Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Preach it!

Love to, but I no longer respond to @1robin, since I have determined that there's nothing (s)he wants to know, having a mind fixed in perpetuity on the antipathies and nonsense perpetrated by the Christian myth and phony science blathered by Focus on the Family.

I have always found it's better to have nothing at all to do with people who despise you. Life is more peaceful that way, for them as well as me.

 

[sojourner]

Love to, but I no longer respond to @1robin, since I have determined that there's nothing (s)he wants to know, having a mind fixed in perpetuity on the antipathies and nonsense perpetrated by the Christian myth and phony science blathered by Focus on the Family.

I have always found it's better to have nothing at all to do with people who despise you. Life is more peaceful that way, for them as well as me.

Well... there are plenty of good, decent people who stand with you. I am one. My congregation has done gay weddings, and you and your S.O. would be most welcome any time.

 

[1robin]

Curious. How many is that? I ask because

Dr. Robert Spitzer, a psychiatry professor at Columbia University, said he began his study as a skeptic — believing, as major mental health organizations do, that sexual orientation cannot be changed, and attempts to do so can even cause harm.

But Spitzer's study, which has not yet been published or reviewed, seems to indicate otherwise. Spitzer says he spoke to 143 men and 57 women who say they changed their orientation from gay to straight, and concluded that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of women reached what he called good heterosexual functioning — a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year and getting enough emotional satisfaction to rate at least a seven on a 10-point scale.
source


​

This means that only 55% of those who say they changed their orientation from gay to straight reached, what Dr. Robert Spitzer called good heterosexual functioning — a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year and getting enough emotional satisfaction to rate at least a seven on a 10-point scale.
But while most, 55%, did achieve "good heterosexual functioning," almost half, a good 45%, did not. Which is hardly stellar results. And what are these 45% left with? Any loving relationship and emotional satisfaction they may have had as homosexuals is gone, as is any loving relationship and emotional satisfaction they expected as heterosexuals.

Interestingly, if none had aids before becoming heterosexuals they only dodged a 48%* chance of getting it by changing their sexual orientation, and incurred a 45% chance of becoming emotionally unsatisfied heterosexuals without a loving relationship. One has to wonder how a person weighs out these two options.

And let's not forget that the rate of new aids cases and deaths is in a very healthy decline, which means that in time one of the selling points of Christianity's moral right may become moot. One can only hope.

*source

.

I made no claim concerning the efficacy (convenience) of changing sexual orientations. I wasn't suggesting anyone seek this kind of help though they are certainly welcome to. My point was that quite a few homosexual people have for whatever reason switched to heterosexuality. The reason I know that is because a person who was defending homosexuality looked it up and told me about. I was interested in the fact that if homosexuals can change to heterosexuals that speaks to the orientation being a behavior instead of a biological issue. However I am not really condemning homosexual orientation. I am condemning homosexual sex and that is definitely a choice. You spent a lot of your own time condemning an argument I never made. So goes this type of thread.

 

[Skwim]

O

One correction. You are talking about the chance of new HIV cases, not AIDS cases. In the bad old days HIV and AIDS were one and the same. Today not so much I already linked an article on how those with HIV that undergo treatment, and of course keep it up, can live a full life without AIDS. The average lifetime cost of treating HIV is under $400,000.00. And that amount is dropping as drug companies continually drop their charges:

HIV Cost-effectiveness | Guidance | Program Resources | HIV/AIDS | CDC

Thank you for the correction. As someone not really up on HIV Vs AIDs I was not making the distinction.

.

 

[Skwim]

I made no claim concerning the efficacy (convenience) of changing sexual orientations. I wasn't suggesting anyone seek this kind of help though they are certainly welcome to. My point was that quite a few homosexual people have for whatever reason switched to heterosexuality. The reason I know that is because a person who was defending homosexuality looked it up and told me about. I was interested in the fact that if homosexuals can change to heterosexuals that speaks to the orientation being a behavior instead of a biological issue. However I am not really condemning homosexual orientation. I am condemning homosexual sex and that is definitely a choice. You spent a lot of your own time condemning an argument I never made. So goes this type of thread.

I condemned nothing you said. And that you think I did shows a lack of reading comprehension,or maybe it's simple over defensiveness. Whatever the case, you asserted that "so many professing homosexuals became heterosexuals after seeking (Christian) counseling." And I simply asked how many is "so many." I then went on to explain why I asked, which included evidence that such changes in sexual orientation aren't all that successful. IMO, a good reason it shouldn't be encouraged.

Now that that's cleared up, how about answering my question: How many is "so many"? Either an aggregate number or percentage will do.

.

 

[1robin]

You could have chosen analogies, then that are actual analogies. Your choices here show your bias.

Now your inventing bias that doesn't exist. You are a true lefty. My analogy was the first one to pop into mind. There was no sinister plan. Why are you butt hurt all the time? The length of these posts is already creeping beyond what I sked you for.

Please stop the discriminatory commentary against homosexuals, then. It’s the same thing.

I didn't do so to start with you just view anyone who disagrees with as sinister.

To wit:

I am on a DOD server and cant watch UTUBE.

How is sexual identity a moral question, any more than racial identity is a moral question? What is “objectively right” is being true to oneself. The medical evidence is neither “subjective” nor “opinion.” However, if your assessment be the case, then, by your criteria, the CDC opinions you passed along are also subjective and are similarly moot, which throws your whole argument out the window.

Sex is probably the behavior most often conflated with morality. Come on.

Science told us a quarter century ago that homosexuality IS a normal facet of human sexuality.

I am not judging the orientation though I could do so. I am judging homosexual sex which is absolutely a choice. I have told you this at least 6 times so far.. How many times and ways can I put it?

What you claim is irrelevant. Unless, of course, you can point us to the moment when you chose to ignore your attraction for men and chose, instead, to become attracted to women.

Whether what I am condemning is a choice or not is about the most relevant thing possible.

A subjective opinion. The costs of having ones sexual identity called into question and having ones actions condemned is even more costly. Therefore, if you really are motivated to stop the cost bleed, then stop voicing your bias.

Yes it is subjective. To judge by an objective moral truths we would have to introduce God into the equation. Please stop the color commentary. No one is biased. I have no dog in this race but you do.


T

his isn’t about what you “believe.” Or is it?

It doesn't matter because I wasn't making an argument in this context.

Your argument has more holes than a screen door.

Then you should have easily found one by now. This is just more color commentary where an argument should be.

See your quote two above this one. “I believe the orientation is WRONG.” “Wrong” = “flawed.”

I was pointing out that I never used either of the two words you said I had.

Woe is me?? I’m not gay. However, I do claim that your argument does serve to victimize homosexual persons.

I didn't say you were gay, I said you play the victim hard every time I turn around. You have you preferences and anyone who disagrees with you suffers your color commentary instead of rational arguments. Try and be briefer, half this post is meaningless.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

I made no claim concerning the efficacy (convenience) of changing sexual orientations. I wasn't suggesting anyone seek this kind of help though they are certainly welcome to. My point was that quite a few homosexual people have for whatever reason switched to heterosexuality. The reason I know that is because a person who was defending homosexuality looked it up and told me about. I was interested in the fact that if homosexuals can change to heterosexuals that speaks to the orientation being a behavior instead of a biological issue. However I am not really condemning homosexual orientation. I am condemning homosexual sex and that is definitely a choice. You spent a lot of your own time condemning an argument I never made. So goes this type of thread.

Those homosexuals who begin living as heterosexuals do not change their sexual orientation. All they do is repress it so that they can be accepted by the group that insisted they had to change.

Homosexuals cannot change their orientation any more than heterosexuals can. I still wonder why you have repeatedly refused to answer the question asked of you as to when YOU made the "choice" to be heterosexual. Why won't you answer?

 

[1robin]

I condemned nothing you said. And that you think I did shows a lack of reading comprehension,or maybe it's simple over defensiveness. Whatever the case, you asserted that "so many professing homosexuals became heterosexuals after seeking (Christian) counseling." And I simply asked how many is "so many." I then went on to explain why I asked, which included evidence that such changes in sexual orientation aren't all that successful. IMO, a good reason it shouldn't be encouraged.

Now that that's cleared up, how about answering my question: How many is "so many"? Either an aggregate number or percentage will do.

.

I get so tired of these emotional responses. If you don't like "condemned" how about "attempted to counter".

I was already asked how many to which I gave a link. It should be easy to find. It is very near to the post where I made the claim to begin with. I have no idea (nor does probably anyone) but my link does show there are many. I don't know how you found my original claim without seeing the link I provided.

I want you to find my original link but here are a few related links.
Some Gays Can Go Straight, Study Says
Homosexuality: Real Hope and Real Change

Never mind I found it.
Do People Change from Homosexuality? Hundreds of Stories of Hope and Transformation (Part I)

 

[1robin]

Love to, but I no longer respond to @1robin, since I have determined that there's nothing (s)he wants to know, having a mind fixed in perpetuity on the antipathies and nonsense perpetrated by the Christian myth and phony science blathered by Focus on the Family.

I have always found it's better to have nothing at all to do with people who despise you. Life is more peaceful that way, for them as well as me.

This is code for I disagree with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I get so tired of these emotional responses. If you don't like "condemned" how about "attempted to counter".

I was already asked how many to which I gave a link. It should be easy to find. It is very near to the post where I made the claim to begin with. I have no idea (nor does probably anyone) but my link does show there are many. I don't know how you found my original claim without seeing the link I provided.

I want you to find my original link but here are a few related links.
Some Gays Can Go Straight, Study Says
Homosexuality: Real Hope and Real Change

Never mind I found it.
Do People Change from Homosexuality? Hundreds of Stories of Hope and Transformation (Part I)

Two of your sources are Focus on the Family, you have to be kidding us. The third is ABC News, but that one says roughly 120 people had successfully switched. This ignores the fact that sexuality is a spectrum. There are some people that swing both ways. If they wanted to change they should have much less problem "becoming straight" than someone that was very gay.

A proper scientific study would measure the subjects sexuality both before and after. Instead all we have are some religiously motivated people that may have switched, but without proper data it is hard to seriously make that claim.

 

[Skwim]

I get so tired of these emotional responses.

Those were emotional responses?

​

That's an emotional response

​

If you don't like "condemned" how about "attempted to counter".

Nah, not in the least. I.. E X P L A I N E D, and you didn't like it.

explained
past tense: explain>
[ik-spleyn]
verb (used with object)to make plain or clear; render understandable or intelligible:
​

I was already asked how many to which I gave a link. It should be easy to find. It is very near to the post where I made the claim to begin with. I have no idea (nor does probably anyone) but my link does show there are many. I don't know how you found my original claim without seeing the link I provided.

I want you to find my original link but here are a few related links.
Some Gays Can Go Straight, Study Says
Homosexuality: Real Hope and Real Change

Never mind I found it.
Do People Change from Homosexuality? Hundreds of Stories of Hope and Transformation (Part I)

And there was nothing in any of the three that even hinted at what your "many" means. And, no, the many anecdotal accounts in Focus on the Families' "Hundreds of Stories of Hope and Transformation" do not qualify.

.

.

 

[1robin]

Those were emotional responses?

​

That's an emotional response

Where did you get that GIF from?

​

Nah, not in the least. I.. E X P L A I N E D, and you didn't like it.

explained
past tense: explain>
[ik-spleyn]
verb (used with object)to make plain or clear; render understandable or intelligible:​

You made a claim roughly contrary to mine. I think "attempted to counter" is a better word for it but who cares. Why are we circling the semantic drain?
​

And there was nothing in any of the three that even hinted at what your "many" means. And, no, the many anecdotal accounts in Focus on the Families' "Hundreds of Stories of Hope and Transformation" do not qualify.

.

.

Many is simply a linguistic tool which has no objective standard. I used it to suggest a significant number. I use terms that have no objective requirement on purpose, to avoid these semantic off ramps.

1 : consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number

• worked for many years

• the many advantages of an education

2 : being one of a large but indefinite number

• many a man

• many another student

Definition of MANY

 

[Skwim]

Where did you get that GIF from?

▷ Laughing: Animated Images, Gifs, Pictures & Animations - 100% FREE!

You made a claim roughly contrary to mine. I think "attempted to counter" is a better word for it but who cares. Why are we circling the semantic drain?
​

​

To tell you the truth, I skimmed most of the posts, including the content of the post in question, and just happened on your odd claim by chance.

Many is simply a linguistic tool which has no objective standard. I used it to suggest a significant number. I use terms that have no objective requirement on purpose, to avoid these semantic off ramps.

1 : consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number

• worked for many years

• the many advantages of an education

2 : being one of a large but indefinite number

• many a man

• many another student

Definition of MANY

And if that was all you said I would have let it go, but you said "so many," emphasizing a sense of "considerably," "conspicuously," "decidedly," or "greatly."

so
sō/
adverb
adverb: so
1.to such a great extent.
"the words tumbled out so fast that I could barely hear them"


so
adverb \ ˈsō , especially before an adjective or adverb
: to a great extent or degree : very, extremely


so
(sō)adv.
1. To a great extent; to such an evident degree:
​

And that is what I was looking for; just how many are there that would prompt you to consider there to be not just many, but a considerable amount, a conspicuous amount, a decided amount, a great amount, a notable amount, or a remarkable amount.

Sooooooooooooooooooooo, exactly what was it that made you think there are "SO many professing homosexuals became heterosexuals after seeking (Christian) counseling."?

What was it that made you think there is "a significant number"? I certainly hope it wasn't that collection of accounts culled by the Focus on the Family web site.

.

 

[sojourner]

Now your inventing bias that doesn't exist

You are biased. Your posts make that clear.

Why are you butt hurt all the time

This is a common ploy for you. Claim that others are “hurt” or “too emotional.”
Allegations of not playing fair. You do this all the time; everyone here knows it.

I didn't do so to start with

Yes you did.

I am on a DOD server and cant watch UTUBE

Your loss.

Sex is probably the behavior most often conflated with morality

I didn’t say “behavior.” I said “orientation.”

I am not judging the orientation

Yes. You are. Unless you can dream up sex acts exclusive to homosexuals. Which you have not yet accomplished.

Whether what I am condemning is a choice or not is about the most relevant thing possible.

I said your “claim.”

Yes it is subjective. To judge by an objective moral truths we would have to introduce God into the equation. Please stop the color commentary. No one is biased. I have no dog in this race but you do

You certainly do, or you wouldn’t have posted what you did. That’s your argument, and we’re going to deal with it. And we’ve already dealt multiple times with your bias.

I was pointing out that I never used either of the two words you said I had.

Have you ever heard of the term “synonym?”

, I said you play the victim hard every time I turn around

No, I’m playing the advocate hard. There’s your little ploy again that we just brought to your attention earlier in the post.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

▷ Laughing: Animated Images, Gifs, Pictures & Animations - 100% FREE!

​

To tell you the truth, I skimmed most of the posts, including the content of the post in question, and just happened on your odd claim by chance.


And if that was all you said I would have let it go, but you said "so many," emphasizing a sense of "considerably," "conspicuously," "decidedly," or "greatly."

so
sō/
adverb
adverb: so
1.to such a great extent.
"the words tumbled out so fast that I could barely hear them"


so
adverb \ ˈsō , especially before an adjective or adverb
: to a great extent or degree : very, extremely


so
(sō)adv.
1. To a great extent; to such an evident degree:
​

And that is what I was looking for; just how many are there that would prompt you to consider there to be not just many, but a considerable amount, a conspicuous amount, a decided amount, a great amount, a notable amount, or a remarkable amount.

Sooooooooooooooooooooo, exactly what was it that made you think there are "SO many professing homosexuals became heterosexuals after seeking (Christian) counseling."?

What was it that made you think there is "a significant number"? I certainly hope it wasn't that collection of accounts culled by the Focus on the Family web site.

.

And I would think you need something else to really get an understanding of the issue: how many professing homosexuals became heterosexuals after seeking (Christian) counseling, compared to how many professing homosexuals there actually are?

Only then would you have a meaningful statistic. After all, if 100 homosexuals get "cured," out of, say, a population of 300, that would be something. If several hundred out of a population of 9,000,000, then that would be pretty insignificant, would it not?

(According to the Williams Institute review conducted in April 2011, approximately 3.80 % of American adults identify themselves being in the LGBT community; wherein, (1.70%) identify as lesbian or gay, (1.80%) bisexual, and (0.30%) transgender, which corresponds to approximately 9 million adult Americans as of the 2010 Census. LGBT demographics of the United States - Wikipedia)

 

[1robin]

▷ Laughing: Animated Images, Gifs, Pictures & Animations - 100% FREE!

Thanks but I am probably too lazy to utilize the site.

​

To tell you the truth, I skimmed most of the posts, including the content of the post in question, and just happened on your odd claim by chance.

Ok but I still am not sure why your harping on the semantics here.

And if that was all you said I would have let it go, but you said "so many," emphasizing a sense of "considerably," "conspicuously," "decidedly," or "greatly."

so
sō/
adverb
adverb: so
1.to such a great extent.
"the words tumbled out so fast that I could barely hear them"


so
adverb \ ˈsō , especially before an adjective or adverb
: to a great extent or degree : very, extremely


so
(sō)adv.
1. To a great extent; to such an evident degree:​

I did not anticipate anyone calling me out for my word choice here so I wasn't being hyper technical.
​

And that is what I was looking for; just how many are there that would prompt you to consider there to be not just many, but a considerable amount, a conspicuous amount, a decided amount, a great amount, a notable amount, or a remarkable amount.

Sooooooooooooooooooooo, exactly what was it that made you think there are "SO many professing homosexuals became heterosexuals after seeking (Christian) counseling."?

What was it that made you think there is "a significant number"? I certainly hope it wasn't that collection of accounts culled by the Focus on the Family web site.

.

Why do you think a person using a term as ambiguous as many would actually know the exact number? I try to use terms that have a bit of leeway to them to avoid this exact thing. I have no idea just how many there are but it is more than I would expect to find if homosexuality was as genetically immutable as handedness for example. However I did supply three links that I thought would give you an idea that conversion has occurred "many" times. I supposes I could have left of the "so" in front of "many" off but I did not anticipate anyone being this exacting. Can we get back to my actual argument that homosexuality's costs can't be justified by its "merits"?

 

[1robin]

You are biased. Your posts make that clear.

Stuff like this has no part in a debate. This is color commentary not an argument. I have no emotion of desire what so ever concerning this issue. I just find the massive costs of homosexuality unjustified by its "merits".

This is a common ploy for you. Claim that others are “hurt” or “too emotional.”
Allegations of not playing fair. You do this all the time; everyone here knows it.

More color commentary. Do you even remember what the argument was?

Yes you did.

This is a declaration not an argument. How is this a defense of homosexuality?

Your loss.

I guess.

I didn’t say “behavior.” I said “orientation.”

The subject under debate isn't orientation, it is homosexual sex.

Yes. You are. Unless you can dream up sex acts exclusive to homosexuals. Which you have not yet accomplished.

I do not have to do so since the same behavior comes at a much higher price concerning homosexuals compared to heterosexuals. I need nothing else. There must be some difference because there are different outcomes.

I said your “claim.”

My claim was what I was addressing.

You certainly do, or you wouldn’t have posted what you did. That’s your argument, and we’re going to deal with it. And we’ve already dealt multiple times with your bias.

I am the greatest possible resource in human history concerning what I think, not you. My argument is based on fact not preferences. Yours is. I am the only one that has provided hard evidence.

Have you ever heard of the term “synonym?”

Irrelevant semantics.

Do you realize there is not one thing in your post that defends homosexual sex. Not even a bad argument, just a bunch of color commentary about trivial points of disagreement. I don't think you remember what the argument actually was so I will remind you.

Homosexual sex comes with such a high cost (tens of thousand of lives and millions of dollars) it can't be justified by its "merits".

Do something to counter this. If you can't then your are simply defending your preference at the expense of lives and fortunes. Leave emotion out of it and post some facts.

 

[sojourner]

The subject under debate isn't orientation, it is homosexual sex.

I think it ultimately is, because you’re the one who keeps saying “there’s a difference” between acts that are the same acts.

I do not have to do so since the same behavior comes at a much higher price concerning homosexuals compared to heterosexuals

No. It doesn’t. The same acts (and let’s please just go ahead and identify them as butt sex, because that’s what we’re talking about) produce much higher “prices” among heterosexuals in Africa. Plus, not all homosexual couples engage in butt sex. It’s not a requirement. So the “culprit” isn’t “homosexuality,” it’s “indiscriminate butt sex.”

My argument is based on fact not preferences. Yours is. I am the only one that has provided hard evidence

You’ve provided poor analytics of incomplete data.

Do something to counter this

Asked and answered.

 

[Skwim]

Ok but I still am not sure why your harping on the semantics here.

I did not anticipate anyone calling me out for my word choice here so I wasn't being hyper technical.​

​

It's not a matter of word choice---using one instead of another---(choosing a synonym as it were), but because of what is denoted by what you said. Instead of saying "many," which means "a large number" you went to the trouble to qualify that "many" to mean more than a large number. You wanted the reader to believe that a great many professing homosexuals became heterosexuals after seeking (Christian) counseling. "How many is that?" is certainly not a hyper technical question, nor is trying to pry the meaning of what you said out of you, hyper technical. That you obviously can't back up your claim, and now try to take refuge in a "go-look-here-and-figure-it-out-for-yourself defense, and whining about me being hyper technical is rather lame.

And my "Curious. How many is that?" didn't imply I was looking for a specific number, just if you had said "so many people showed up for the football game" wouldn't prompt expectations for an exact number, but a decent approximation. Some kind of information about what motivated you to not just indicate a large number of people at the game, but a great number.

So, why a great number, 1robin, instead of simply a large number? To reiterate, you went to the trouble to modify your "many" and I was simply curious what that was. Want to say, "12,554"? Fine, Want to say "Tens of thousands"? well,. . . . . okay. Want to say "Thousands and thousands"? Sorry, but I'll need evidence.

The message you want to get across is in your hands, and if you can't stand by it then I'll know better what to look out for in your future posts.

. I supposes I could have left of the "so" in front of "many" off but I did not anticipate anyone being this exacting.

Sure you could have, but something prompted you to add it. Or do you simply make it a habit of exaggerating facts?

.

 

[1robin]

I think it ultimately is, because you’re the one who keeps saying “there’s a difference” between acts that are the same acts.

My claims follow the facts. The rates that heterosexual acts result in new aids cases are unbelievably low compared to those same acts when performed by homosexuals therefor there must be a difference between these two acts. When 4% of a population produces 67% of new aids cases and 96% produce only 40% there is a huge difference somewhere in the mix. Also keep in mind that just because heterosexuals do it to does not men that the act is justifiable. I am not approving of anal sex for either orientation but this is not a thread about heterosexuality. Your clients guilt or innocence has nothing to do with another clients guilt or innocent. You simply taken an irrelevant off ramp. Your argument just doesn't work or even apply.

No. It doesn’t. The same acts (and let’s please just go ahead and identify them as butt sex, because that’s what we’re talking about) produce much higher “prices” among heterosexuals in Africa. Plus, not all homosexual couples engage in butt sex. It’s not a requirement. So the “culprit” isn’t “homosexuality,” it’s “indiscriminate butt sex.”

Just because we are talking about a sexual act does not mean we need to use base language. I am not approving of what your talking about for anyone but this is not a thread about whether heterosexuality is guilty or innocent of any charge. Make a thread about it if you want but your argument wouldn't be meaningful in it either.

You’ve provided poor analytics of incomplete data.

I didn't analyze anything. I posted CDC statistic and used them to create an argument which has not been challenged. The CDC linked homosexual sex with new AIDS cases not me.

Asked and answered.

Where is it?