|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
Date: 7/22/2003 8:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 53052
there has been alotta heated arguements around this topic and gay marriages are you sure now is the time you want to post this debate??  |
Date: 7/22/2003 8:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 12966
no, i do not believe that people are born gay  |
Date: 7/22/2003 9:05:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
Hi, Midnighty, thank you for your concern. Actually, if people are born Gay, that would make some of the arguments in Debate a mote point. And, except for a few minutes here & there, I really have not been on USM much this weekend. If the Admins want, I could delete it, in the name of Peace....thanks again  |
|
Date: 7/22/2003 9:06:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
Liquid Chicken, I have just provided scientific evidence....can you elaberate please? |
|
Date: 7/22/2003 9:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 10915
'Gay' gene: Fact or fantasy? Posted: August 3, 2002 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com In this age, one of the most difficult issues facing our nation today is the issue of homosexuality. For the most part, homosexuals become extremely offended if one even suggests that their sexual orientation was a choice. Perhaps the greatest defense for the acceptance of homosexuality is the so-called "gay" gene. While it may not be easy to "come out" of homosexuality, there is credible and substantial evidence disproving the "gay"-gene theory. The first question is, does the issue of whether homosexuality is a choice, or not, really matter? The Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual-activist group, doesn't think so. "The vast majority of gay people will tell you that same-sex orientation is an innate part of who you are and is not changeable," a spokesman said. "But in the final analysis, it really shouldn't matter." Whether the sincerity of that statement is valid or not, the simple fact is that whether homosexuality is a genetic trait or not does matter. If homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, then the lifestyle and act must be accepted by everyone, because it cannot be prevented. However, if it is a choice, then anyone has the right to label homosexuality unacceptable and immoral. The scientific basis the homosexual community uses to prove the "gay"-gene theory are two different studies conducted in 1993 and 1995. The studies found a specific marker in the X chromosome that links to homosexuality in men. In 1993, biologist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute found that in 40 pairs of homosexual brothers, 33 of them had the same set of DNA sequences in a part of the chromosome called, "Xq28." This has caused many homosexual leaders to proclaim this "evidence" and demand respect and acceptance of homosexuality because of this apparent genetic trait. However, in late June of 1995, reports were confirmed that Dean Hamer was being investigated by the Office of Research Integrity at the Department of Health and Human Services. Reports found that Hamer may have selectively reported his research and data – which has led many to question the credibility of his research. Furthermore, in the late '90s, a team of researchers at the University of Western Ontario in Canada found no trace or evidence of the "gay" gene in homosexual men. The study found that the region of the X chromosome known as "Xq28" has nothing to do with the sexual "orientation" of a person. Neurologist George Rice studied the DNA of 52 pairs of homosexual brothers and found that their Xq28 sequences were no more similar than what might happen from sheer chance. Despite the debunking of evidence to back the "gay"-gene theory, homosexual advocates continue to use the out-dated evidence to promote the existence of a homosexual genetic trait. Much more evidence can be provided. Identical twins, for instance, share the same set of chromosomal patterns. Therefore, if one twin's DNA has a homosexual genetic trait, then it is inevitable that both twins will be homosexuals. However, that is not the case with all twins. When one twin is homosexual, the probability of the other identical twin being homosexual is 50 percent. Thus, the "gay"-gene theory is, once again, debunked by using logical, scientific research. Still, there is even more evidence against homosexual genes. If homosexuality is, indeed – despite other evidence – a genetic trait, that gene would eventually be ousted from the gene pool because homosexuals tend not to reproduce. Instead, homosexuality has appeared in civilizations across time. In some parts of the world, homosexuality flourishes, but in other parts of the world, homosexuality is not present. Additionally, if "gay"-gene theory were true, it would be next to impossible to change the lifestyle to heterosexuality. However, it is not impossible to change sexual orientations – Stephen Bennett is a great example, and so are the thousands of others who have come out of homosexuality. With this incredible load of evidence mounting up against the "gay"-gene theory, it would be safe to say that homosexuality is actually not something one is born with, but a choice. Instead of using hard evidence and facts, the homosexual community has stooped so low as to use media to force feed this unproven theory as fact in order to advance their agenda. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28505 *** I am not stating this to start a debate, but showing this as one of the refuting arguments against homosexuality being "pre-disposed." And this is also an unbias site that has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.  |
|
Date: 7/22/2003 9:09:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
thank you, Girlie...I will reply after I read your reply. |
|
Date: 7/22/2003 9:10:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
yes, it is an unbiased, and non-religious site. |
|
Date: 7/22/2003 9:12:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
It appears there was no misconduct in Hamer's "Gay-study"..... |
|
Date: 7/22/2003 9:12:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
DARK CLOUDS: 'YOUR MOTHER MADE YOU DO IT!' THE HAMER STUDY "Unlike civil or criminal proceedings, investigations of suspected scientific misconduct take place entirely behind closed doors, and until the charges have been resolved the government refuses to acknowledge that they exist. NCI (National Cancer Institute) officials hung up on a reporter seeking comment on the Hamer case and directed researchers in Hamer's laboratory not to speak to the Tribune about the investigation. The NIH (National Institute of Health) and ORI (Office of Research Integrity) also declined comment." John Crewdson, The Chicago Tribune ['Gay gene' findings come under fire, June 25, 1995] "In 1991, Dean Hamer was a molecular geneticist at National Institutes of Health and was personally interested in the biology of sexual orientation. Hamer was encouraged by Richard Pillard and Michael Bailey of the twin studies to pursue a molecular genetics approach to the subject; his research became one of the most highly publicized studies in the area of biological research on sexual orientation. The study is currently under investigation by the Office of Research Integrity at the National Institutes of Health.* Hamer's study was designed to identify genetic markers which could influence a person's sexual orientation. In scientific language, Hamer was looking for a 'linkage': a connection between certain sequences of genetic materials and a trait. Here the 'trait' was identified as homosexuality. First, Hamer recruited male siblings who were both gay to participate in the study. By creating a pedigree, or 'family tree' chart, researchers traced the incidence of homosexuality within families, to get an idea of how homosexuality was inherited. Hamer identified the X chromosome, the female sex chromosome, as the site for the genes that may code for homosexuality. Second, Hamer's team analyzed the DNA of each pair of brothers. They were looking for common markers, or sequences in the genetic material of the X chromosome of gay brothers. They also analyzed the DNA of the sibling's mothers, if it was available. If the mother's DNA showed two sets of markers, one on each of her X chromosomes, and each of her homosexual sons shared the same kind of marker, then the sibling pair was deemed 'concordant-by-descent.' This type of data would allow Hamer to declare a genetic link to homosexuality. In 40 pairs of siblings who were both gay, 64 percent shared five common genetic markers. The five markers that were concordant in the sibling pairs were located in a region of the X chromosome called Xq28. This region contains approximately 4 million base pairs of DNA, 0.2 percent of all human genetic material. Hamer concluded that there is evidence that genes could be connected to homosexuality in a subset of homosexual males. In particular, he believed that there may be a small subset of gay men whose sexual orientation is genetically influenced by markers, in an area of the X chromosome called Xq28. His data concerned male homosexuality only, not lesbians or bisexual men or women. Common critiques include: Hamer worked with an identified subset of gay men. Hamer only used subjects whose sexual experiences and fantasies were exclusively with men. Hamer did not search for the markers in heterosexual brothers of the siblings studied. We do not know if these heterosexual brothers share the marker, but are not gay. If the heterosexual brothers do have the marker, it would be harder to identify the marker as influencing sexual orientation. Hamer identified the X chromosome as the possible site of a genetic marker for sexual orientation because the subjects identified more gay relatives of their mother's side. We do not know if there actually were more gay relatives on each subject's maternal or paternal side. Hamer simplified a broad spectrum of sexual orientations to homosexual and non-homosexual. Knowing the complexity of behavioral traits, it is questionable practice to connect similar gene segments to diverse behavior. Hamer's small sample size allows for limited conclusions. Hamer worked under the assumption that two percent of the population is gay, which is one of the lowest estimates in terms of what percentage of the population could be gay. Any conclusions based on prevalence will be difficult because there is no definitive information available. Because Hamer sought out families with more than one gay brother, he was working with a small subset of gay men who might have a higher chance of being genetically influenced in their homosexuality. Conclusion Hamer's study was restricted to a small percentage of the gay population. He did not study lesbians, or bisexual men or women. To date, Hamer's study has not been replicated. The Xq28 has recently been called the 'gay gene,' but Hamer has not identified a particular gene, nor has he established what percentage of the gay male population could carry the gene. The study determined that the Xq28, a large area, could possibly contain sequences of genes that are linked to homosexuality. Establishing a link in this subset of gay men does not mean these markers cause homosexuality, because the mechanism for this is not known." [from Why ask Why? Addressing the Research on Homosexuality and Biology, P-FLAG, 1101 14th Street N.W., Suite 1030, Washington, D.C. 20005] *See 'No Misconduct in Gay Gene Study,' Science Vol 275, Feb 28 1997 p. 1251. I was directed to this brief news item by email from Dean Hamer. It is published in Science which published the work that was under investigation. No where in the article does anyone from the Office of Research Integrity say that there was no misconduct or that the charges brought had no validity. If you are actually going to check this article out, notice how the quotation marks are used by the writer of the piece at Science to make it appear that the person speaking for the Office of Research Integrity has said 'not guilty'. |
|
Date: 7/22/2003 9:15:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
actually-if you go to (http://www.queerbychoice.com/gaygenelinks.html) it lists many sites discussing the Hamer experiments, and the outcome |
|
Date: 7/22/2003 9:19:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
"The phone rang off the hook with calls from reporters; there were TV cameramen lined up outside the lab; the mailbox and e-mail overflowed," Dean Hamer later remembered the reaction to his July, 1993 paper in the journal Science. "Rarely before have so many reacted so loudly to so little." Hamer's paper-- "A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation"-- had the modest ring of science, where change is often slow and incremental. But the underlying idea seemed to carry enormous implications: Homosexuality was not a choice--"the wrong choice," as many religious and political leaders have demogogued on the issue. Instead, homosexuality was as much a biological fact as eye color. Though the outcome of the "gay gene" debate is uncertain, the very fact of the debate is evidence of great change: The prevailing scientific view of the fundamental nature of homosexuality has undergone a signficant evolution in the last several decades. Where once the scientific and medical establishment maintained an unqualified belief that homosexuality was a form of psychological deviance, today a solid majority of psychiatrists and psychologists themselves believe in biological theories (genes, brain, prenatal chemistry) over environmental or psychological theories. More scientists are getting involved in this type of genetic research, although funding has not been keeping pace with the intensity of interest. Even at the early stages of an emerging scientific consensus around biological theories of homosexuality, it is not possible to keep politics out of the debate. In his most recent book, Simon LeVay, who has been at the center of it all--and who is gay himself--wrote of a "worrisome question" that he faces quite often: "Are the positions taken by researchers merely the expression of their own personal attitudes and prejudices--whether pro-or anti-gay--that have been dressed up in academic language. . . ?" To espouse environmental or psychodynamic theories in recent years has been to invite charges of anti-gay bias or homophobia, he notes; and biological theories seem "pro-gay." But even these political lines can be blurred: Some have worried that the "gay gene," though often seen as tied to "pro gay" politics, could become a tool of a repressive, eugenically inclined majority looking to breed out undesirable same-sex behavior. The debate continues. The search for the possible genetic basis of homosexuality was not new in 1993--other researchers had isolated the gene in fruit flies. But fruit flies are not human beings. And Dean Hamer, along with a brain researcher named Simon LeVay and a handful of other scientists focusing on biological and genetic causes of homosexuality, were making the leap from laboratory animals to people. Because of the perceived social, political, and cultural implications of the research, the relatively minor advances in scientific knowledge put forward by Hamer and LeVay in the early 1990s attracted extraordinary, global attention. A number of years after the research of Hamer, LeVay and the others first attracted such enormous attention, the existence of the "gay gene," or of other biological foundations of homosexuality, is not much closer to being conclusively proven. Almost exactly six years after Hamer's 1993 article appeared in Science, the same journal published a study by a team of Canadian researchers whose research into 52 pairs of homosexual brothers did "not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality." Other researchers are still trying to replicate Hamer's study, and Hamer himself is trying to push his research into new and more sure territory. In this article, however, Hamer and LeVay join forces to synthesize varied work on the topic into the best case for a biological theory of homosexuality. · The Man Behind the "Gay Gene" No sooner do those attempting to prove the existence of a genetic basis for sexual orientation begin to clear enormous obstacles in the lab than they are hit with an objection from biology itself: Why, from an evolutionary point of view, should a "gay gene," or same-sex attractions, exist at all? Part of the answer involves an excursion into the animal world, where homosexual behaviors have been widely documented, but where explanations for this behavior vary widely. This behavior is often dismissed as a minor artifact of generally heterosexual behavior. But biologist Bruce Bagemihl has recently marshalled wide-ranging animal studies to demonstrate the evolutionary advantage for a variety of non-reproductive, same-sex sexual relationships. In this article, Richard Pillard also draws strength from examples in the animal world as he argues against the "evolutionary" objection to genetic theories of homosexuality. There is a difference between demonstrating a correlation between two things, and proving a causal relationship between them. This, in essence, is William Byne's thoughtful critique of the research of Hamer, LeVay, and others who have found certain neuroanatomical or genetic traits that may correlate with, but, he believes, likely do not cause, homosexuality. "Researchers and the public must resist the temptation to consider [these biological theories of homosexuality] in any but the most tentative fashion," Byne concludes. "Perhaps more important, we should also be asking ourselves why we as a society are so emotionally invested in this research." Byne also questions the link between biology and public policy: "At the political level, a requirement that an unconventional trait be inborn or immutable is an inhumane criterion for a society to use in deciding which of its nonconformists it will grant tolerance." What might be the origin of biological differences underlying male sexual preference? Dean Hamer, Simon LeVay and others began to lay out their answer in scientific papers and several popular books in the early 1990s. In this article, Richard Horton, the editor of the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, untangles the scientific claims from the social and poltical ones, offering a sober assessment on the state of the science, but not a complete refutation. And there's even a clear streak of mild admiration for the ambition and aims of those attempting to link biology and homosexuality. |
Date: 7/22/2003 9:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 20750
Are people born straight?  |
|
Date: 7/22/2003 9:22:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
you mean heterosexual? I would imagine...If people's sexuality is pre-disposed, then, yes. Good question, Moongirl.... |
|
Date: 7/22/2003 9:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 10915
Yet, what about the discoveries from the researchers in Canada and the neurologist that are refuting Hamer's study of the X chromosome as being a big factor in a homosexual gene? All I can say is that this argument is back and forth and just like you feel there is scientific evidence supporting a "gay gene" there are scientific evidence that's refuting it. |
|
Date: 7/22/2003 9:25:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
you are right, Girlie, I am also reading that Hamer himself is Gay, and got a lot of his test-subjects by advertising in "Gay" magazines. I was also reading about a study of homosexuality in rats, where the rats who engaged in homosexual behavior, actually had an increase in certain chemicals in their brain. |
|
Date: 7/22/2003 9:27:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
I really want to be fair to both sides of this issue. |
Date: 7/22/2003 9:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 54946
i do believe they are. i know this doesnt mean much but when a man is gay i can tell most of the time sometimes by the way he talks and sometimes i can just look into his eyes and just know. Alex AKA  |
Date: 7/22/2003 9:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
I know that in many instances scientist can be wrong, sometimes they are right, in MY own personal opinion, NO I dont believe they are born gay.  |
Date: 7/22/2003 10:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 62267
I think people are who they choose to be and people can't help who they are :-) Freaq  |
Date: 7/23/2003 12:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 47162
Ok, lets assume that homosexuality is something people are born with. Does that mean it's still right? My family is genetically born with a bad temper. It's just something inate in us. It's a behaviour we are born with. Now is it right that we exercise this behaviour simply because we are born that way? Seems like we are on a slippery slope when we justify behaviour simply because you are born with it.-----I do not think homosexuality is right. But since signs point to this being a inate thing, I think people like me need to be more sensitive with this issue. These people didn't just choose to wake up one day and have these desires. They have them! We who believe that it's a sin, need to realize the struggle each of us have with our own struggle with sin and realize that their struggle is just as real. Sin is inate to us all. We are all born with some tendency that goes against what God desires. Unfortunately we make a bigger stink over homosexuality than all the other sins we are inately born with. I would also argue that those who view homosexuality as something a person isn't born with, have failed to realize the state of sin we are all born into. None of us chose to have this or that sin which we desire. But Jesus can give us the power to overcome them.  |
|
Date: 7/23/2003 12:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 47162
The more I think about it, the more it does awe me. Christians think that people are not "born gay." Now come on fellow Christians! A big part of our world view is that people are born sinners. Our world view states that we are born with a sin nature that is opposed to following God. It seems like Christians would jump for joy at scientists that say Homosexuality is something people have at birth. In a way it backs up our world view. Step back for a second and think here. We can agree with the findings of science, just don't agree with their conclusions. Their conclusion is that since people are born this way, its all right. |
|
Date: 7/23/2003 12:40:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
Wow! Interesting point, R1....you have me thinking that one over. |
|
Date: 7/23/2003 12:45:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
But homosexuality is right, for some people. I don't believe (my opinion only) that people can choose whom they will "love". Isn't love a chemical reaction? The Koran, and the Bible are intrepretated as saying homosexuality is bad. A "sin", if you will. But, in nature, it seems quite natural. For example-I saw a special on the Sundance Cable Network about "Homosexuality in Nature", and I was shocked how common it is in the animal world. Now, I am probably going to start a real war here, but Humans are animals, are we not? We are Mammals..and so I think for some people it is natural. |
|
Date: 7/23/2003 12:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 47162
Lady,in nature it's normal for creatures to kill or fight with other creatures. So if you want to carry out your what's good for other animals is good for humans way of thinking, then it should be ok for a man to fight/kill another man over a girl. Afterall in nature the males sometimes fight over the females. It's just natural instinct. So if it's just natural instinct then men should just fight with other men over this stuff. Of course as humans we don't believe this way. Why don't we believe this way? Becasue we recognize that humans are different. Since humans are different than animals it does mean we don't always have to follow what nature dictates. |
|
Date: 7/23/2003 1:08:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
R1-I cannot argue with your logic. I know certain animals, when a Male takes over the pride(like Lions) he kills all the cubs he did not sire. That would be an abomination to me. Killing over a female would be wrong. So would forced copulation. You're right, we do, as humans, have a higher standard. |
Date: 7/23/2003 4:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 62104
I believe that alot of those who are gay were ultimately born destined to be gay. It is just the way their body chemistry is made up, others just experiment or choose to be bi-sexual  |
|
Date: 7/23/2003 5:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 10915
R1, those were my thoughts as well. Because sin and imperfection is innate in us, homosexuality could be as well. However, my reason for posting the earlier comment was to show to LSG that there are scientific studies that are refuting homosexuality as being genetic and to reveal that it is not just those of the religious persuasion who feel this way. |
Date: 7/23/2003 9:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 61977
I did not have to read the post to tell you how I believe. I have read a book on the matter. I do believe that gays were born that way. It all depends on the hormones in the womb, or something of that nature. I got mt info from the Prenatal Perscription by, Peter Nathanielsz, MD PHD. It is a real interesting book. I still have not finished it LOL. I kinda have been percrastinating. LOL  |
|
Date: 7/23/2003 10:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 61977
I like your points Resilient one. I am Christian, who knows whether theu were born that way. We do not know. I do not know. See ya all later. |
Date: 7/23/2003 11:11:00 AM
From Authorid: 16849
I really have nothing to say, I was just admiring the long replies..... Too lazy to actually read them.  |
Date: 7/23/2003 5:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
If it was anyone besides Bailey and Pillard doing the research, I would welcome this. However, Bailey's last book has been proven to be filled with lies, and the some of the work the two do together has become circumspect recently. As for whether or not people are born gay, this is not an opinion, but fact, YES THEY ARE. Put aside all the studies, the tests, and everything else, and ask a gay person if they were born that way, and they will tell you YES. Who should know them better than they themselves. You are right, only Christian sites dispute the "born gay" idea, but then again, they dispute everything that they disagree with.  |
Date: 7/23/2003 6:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 31048
Yes!! This is what I've been saying all along...there is no doubt in my mind that at least SOME, if not MOST, homosexuals are born gay. Two Spirit's got the right idea...ask any homosexual and they will tell you, "YES, I was born this way." Thanks so much for posting this...maybe it will force some people to open up their narrow minds.   |
Date: 7/23/2003 7:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 36967
Show the Studies, show the proof, if people claim they have proof, show us this proof. Don't say "Why anyone would choose this." that will not cut it. That is not hard evidence. I will admit, I do agree that is support for studies, but NOT evidence. What upsets me, is that people want to base laws on claims that there is no proof for. Like Hate Crimes law for example. If we are going have these laws that are base on claims, then anyone who could be affected by these laws, we have the right to see these studies, see the proof, and how they come up with these conclusions. Remember, we do have the right to see these studies, and how they came up with these conclusions. Congress also has the right, because they are the ones discussing the laws. Unless they see the proof, they will not pass, it will not even last the first day of discussion. So I am confident that Congress and the Senate will not pass these laws. Maybe under Clinton, that could have been the case. Like I said, if we are going to have these laws, like the Hate Crime, then anyone who could be affect, has the right to see these studies, the proof, and how they came up with the conclusions. We do have the right to see them.  |
|
Date: 7/23/2003 7:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 36967
I have look at the sites, and they did not prove anything. |
|
Date: 7/23/2003 9:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
Derek, do you want to see the proof? Then get outside every once and awhile and meet those who are gay and lesbian. They are walking proof. Ask them if they were born that way or not. I have yet to meet a single gay person who said they chose to be gay. I have however, met some who said they did try to live the heterosexual lifestyle, only to find themselves in depression, or as alcoholics. You also seem to gripe a lot when we, meaning the members of the LGBT community go to court to try and do what is right. I can guarantee you that if you were told tomorrow that you could no longer go to church or worship God, that you would be yelling at the top of your lungs that you were being done wrong. You would be looking to file lawsuits every where you could. You also gripe a lot about hate crime laws. Well, they were instituted for a purpose, and that purpose has expanded. You may not agree with them, but then again, I doubt you have ever been to the sight where someone died because of a hate crime, or knew someone who was a victim of such crime. There was a gay that lived about 30 miles from me that was tortured, killed, and then his body placed on tires and burned. Just your everyday garden variety killing, right? NO! The trash that did it to him did it out of hate. That trash is now awaiting execution on death row. Hate crime laws do work. |
|
Date: 7/23/2003 9:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 10915
Dkpters, what are you talking about? Science has revealed their reason for why they feel that homosexuality is innate, while others are refuting this. And if you are talking about Congress passing laws against it homosexuality being genetic, I don't think you have to worry much about that since the Supreme Court has abolished anti-sodomy laws. |
|
Date: 7/23/2003 9:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 10915
Actually 2 spirts, I have met a gay person who said that it was choice for him. He was my play uncle. And I had to give him respect on the fact that he didn't make excuses for why he chose to be gay. |
|
Date: 7/24/2003 10:11:00 AM
From Authorid: 36967
Two Spirit, I heard of that, and yes, I do condeme that crime, and I believe that the two that did this are getting the appropriate punishment. What if a Gay person commits a crime against a straight, then why isn't that a hate crime. |
|
Date: 7/24/2003 1:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 36967
Girlie, I was refering to Hate Crime Legislation. Which I am against. |
|
Date: 7/24/2003 6:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
Derek, for any crime to be prosecuted as a hate crime, a certain set of circumstances HAVE to exist. There are a lot of cases that could fall under hate crimes laws but are not tried as such due to the added burden of proving the hate crime. As for your "what ifs", there are millions of what ifs out there. Until it happens, you will never know. |
Date: 7/24/2003 7:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
derek how many gays do you know that hate gay people enough to kill em? hmm none for me, also in personal experience, i didnt choose my sexuality  |
Date: 7/25/2003 1:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 48250
I Beg Your Pardon Two Spirit... I Have been Saved for 28 years...I Do Not Dispute Every thing I Disagree with, Please do not stereotyp others... I personally Could care less whom is homosexual or whom is not.. Many Years ago I worked with a man whom informed me he is homosexual, he was afraid because of my religious beliefs, that I would look down on him.., He was quite suprised when he learned that I Loved him as my Friend just fine, Personally, I believe God Created a Woman for a Man.., He Created Adam & Eve...Not Adam & Steve....But to each His/Her Own...Ultimately we live with Our Choices....However, My Friend Confided in me regarding his sexual orientation as to why He personally believed he was homosexual, for the fact he suffered & was exposed to years of child abuse..whatever my friend's Choice, he is still my Friend....T/C...  |
|
Date: 7/25/2003 5:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
Ky Bluebird, I did not say Christians dispute evrything they disagree with, but that Christian sites do. Most of those have "family" or "values" in their name. I know many Christians who are accepting and understanding, and look beyond the fact that a person is gay or lesbian. |
Date: 7/29/2003 12:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 62095
I believe in God and it says in the bible that a man (or woman) should not lay down with a nother man (or woman). It says that it is a sin in the bible but I personally am not going to jugde a person because he or she is gay. If that is what they feel is right for them why would I care, it isnt my business. If they believe in God then I am sure they have taken it to him. Some people just dont like the opposite sex and arent attracted to anyone but the same sex, I dont know, it is confusing to me but it doesnt bother me.  |
|
Date: 7/29/2003 12:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 62095
Only God Knows how this all works. He is the only one who knows. |
Date: 7/30/2003 5:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 51635
Well I can firmly say that I WAS born gay... I have no recolection of ever feeling diferently, and when I accepted myself for who I am life became more clear, not just present life but a lot of my childhood and my teen years... think what you want, let science do what it will, I WAS BORN GAY....  |
|
Date: 8/28/2003 3:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 12966
even IF someone was born with some "gay gene" or whatever doesnt meant they are doomed to live a sinful lifestyle. There is also a gene that causes alcoholism, many people have it, but once they realize they have a problem they can get help. "I was born this way" is NOT an excuss for sin! Some people were born with quick tempers, but that doesnt make it ok for them to get mad and hit someone. I personally do not think people are born gay. All of this so called "proof" you have is a bunch of crap! I do not believe everything scientists say, according to them there was a big boom and this amazing and very complicated world just happened. Well, I know that isnt true, so why should I believe this lie about beinng born gay. All of this is just an EXCUSS for sin! It is a lie straigth for hell! When people sin, they dont want to know the truth or they refuse to believe it, b/c satan has a stronghold on their heart. I do not hate gays. I feel sorry for them b/c they are living a lie and they will have to suffer an eternity in hell. So dont say I hate gays, b/c i dont hate anyone. I know a few gay people and I am friends with them. I pray that gays will realize they are wrong and will accept Christ, repent, and change their evil ways before it is too late. |
|
Date: 8/28/2003 3:48:00 AM
From Authorid: 12966
*straight from* |
Date: 8/28/2003 6:53:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
If God is against Gays and he made them that way, he must be such a nice guy!  |
|
Date: 8/28/2003 6:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
"All of this is just an EXCUSS for sin! It is a lie straigth for hell! When people sin, they dont want to know the truth or they refuse to believe it, b/c satan has a stronghold on their heart." - Christians excuse for when people dont agree with them is "satan did it" "you must be evil" |
|
Date: 8/28/2003 1:25:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
I want to add something here. I have said I have three children. Two are grown adults. Both of my daughters joined Gay-rights groups while still in highschool. I asked them, seperately, if they were gay, or bi-curious. Both of them responded in the negative, but they were following my example of fighting for other's rights. If they had been, I would have loved & protected them, and their partners. My son, who is now 12, if he prefered a same-sex partner, I would be more heartbroken. Not for me, but for him. Because I would fear his becoming the next Matthew Shepard. It has nothing to do with having a double-standard. It has to do with my being afraid for his safety. I would be less concerned for him with disease (I would make sure he was properly educated to prevent disease), than I would some looney-tunes with a gun. I mean that. |
|
Date: 8/28/2003 1:26:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
I do not think this is a sin/non-sin issue. I believe this is a people fear homosexuality issue. That is my opinion. |
|
Date: 8/28/2003 1:27:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
I don't think it's a matter of "god hates fags". If anything, God hates fag-haters. Just a guess... |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
