your numbers prove this."

As I stated so many times, my statistics never suggestedor proved gays were pedophiles. They did the exact opposite. Not only that I went out of my way to explain a person who engages in sex with a child, even if he engages in sex with an adult is still a pedophile and to say he is gay deliberately misrepresents the fact that he is a pedophile. Your Sir not I, then chose to misrepresent the definition of what a homo-sexual so you could then take statistics and misrepresent them. The statistics never said pedophiles are gay people. They said people who CLAIM to engage in same sex with adults also engage in same sex with children. It did not refer to their pedophilia as being homo-sexual. Only you did.

You also stated;

"Please quote where I litteraly state that gays are pedophiles."

Well I did. You stated and I quote; "I never said that gays are pedophiles.... A pedophile may prefer those of the opposite sex, but if they have same-sex relations, they have had homosexual relations and are therefore a homoseuxal".

You also stated in your last response and I quote; "No age for hetero- nor bi-sexual relations? Red herring. I'm aware of this, it doesn't change anything. If a man has sex with a girl, he's sexually active. If that man has sex with a boy, he's homosexual or bisexual."

You deliberately ignore the proper clinical definition of pedophilia which has everything to do with age and again make the slur that if a man engages in sex with a child of the same sex he is a homo-sexual. You also show vividly that you do not use the same misrepresentation with straights. I will say it again. You are wrong. You are stating your own personal opinions. An adult who engages in a sex with a child is a pedophile and the fact that they may have sex with an adult does not mean their pedophilia can be called hetero-sexual or homo-sexual to describe the sex chosen to molest. You are deliberately using the clinical definitions incorrectly to advocate your personal agenda which is being gay is a sin and being gay and being a pedophile are the same.

You stated; "I do not preach that gays are evil." Then in the very next sentence you stated, " Gays are sinners and so am I. " Sorry where I come from when we call someone sinful we are saying they are evil. If you want to try play semantics and suggest telling someone their being gay is a sin but you didn't say it was evil, play away. For those of us used to Christians, we know there is a habit of using the words "sin" and "evil" interchangeably and one as a softened or code word for the other. The moment you label being gay as a sin Sir, you judged, and you may as well have used the word evil, what is the difference? How is a sin not evil?

Now you want to talk about trying to dance your way out of what you said, let me quote you; "I do not define gays as sinful. I define the practice of homosexuality a sin," Your game is ludicrous. What you have stated is if a gay person obstains from having same sex then and only then they are not sinful. Don't play games. Your words are blatant-you are making it clear that you believe same sex practice is a sin. Stop with the games and have the courage to admit what you are saying. No you can't couch it. You are being called on it.

You then made yet another personal statement or opinion as to your views as to sexual relations when you stated;

"Face it, humans were created in a certain way. People go through puberty, opening their eyes to the possibility of having a relationship open to fertility. Any distortion in this process is abnormal."

With due respect Sir, no doctor, no psychologist, no one with modern education and training would say to an adult, you should only have sex to reproduce. That Sir, reflects your religious views which shape how you believe all humans should behave sexually and what you want imposed on others and what drives you to refer to gays as pedophiles.

May I strongly suggest to you, that having sex simply to enjoy having sex, is not evil or a sin. Nor is it evil or a sin to engage in sex with someone of the same sex. The only time Sir, any of us should give a damn who has sex and with who, is when it is not between consenting adults, or is with a child or could spread disease. Other then that, your personal religious views are just that.

No healthy human being represses their sexual desire and hates themself for having one and no Sir not all of us f..ck to reproduce. An orgasm Sir, is a phenomena many humans like to have. It doesn't make them sinful or unGodly.

Again I conclude by stating this - if your religion and moral values teach you to judge others as sinful and to slur people who do not engage in pedophilia with such practices, well then all I can say is in my personal opinion you are doing yourself and others an injustice.

I hope people reading these posts have seen how someone like you will take their religious views to ignore modern behavioural science and justify judging others in a negative manner and in a manner which suggests they are engaging in criminal behaviour when they are not.

Pedophilia Sir is a crime. Being a healthy homo-sexual who has sex with a consenting adult is not. To suggest the two are the same criminalizes homo-sexuality and you know what-enough with your prejudices and slurs. Its precisely this mentality that led to the burning of witches, the genocide of aboriginals and Jews and this practice of forefully imposing your religion on others in the name of "saving them". Enough. Hasn't this caused enough hatred?

Do we need yet another person claiming to be Christian promulgating moral judgements on a group of people? More to the point Sir, do you think you can couch yourself as being tolerant while at the same time calling the people you claim you do not hate sinful and pedophiles?

Excuse me if I choke on your sanctimony. Its hard to swallow. (I apologize for those of you that think I am encouraging a gay sexual practice by my last comment)

[cybercoma]

Holy crap Rue, that was a homerun!

I'm afraid the response will result in faith before fact rearing its ugly head again, though.

[ft.niagara]

Holy crap Rue, that was a homerun!

I'm afraid the response will result in faith before fact rearing its ugly head again, though.

Robin, you can sit down now. Standup at the next clap sign.

[AMAI]

Great post, Rue!!!

Could there be another purpose to claiming that it's the behavior that's a sin, rather than the person who is a sinner? I think so. It's as if homosexuality could be equated to being a thief or a murderer, as if it were behavior that one could change if only one would accept the wrongness of it.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Just to be clear: do you consider any non-procreative sex act to be abnormal?

Depends on what we understand by "non-procreative" sex. Heterosexual relations are, in general, open to proceation. If infertility is not related to behavior, there is nothing abnormal about the behavior.

@AMAI:

It is indeed behavior that one could change if they accept its wrongness. One is not bound to practicing homosexual relations, even if they are only attracted to the same sex. I do not want to suggest that one sin could equate to another. I simply wanted to explain that most major religious institutions define homosexual and all extra-marital relations as sinful (which Rue somehow interprets as evil).

@Rue:

Please be concise! Please, next time do not exceed 1 000 words (including quoted text).

Well Sir the point is every time you repeat the myth that a person who engages in same sex wth an adult and who also engages in same sex with a child is a homo-sexual when in fact they are a pedophile, is in fact a personal opinion NOT a clinical one. You have chosen to ignore clinical psychiatry and psychology and create your own definition based precisely on your personal belief that if you have sex with anyone of the same sex regardless of age, it makes you gay. That Sir is a personal opinion. It has no scientific merit. It is a subjective value you impose. Now then, you may believe you don't make false statements but that is precisely the point...this is not about what YOU believe-its about how clinical psychiatry and psychology and forensic psychiatry classify pedophilia as. Your statements as to what you believe are just that-personal opinions and that is precisely why I stated they were. Your comments about "typical liberal response" is about as meaningful as me calling your responses typical Christian homophobe responses.

I was unaware of any myth about pedophiles=homosexuals. I do not claim that homosexuals are pedophiles or vice-versa, but I just wanted to point out that any reliable numbers you quote will show that there is a higher rate of pedophiles in the "male-kiss-male" category as the "male-kiss-(explusively)-female" category. The rate of pedophiles, even amongst those engaging in same-sex pedophilia is incredibly low and I would neve assume that a homosexual is a pedophile, I was simply pointing out that there is a higher rate in that group due to the fact that the homosexual population is insignificant, even in the gay capitals.

Please quote these clinical definitions. You yourself earlier stated that heterosexual relations are also not defined by age. My point is that sexual relations are not defined by age, meaning a man who has sex with a male, regardless of age, is either gay or bisexual. Please quote this "clinical definition" to prove me wrong (with a reliable source please).

Stating "well that's your opinion" is indeed a typical liberal response, no offense intended (find me a conservative who has stated that and I will take my comment back). However, I have never suggested that I fear gays (I fear pedophiles just as little; they don't attack us "grown-ups").

The statistics never said pedophiles are gay people. They said people who CLAIM to engage in same sex with adults also engage in same sex with children. It did not refer to their pedophilia as being homo-sexual. Only you did.

Those engaging in same sex relations with children also fall into the GBLT group. Why do you even care to fight this definition? Just because a man has sex with a woman doesn't mean he's any less part of the GBLT if he also has sex with boys.

By the way, the NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) never claimed (to my knowledge) adult-child relations were non-homosexual when manifested by an adult and child of the same sex.

You stated; "I do not preach that gays are evil." Then in the very next sentence you stated, " Gays are sinners and so am I. " Sorry where I come from when we call someone sinful we are saying they are evil. If you want to try play semantics and suggest telling someone their being gay is a sin but you didn't say it was evil, play away. For those of us used to Christians, we know there is a habit of using the words "sin" and "evil" interchangeably and one as a softened or code word for the other. The moment you label being gay as a sin Sir, you judged, and you may as well have used the word evil, what is the difference? How is a sin not evil?

I'm sorry about the misconceptions that came with your up-bringing. Because no person is perfect, we are all sinners. That does not mean that we are evil.

This probably explains the huge missunderstanding on this post. You missinterpret my statements are re-word them in completely inaccurate ways. Please do not re-word my statements.

Is a thief evil? Only God knows that thief's heart. Theft is still a sin. An active homosexual commits a sin, yet that doesn't make him evil.

Homosexuals are sinners, just like the rest of us. Those who abstain from homosexual relations, even if they are only attracted to those of the same sex, are not commiting any sin related to being a homosexual. I state again, being a homosexual is not a sin, but practicing homosexual relations is (so is all extra-marital relations). I do not know which homosexuals have an active homosexual sex-life, meaning I do not know who is commiting these sins, and I'd rather not know; other peoples' sex lives are none of my business nor interest and I do not judge people by sexual orientation; those of the GBLT may be more, less or even just as sinful as me and I have no interest in judging them.

You can feel free to start your own church and call whatever you like a sin, but unless you have an institution to back you, I don't need your opinion on what is and what is not a sin. If you don't pertain to any institution, why do you even care what a sin is?

Now you want to talk about trying to dance your way out of what you said, let me quote you; "I do not define gays as sinful. I define the practice of homosexuality a sin," Your game is ludicrous. What you have stated is if a gay person obstains from having same sex then and only then they are not sinful. Don't play games. Your words are blatant-you are making it clear that you believe same sex practice is a sin. Stop with the games and have the courage to admit what you are saying. No you can't couch it. You are being called on it.

I do believe that the practice of same sex relations is a sin, and so do most major religious institutions. One does not have to practice such relations, even if they are attracted to the same sex. I don't see how you see this as a game. If you don't pertain to a major religious institution, you are then only obliged to local laws. I'm sorry that you were raised to think that because sin is evil, sinners must be evil. Think of being a sinner as not being perfect and sins are what we commit when we act in an imperfect manner.

May I strongly suggest to you, that having sex simply to enjoy having sex, is not evil or a sin. Nor is it evil or a sin to engage in sex with someone of the same sex. The only time Sir, any of us should give a damn who has sex and with who, is when it is not between consenting adults, or is with a child or could spread disease. Other then that, your personal religious views are just that.

Sex is a beautiful thing, that's why it's morally practiced between a man and a woman married to eachother. Please do not confuse sin with evil. Don't get me wrong here, most people engaging in extra-marital sexual relations do not have the intention of harming eachother. These people may not be evil of nature, but they act upon their "imperfections".

Again you use "your personal [...] views". I wouldn't state it if I viewed it otherwise! You keep arguing that homosexual/extra-marital relations are not immoral, yet who are you to define morality? What book do you use to define morality? Why should I believe your opinion when I believe in what was writen long ago? If you must criticize my beliefs, yours make even less sense; claiming that such acts are not wrong and hoping that your socio-liberal friends will be in agreement with you.

A quick run-thru on the justification of my belief with regards to this post:

1. There is Absolute Truth. If there were no absolute truth, the abscence of absolute truth would be an absolute truth in itself, meaning there must be absolute truth.

2. The Bible Book (Holy Scriptures) is a good authority. See http://www.gracethrufaith.com/selah/the-bibles-authority and read it completely before arguing this statement.

3. Jesus said he is the way, the Truth and the light (John 14:6)

4. That would make Jesus a liar, a fool or the messiah.

5. Jesus had neither the characteristics of a liar nor of a fool, therefore we can conclude that he is the messiah.

6. The Bible book states that practicing homosexuality is a sin (in several passages including 1 Cor 6:9-10), read more at http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/contempry/hompbia1.htm

Do you have any reason for believing that homosexual/extra-marital relations are not a sin? Other than rape, sexual relations do not tend to have cruel intentions, and sex is not a bad thing, but rather a gift from God. God gave us rules. We all have the freedom to act as we like, but that does not change whether something is a sin or not. Nobody is forcing you to even believe that sin exists, but if you want to determine certain actions as sinful or non-sinful, you'll need an institution to back you because outside religious institutions, no one cares about the sins you commit (unless they are also related to local laws).

Again I conclude by stating this - if your religion and moral values teach you to judge others as sinful and to slur people who do not engage in pedophilia with such practices, well then all I can say is in my personal opinion you are doing yourself and others an injustice.

I don't judge others because I am not intersted in the personal lives of those who do not wish to share their lives with me. There's no point in me judging others, because it doesn't achieve anything. I leave judgement up to Jahovah, I let God sort 'em out. Unless someone pays me to work in court, there's no incentive for me to judge others.

Pedophilia Sir is a crime. Being a healthy homo-sexual who has sex with a consenting adult is not.

Except in countries where the practice of homosexual relations is illegal (such as Nicaragua, Jamaica...). As for stating "healthy", read this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/723699/posts.

"The risk of anal cancer "soars" by nearly 4,000% for men who have sex with men. [...] A Michigan homosexual newspaper admits there is no such thing as "safe sex" to prevent this "soaring" cancer risk. Condoms offer only limited protection." GBLT people may be healthy in all other aspects, and even if they do manage to avoid STDs, but STDs are not the only reason GBLT people average shorter life spans. This is no judgement (in case you were about to make such an accusation), and feel free to try and prove otherwise, this is a forum afterall (but use reliable sources).

Do we need yet another person claiming to be Christian promulgating moral judgements on a group of people? More to the point Sir, do you think you can couch yourself as being tolerant while at the same time calling the people you claim you do not hate sinful and pedophiles?

Those are some terrible questions which can only be correctly answered with other questions. It's like if I were to ask you "do you still rape boys?" (either yes or no would be a terrible answer). Please ask relevant questions.

I will answer with a comment though. Firstly, it doesn't matter what I claim to be. Secondly, I stated that everyone, whether I like them or not, are sinners (including myself). I do not claim anyone to be pedophiles. I simply stated that there is a higher rate of pedophiles in the population practicing same-sex relations (regardless of age) than in the population practicing opposite-sex relations. This is true, given pedophiles who have same-sex relations with children pertain to the GBLT (which there is no reason for believing otherwise... your clinical definitions don't make sense... please provide a concrete reliable source stating that man-child relations are neither homosexual nor heterosexual).

[M.Dancer]

Just to be clear: do you consider any non-procreative sex act to be abnormal?

Depends on what we understand by "non-procreative" sex. Heterosexual relations are, in general, open to proceation. If infertility is not related to behavior, there is nothing abnormal about the behavior.

I take it then you consider blow jobs, cunninglingus, hand jobs, withdrawal and such, between consenting hetero adults to be abnormal?

[Rue]

In regards to the Kapitan's comments;

"@Rue:Please be concise!"

Hah. Me? Mr. Big Mouth? Hah. Good luck. I will try change my medication.

"Please quote these clinical definitions."

Go to the psychiatric diagnostic manual please.

"You yourself earlier stated that heterosexual relations are also not defined by age. My point is that sexual relations are not defined by age, meaning a man who has sex with a male, regardless of age, is either gay or bisexual. Please quote this "clinical definition" to prove me wrong (with a reliable source please)."

That is not what I said. I said the diagnostic manual defines pedophilia clearly with an age reference. Go check it out. What I did state is that a homo-sexual or hetero-sexual is someone who has sex with a consenting adult.

" An active homosexual commits a sin, yet that doesn't make him evil."

Uh huh.

"Again you use "your personal [...] views". I wouldn't state it if I viewed it otherwise! You keep arguing that homosexual/extra-marital relations are not immoral, yet who are you to define morality?"

Here's the point Kapitan...the Catholic Church you refer to as the agent to promulgate your definition of sin and morality is nothing but humans. So when you ask me who am I to define morality. I am a human like those humans you follow and I have the same right to define morality. So do gays and lesbians. That is who we are ...humans.

"What book do you use to define morality? "

Book? Do I need a book. Can I not think and feel without being told how to think and feel?

"A quick run-thru on the justification of my belief with regards to this post:

1. There is Absolute Truth. If there were no absolute truth, the abscence of absolute truth would be an absolute truth in itself, meaning there must be absolute truth."

The above sounds like someone who has smoked a joint to me. With due respect, to me what you call absolute truth, is what you read in a book written by HUMANS and what you choose to believe as absolute.

"2. The Bible Book (Holy Scriptures) is a good authority. "

It is a book written by humans and in your subjective personal opinion is "good authority" but too many of us is one of many thousands of books written by humans and it has no more relevance then anything else humans have to say. No more no less.

"4. That would make Jesus a liar, a fool or the messiah."

No it doesn't make Jesus anything. You are mistaking your personal subjective opinions with who or what Jesus may have stood for. You don't even know. You rely on second, third hand, 8th hand, re-edited, re-constituted passages from people interpreting what they think Jesus said. You have no original transcripts fron Jesus. So don't pretend to speak on behalf of Jesus. You at best have a subjective personal opinion as to what you think he might have said.

"5. Jesus had neither the characteristics of a liar nor of a fool, therefore we can conclude that he is the messiah."

Conclude what you want but don't be so dilluded as to think your opinions or beliefs are any more signifigant or meaningful then any other human's.

"6. The Bible book states that practicing homosexuality is a sin (in several passages including 1 Cor 6:9-10), read more at http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/contempry/hompbia1.htm"

Yah the Bible also said to stone and kill gays. Your point?

"Do you have any reason for believing that homosexual/extra-marital relations are not a sin?"

Yah its called consent. When two or more adults consent to have sex with one another, I have no need to judge it. It is not my concern and I have no reason to call it a sin. My reason? My reason is that I feel no need to define what two consenting adults do. Its of no concern to me and I have no need to moralize or judge it. In my world I often feel I need no reason to define belief with simplistic rigid definitions of right and wrong. You may need to do that, not me.

"Other than rape, sexual relations do not tend to have cruel intentions, and sex is not a bad thing, but rather a gift from God."

Well gosh you soud ready to visit Hugh Hefner at the Playboy mansion. Careful now.

"God gave us rules."

Oops there it is. Some of us believe humans like you not God gave us rules. Some of us believe what you refer toas "god" is in fact your personal subjective opinion as to what you think "God" said or thought. The last time I looked you were not God and so excuse me if I prefer to wait to hear it from God directly and not you or other humans. And no sorry, I hear no voices today nor am I having visions. I took my medication so I would not write too much. Remember?

"Firstly, it doesn't matter what I claim to be."

Of course not, but when you promulgate your religious views and promote them, then your claiming to be justified to do it because its Christian or Catholic, does become an issue.

"your clinical definitions don't make sense... please provide a concrete reliable source stating that man-child relations are neither homosexual nor heterosexual)."

They are not my definitions. Again go to the psychiatric diagnostic manual and read. If you are still confused, sit down with a doctor and have him explain it to you.

[Rue]

Since Kapitan is concerned about anal sex and anal cancer rates let's clarify how he took it out of context to suggest its only a problem with gay people;

He may not know it, but the information he thinks he is repeating comes from two separate studies by researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, are reported in the journal Cancer.

The first study, was by Lisa G. Johnson of Fred Hutchinson's Public Health Sciences Division, and found that incidence rates of anal cancer increased significantly in the past 30 years, jumping 160 percent in men and 78 percent in women.

The second study, lby epidemiologist Janet Daling of Fred Hutchinson's Public Health Sciences investigated the underlying biological and lifestyle causes behind the rising incidence of anal cancer and tested for the human papillomavirus, or HPV which is a sexually transmitted viral marker of anal cancer. Her studies looked for HPV in both blood and tumor tissue as well as well as surveying the following lifestyle factors;smoking, sexual orientation, number of sexual partners and history of anal intercourse.

What the Kapitan forgot to tell you was you should not smoke because smoking appears to play a significant role in anal-cancer development. More than half of the anal-cancer patients studied were current smokers at the time of diagnosis, as compared to a smoking rate of about 23 percent among the controls.

Also maybe someone else may want to explain to the Kapitan that gays and bi-sexuals are not the only people who engage in anal sex. I wouldn't know myself Kapitan. I am a virgin.

[guyser]

Also maybe someone else may want to explain to the Kapitan that gays and bi-sexuals are not the only people who engage in anal sex. I wouldn't know myself Kapitan. I am a virgin.

Somebody call me?

The above sounds like someone who has smoked a joint to me.

Somebody should have called me?

[AshNazg]

In any discussion concerning homosexuality one thing needs to be defined first

Is homosexuality a "lifestyle choice" or a natural predisposition. In other words, are people born gay?

The answer to this question is crucial because it provides insight into whether or not homosexuality is something that people choose or something that they have no control over. Either way, it is obvious to anyone that homosexuality is an abnormality as defined by Nature. It directly interferes with the ability of an organism to produce offspring and is therefore tantamount to impotency or infertility from the standpoint of biology.

If it is established that homosexuality is a natural predisposition (in other words an error in the genes that causes people to be born gay, feeling attraction for the same sex only) then clearly some homosexuals do not want to be homosexuals and instead of telling them that "its ok to be gay" we should instead develop a cure for it. Right now, excessive political correctness would inhibit it, but it really is illogical not to research into it.

Clearly, if you were born with autism you might want to get it cured so you can do things that other people can do. Right now homosexuals do not have that option and might not have it unless proper medical research is conducted in the area.

Conversely, if it is established that homosexuality is not a natural predisposition, or at least is a combination of natural inclination AND a lifestyle choice, then medical research can be foregone, since it could be assumed that had people wanted to be with the members of the opposite sex, they could make a conscious effort to "ungay" themselves.

However, if it turned out that being gay was a fully conscious choice (in other words people could "be born hetero" and "turn gay" over their lifetime) then restrictions would need to be imposed on society to ensure that our children do not get indoctrinated into being gay.

Although I disagree with the original quote that homosexuality is brought about by immorality and wickedness (I happen to think it is entirely biological, and history seems to agree) I cannot see how anyone can disagree with the fact that homosexuality is in fact an anomaly.

The original quote is also right in stating that although we must treat homosexuals like any other person and must not discriminate against them, we must also conduct research into eliminating the causes of homosexuality and finding an effective cure for it (which will of course be completely voluntary).

[gc1765]

In any discussion concerning homosexuality one thing needs to be defined first

Is homosexuality a "lifestyle choice" or a natural predisposition. In other words, are people born gay?

The answer to this question is crucial because it provides insight into whether or not homosexuality is something that people choose or something that they have no control over.

What difference does that make? I don't give a damn if your favourite color is blue, or green. I also don't give a damn if you chose that as your favourite color, or you were born with it as your favourite color.

Either way, it is obvious to anyone that homosexuality is an abnormality as defined by Nature. It directly interferes with the ability of an organism to produce offspring and is therefore tantamount to impotency or infertility from the standpoint of biology.

So does masturbation...but no one seems to call that an abnormality. I've brought up this point several times on this forum, but everyone seems to ignore it.

If it is established that homosexuality is a natural predisposition (in other words an error in the genes that causes people to be born gay, feeling attraction for the same sex only) then clearly some homosexuals do not want to be homosexuals and instead of telling them that "its ok to be gay" we should instead develop a cure for it. Right now, excessive political correctness would inhibit it, but it really is illogical not to research into it.

Yeah, I'd rather tell them how wrong it is and how they are a sinner, and then watch them commit suicide over it

However, if it turned out that being gay was a fully conscious choice (in other words people could "be born hetero" and "turn gay" over their lifetime) then restrictions would need to be imposed on society to ensure that our children do not get indoctrinated into being gay.

If being gay is a choice, then being straight must also be a choice. I'm guessing you wouldn't impose restrictions to ensure children are not indoctrinated into being straight?

[Melanie_]

However, if it turned out that being gay was a fully conscious choice (in other words people could "be born hetero" and "turn gay" over their lifetime) then restrictions would need to be imposed on society to ensure that our children do not get indoctrinated into being gay.

Why? What business is it of anyone's to interfere with someone's fully conscious choice? Think about how much indoctrination children are already exposed to that promotes the heterosexual lifestyle - if sexual orientation could be indoctrinated, the overwhelming focus on heterosexuality would ensure that we wouldn't see any homosexuals in society today.

The original quote is also right in stating that although we must treat homosexuals like any other person and must not discriminate against them, we must also conduct research into eliminating the causes of homosexuality and finding an effective cure for it (which will of course be completely voluntary).

Eliminating homosexuality, "curing" it, seems like a form of discrimination to me. You stated earlier that they can't do things that other people can do, but that is mostly because of intolerance and unreasonable restrictions placed on them; rather than curing the homosexuals, perhaps we should cure the bigots who place unfair barriers in thier paths.

[Leafless]

So does masturbation...but no one seems to call that an abnormality. I've brought up this point several times on this forum, but everyone seems to ignore it.

Okay, I'll bite.

How can masturbation possibly interfere with the ability of an organism to produce offspring when it is done intentionally to arouse oneself sexually and has virtually nothing to do with normal procreation process which can be accomplished anytime my wife and I desire to produce offspring?

[AshNazg]

Why? What business is it of anyone's to interfere with someone's fully conscious choice? Think about how much indoctrination children are already exposed to that promotes the heterosexual lifestyle - if sexual orientation could be indoctrinated, the overwhelming focus on heterosexuality would ensure that we wouldn't see any homosexuals in society today.

Eliminating homosexuality, "curing" it, seems like a form of discrimination to me. You stated earlier that they can't do things that other people can do, but that is mostly because of intolerance and unreasonable restrictions placed on them; rather than curing the homosexuals, perhaps we should cure the bigots who place unfair barriers in thier paths.

You misunderstand me. When I said they can't do things that other people can, I was referring to sexual reproduction.

If being gay is not a choice those people are given willingly (ie. they're born with it), then such a restriction seems unfair, does it not? Should they not have the option of selecting a cure that would restore their "sexual desire" for opposite sex. If they choose not to pursue it, fine, but if a homosexual man (for instance) wants to be attracted to a female so that he could have a normal family with her, but he cannot due to no fault of his own, but rather his genes, is it humane to not research a way to cure him?

As far as indoctrination goes, you have a point. I was simply arguing that we should try to steer clear of any subliminal messages, whether "being gay is cool" or "being hetero is the only right way to be", since younger kids are vulnerable to both. Basically we need to ensure that kids grow up to make a sensible, fully aware choice, instead of going with peer pressure or societal indoctrination.

What difference does that make? I don't give a damn if your favourite color is blue, or green. I also don't give a damn if you chose that as your favourite color, or you were born with it as your favourite color.

Your choice of color has no relevance whatsoever of course. However, it is also fairly inconsequential in the bigger scheme of things. However, imagine if you were born infertile as opposed to undergoing infertile treatments at an adult age. I think its unfair and cruel to condemn people to a lifetime of infertility because it is perceived "un-PC" to do research into the subject. Its one thing when someone chooses it and another entirely when someone has no choice in the matter.

So does masturbation...but no one seems to call that an abnormality. I've brought up this point several times on this forum, but everyone seems to ignore it.

How on earth does masturbation interfere with your ability to produce offspring? Masturbation simply relieves excess boredom, hormone build-up or loneliness. I don't think it has ever been proven that masturbation causes infertility, hairy palms or blindness.

Masturbation would only be as bad as homosexuality from the standpoint of reproduction if you masturbated all your life instead of seeking a mate. In that case, sure it is a deviation.

Yeah, I'd rather tell them how wrong it is and how they are a sinner, and then watch them commit suicide over it

If you want to bring Bible into it, go for it. If you bothered to read my entire post, you'd see that I am not proposing to discriminate against them, but rather inform them that they have a non-lethal/non-disabling disease that can be cured should they ever choose to have biological progeny from people they love.

If being gay is a choice, then being straight must also be a choice. I'm guessing you wouldn't impose restrictions to ensure children are not indoctrinated into being straight?

Children should not be indoctrinated period (in an ideal world anyway), but they should be made aware of the fact that at the very least they should be bisexual in order to keep the population going.

[gc1765]

Okay, I'll bite.

How can masturbation possibly interfere with the ability of an organism to produce offspring when it is done intentionally to arouse oneself sexually and has virtually nothing to do with normal procreation process which can be accomplished anytime my wife and I desire to produce offspring?

Well, in order to produce offspring, the sperm has to enter the vagina. Kind of hard to do with masturbation, just like it's kind of hard to do with gay sex.

[gc1765]

Your choice of color has no relevance whatsoever of course. However, it is also fairly inconsequential in the bigger scheme of things.

Exactly! Just like homosexuality vs. heterosexuality...

However, imagine if you were born infertile as opposed to undergoing infertile treatments at an adult age. I think its unfair and cruel to condemn people to a lifetime of infertility because it is perceived "un-PC" to do research into the subject. Its one thing when someone chooses it and another entirely when someone has no choice in the matter.

Homosexuals are still able to adopt or have children through in vitro fertilization (or other methods)...Homosexuals are not infertile.

How on earth does masturbation interfere with your ability to produce offspring? Masturbation simply relieves excess boredom, hormone build-up or loneliness. I don't think it has ever been proven that masturbation causes infertility, hairy palms or blindness.

The exact same way that homosexuality interferes with your ability to produce offspring...because neither lead to offspring.

Masturbation would only be as bad as homosexuality from the standpoint of reproduction if you masturbated all your life instead of seeking a mate. In that case, sure it is a deviation.

And homosexuality is only "bad" if that is all you do your entire life. I take it you don't think bisexuality is an anomoly? But heterosexual sex with a condom is?

If you want to bring Bible into it, go for it. If you bothered to read my entire post, you'd see that I am not proposing to discriminate against them, but rather inform them that they have a non-lethal/non-disabling disease that can be cured should they ever choose to have biological progeny from people they love.

and yet you said "instead of telling them that "its ok to be gay" we should instead develop a cure for it"

So you don't think we should be telling them it's ok? do you think we should tell them it's wrong?

Anyways, you might not bring the bible into it, but fact is many people do.

Children should not be indoctrinated period (in an ideal world anyway), but they should be made aware of the fact that at the very least they should be bisexual in order to keep the population going.

Fair enough...but I don't think we have to worry about going extinct from everyone becoming gay.

[AshNazg]

Homosexuals are still able to adopt or have children through in vitro fertilization (or other methods)...Homosexuals are not infertile.

This is a recent development. Didn't use to be the case.

Of course when the medicine is sufficiently advanced that we no longer even require a partner to produce a child, and a child can be cloned from a body cell, all the negative mumbo jumbo about homos vs heteros will die off on its own.

At this pace, eventually we will become asexual (or unisexual?) beings, that reproduce through artificial methods only (ala Matrix).

This is not a negative thing, simply inevitable progress.

When we develop a sufficiently advanced technology to shed the limitations of our imperfect shells, we can usher in an era of total personal freedom. However, we're not there yet.

And homosexuality is only "bad" if that is all you do your entire life. I take it you don't think bisexuality is an anomoly?

I have no negative opinions on bisexuals. While in the strictest sense of the word, bisexuality is an anomaly, it is a "non-restrictive anomaly" whereas being gay is a " restrictive one"

People who are equally attracted to both sexes enjoy the best of both worlds - a complete personal freedom of sexual choice. Being restricted to either the homo or hetero side is less than perfect, but given a choice I would rather be hetero than gay.

So you don't think we should be telling them it's ok? do you think we should tell them it's wrong?

Anyways, you might not bring the bible into it, but fact is many people do.

Must this be a bipolar world where something is either "ok" or "wrong"? Can't something be less-than-ok but still an acceptable deviation?

Being fat is not ok, but I think we don't call being fat "wrong" anymore. It is a lifestyle choice which is destructive and unhealthy and hence it is not "ok" but at the same time it is a personal preference and we hope that most adults are smart enough to understand the consequences.

Fair enough...but I don't think we have to worry about going extinct from everyone becoming gay.

Probably not. However the population growth rate is already below the rate of self-sustainability and every new homosexual pair is two more people that are gone from the reproductive pool.

[gc1765]

Of course when the medicine is sufficiently advanced that we no longer even require a partner to produce a child, and a child can be cloned from a body cell, all the negative mumbo jumbo about homos vs heteros will die off on its own.

Not so long as there are people preaching that homosexuality is a sin (I'm not referring to you of course).

I have no negative opinions on bisexuals. While in the strictest sense of the word, bisexuality is an anomaly, it is a "non-restrictive anomaly" whereas being gay is a " restrictive one"

Why/How is bisexuality an anomaly?

Must this be a bipolar world where something is either "ok" or "wrong"? Can't something be less-than-ok but still an acceptable deviation?

Of course not, that's why I asked what your opinion was on the matter.

Being fat is not ok, but I think we don't call being fat "wrong" anymore. It is a lifestyle choice which is destructive and unhealthy and hence it is not "ok" but at the same time it is a personal preference and we hope that most adults are smart enough to understand the consequences.

Are you trying to suggest that homosexuality is destructive and unhealthy?

Probably not. However the population growth rate is already below the rate of self-sustainability and every new homosexual pair is two more people that are gone from the reproductive pool.

No it's not. The population has grown incredibly quickly in recent times: Link Number 1 Link Number 2

There is a limit to how many people the earth can sustain. I don't know what that number is, but there is certainly a limit. Anyways, if you are concerned about population growth, perhaps we should be doing more to alleviate hunger and diseases in third world countries?

[AshNazg]

Not so long as there are people preaching that homosexuality is a sin (I'm not referring to you of course).

Such people exist because there is an audience for it. In a few hundred years, provided nothing goes astray, there simply wont be an audience for discrimination based on sexual preferences and the preachers will die off naturally, or change their job profile.

Why/How is bisexuality an anomaly?

Like I said, in the strictest sense of the word anomaly is a deviation from common. Need there more be said?

Are you trying to suggest that homosexuality is destructive and unhealthy?

If my genes had an opinion and a voice of their own, and I asked them what would they think if I informed them that from now on I will never procreate (and we're excluding in-vitro and other artificial birth methods from this for the sake of the argument), do you think my genes would call me insane and destructive? I think they would.

No it's not. The population has grown incredibly quickly in recent times: Link Number 1 Link Number 2

There is a limit to how many people the earth can sustain. I don't know what that number is, but there is certainly a limit. Anyways, if you are concerned about population growth, perhaps we should be doing more to alleviate hunger and diseases in third world countries?

I was speaking specifically about the population of the Western world. There is a marked decline in the birth rates and they have fallen below the self-sustainable rate of 2.2 births per family. The only reason why the population of the Western world countries continues to grow is because of the immigration rates.

Although some immigration is never a bad thing, complete reliance on immigration to sustain the country is folly and will eventually destroy it. This is a topic for another discussion altogether though.

But even if I were to concur that the population is not threatened, that still does not weaken the original argument that at the very least an option of a "cure" should be available for gays should they choose to make use of it.