Is it wrong to advocate homosexuality as a sin?

[Amhairghine]

http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html

Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal

August 1996 Press Release

WASHINGTON -- Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.

Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.

Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.

Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [non-homophobic] men did not.'

Broken down further, the measurements showed that while 66% of the non-homophobic group showed no significant tumescence while watching the male homosexual video, only 20% of the homophobic men showed little or no evidence of arousal. Similarly, while 24% of the non-homophobic men showed definite tumescence while watching the homosexual video, 54% of the homophobic men did.

When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the degree to which they were aroused by watching each of the three videos, men in both groups gave answers that tracked fairly closely with the results of the objective physiological measurement, with one exception: the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.

Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed homosexual urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that theory, the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety. According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have caused negative emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the non-homophobic men. As the authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is also possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se. These competing notions can and should be evaluated by future research.'

Article: 'Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?' by Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany A. Lohr, University of Georgia, in Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp 440-445.

The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes more than 142,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 49 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 58 state and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting human welfare.

PsychNET®
© 2003 American Psychological Association

Posted, not written by Amhairghine

 

[gnomon]

Lesbians cannot have children naturally without male sperm. GOD designed children to be the offspring of both a male and female. Because a person is a lesbian doesn''t make them cool. And the same can be applied to my beliefs. But being able to take the heat ------ now, that may mean that one is very cool.

Just remembered something. Non-lesbians cannot have children without male sperm. Excepting the Holy Blessed Mother for those who believe.

Yet lesbians still get pregnant. How do they do that? Is that human ingenuity or a bunch of virgin mary's.

A lesbian rock band called the Virgin Mary's.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To have children without providing those children with a father seems rather selfish. If one feels bad because of how others view that, how secure can that one be concerning that choice. A bigot is a person who bases his or her opinions on his or her feelings without any regard of research. To imagine that all choices are of equal value is as bigoted and one who feels only his/her choices are valid.

I never said I felt bad. Some people do get down over what people tell them, especially when they heard all the time. It's called basic brainwashing. You repeatedly tell something to someone, and eventually there is a chance that they come to believe it, or it deeply hurts them.
And you in your own admission are calling yourself a bigot. If you research the subject of gay parenting, the APA (American Psychological Association) has plenty of peer reviewed articles and journals showing kids of gay parents turn out just fine. And saying lesbian parents "aren't cool" has nothing backed with science or research. Just feelings. And there is nothing selfish about raising a kid with two moms or two dads. What is selfish is bringing a child into this world and never really loving it. And loving a child does not require gender. Plenty of heterosexual couples bring unwanted and unloved children into this world. At least with a homosexual couple, the child has to be wanted, planned on, and has a better chance of being with a loving family.

But seriously, take some time to look over what the APA has shown on the issue. There is not a single down-side to being a kid raised in a gay family.

GOD designed children to be the offspring of both a male and female.

Then what of asexual reproduction? Plants aren't the only ones who do it.

 

[Autodidact]

But seriously, take some time to look over what the APA has shown on the issue. There is not a single down-side to being a kid raised in a gay family.
.

I think this is going too far. There are down sides to anything. Your family is different, and you may get teased about that, depending where you live. If you're not the same sex as your parents, you could have some logistical difficulties, like at the pool. You might not have the appropriate parent for e.g. a father/son weekend, stuff like that.

Also I think e.g. being the only boy in a family of 4 can be a bit rough. I know a boy whose family is like that. Overall, he has superb moms and has been super lucky, but I think he finds it a bit harder to sort of transition out of the world of women and children. Hard to say.

The downsides are far outweighed by the huge advantage of being wanted and planned for.

 

[emiliano]

The person speaking for God never defined "vile passions." You can use your imagination in that case. I am strictly heterosexual and married to the same woman for 42 years. However, I am not so arrogant as to judge sexual acts that do not appeal to me. Some humans are attracted to the same sex. I don't think they choose to be attracted to the same sex. Dogs perform homosexual humping. Bonobos (related to Chimps) frequently practice homosexual behaviour as a social bonding ritual. Putting Biblical and Qur'anic superstition aside, all I can say is that homosexuality is non-reproductive and would not be an advantage in a group of animals of an endangered species. Humans have not be an endangered species except about 70,000 to 100,000 BCE.

Thanks for your response and for the subtlety of your anti-religion rant, I will explain a few things as a way to continue the debate; firstly as to what Paul meant by vile:

Lexicon Results


Strong's G819 - atimia


ἀτιμία

Transliteration


atimia


Pronunciation​

ä-tē-mē'-ä (Key)

Part of Speech​

feminine noun

Root Word (Etymology)​

from G820

TDNT Reference


n/a


Vines


View Entry​

Outline of Biblical Usage ​

1) dishonour, ignominy, disgrace

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 7 ​

AV — dishonour 4, vile 1, shame 1, reproach 1

Thayer's Lexicon (Help) ​

Are you aware that this defines it as unseemliness and offensiveness of dead body? To religious falks sin and remaining is one’s sins= spiritual death. Now what does it do to the statement that Jewish Jews are OK with it? And that is what I responded to.​

Homosexuality is maladaptive in the strict Darwinian sense. Perhaps anti-homosexuality is a remote memory of something endangering our race when humanity faced possible extinction in Africa following climate changes and the effects of Mount Toba, whose volcanic eruption was the most massive in the past five million years. It is just an idea.

I thought that that ideas was a Freudian theory (regressive memories) Darwin starts his theory much earlier that that, in fact is with a kind of soup that progress to tadpoles that mutate to more and more complex live forms guided by random fortuity events or their own volition I am not sure which is it but it is extremely scientific and is use by some as proof that there is not God, I am not much for appearing scientifically clever and find very little interest although I believe that the creation that we see has gone though changes that modern times human for example are different than the ancient/prehistoric ones

Modern fear of homosexuality, called homophobia has a different reason in my opinion. I am not remotely homosexual but I fail to understand why other men seem so steamed up over it. It matters not to me, my wife, my children, and my grandchildren if I see two blokes getting married. I do find homosexual acts somewhat repulsive but it is none of my business.

Oh the mask is down, on this point I direct you the subject of the discussion. Is it wrong to advocate homosexuality a sin? I responded no because it is a sin and a sin is something that does harm, is something evil and we got into the Judeo/Abrahamic religions and the statement was made that Jews are OK with it although I know that this is false I answered, because I know that nobody can bring this to a Christian congregation and remain a member of a Christian Church, then as I expected the labels start to fly just as your post did Paul did not define, it homophobia, it is related to evolution etc. By accepting the possibility that there are religions that use the name Christian (although they are excommunicated Christian) then it came this which is a harder attack on Islam with more direct attacks and insults, what would you say if I call you a bigot?

Modern homophobia is a fear reaction of men who have homosexual tendencies but are trying to live a heterosexual life style. They may even have wives and children. However, they are constantly in turmoil over attraction to other men that they must suppress or repress all of the time. When they see two other men married or having sex, it stirs their own homosexual urges. This internal conflict makes them hate the object of their temptation, gay men. I am personally convinced but do not know with certainty, that Rev. Phelps of the "God Hates ****" Church seems a likely candidate for psychotic level of homophobia.

I was surprised that this little beauty took so long to show up, first is labeling (homophobia) and then say all people that do not approve of this bizarre behavior are secretly gay. And fallow with this crap shot:

Boys raised by Irish Catholic mothers are pressured to do one of three things in life; be a doctor, be a lawyer, or be a priest. Catholic mothers also want families and grandchildren. So boys are pressured to get married (if doctors or if lawyers) and propagate. I spent some early years living in Ireland, so I know this tradition. When a Catholic boy first reaslises his homosexual tendencies, he is faced with a conflict. His mother is constantly introducing to elegible girls (for marriage.)

 

[EverChanging]

People have the right to freedom of speech and ideas, and that should not be inhibited or an evolution of ideas would be stifled or at least retarded. Thus, homophobes have the right to declare homosexuality sinful all they want.

However, it is still immoral, and the effects of that can be attested to by the LGBT community and their friends, families, and allies. It is reflected in legal inequalities and the way LGBT people are treated and perceived. I have gone through my own personal hell simply because I'm gay, something I never wanted or chose, one more thing that made my life much more difficult and vulnerable to abuse from other people. Even those who do not hate homosexuals, yet think of my love or attraction for another male as sinful, tend to support legal inequalities and overlook our plight, or they think of us as needing to be cured, or we were abused, and other such lies.

 

[ProudAtheist122208]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

that is the first statement of the Declaration Of Independence. it is basically saying that ALL men are equal (im not goin into the next line that refrences god) but most people are against it not because it is said in the constitution (its not) but because "god" says so which is wrong 1. to assume and 2. use to discriminate with

 

[freethinker44]

I believe that it is wrong for a person to participate in any act of forbidden sex. Sex between two members of the same sex is included in that category.

Why should any aspect of sex be forbidden? Besides "because god told me so", what is wrong about certain sx acts as apposed to others? And why should it concern anyone else about what two people do in the privacy of their own home?

 

[twinmama]

Just reminding that it is not only American research that has concluded gay parenting to be OK, similar results come from other western countries too.

There are tons of different kind of families - single moms with sons - should they be forbidden? Single dads with daughters - should they be forbidden? Or is single mom/dad OK as long as she/he is hetrosexual?

The most important things for a child is love and acceptance.

 

[freethinker44]

Modern homophobia is a fear reaction of men who have homosexual tendencies but are trying to live a heterosexual life style.

Lol, if this were true than almost every male I have ever met is secretly gay. I doubt that though, some small amount maybe but not all. I would say this statistic is completely made up by the source, like if someone said people are only mean because they hate themselves, which is complete ********. People who say stuff like that are just attempting to rationalize how they are treated or how people they see get treated by others. Why does hate always need a secret agenda, why can't people just be ********.

 

[Zorro1227]

www.teach-ministries.org Read this testimony of a mother who's daughter was a lesbian. I think it shows that it is very wrong to advocate it as a sin.

 

[LittleNipper]

God didn't "call it." the authors did.

GOD/CHRIST is the AUTHOR. The men involved are but pens of a selected style.

 

[averageJOE]

www.teach-ministries.org Read this testimony of a mother who's daughter was a lesbian. I think it shows that it is very wrong to advocate it as a sin.

That's a pretty heavy story. All the anti-gay religious folks need to read it.

 

[LittleNipper]

Jesus: "If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

But you still haven't proven that Jesus is God. Just that you have some hearsay about his performing miracles. Report to the stoning grounds.

Philippians 2:5-11 (New International Version)


5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

 

[emiliano]

This turn out to be an interesting thread, but if kept on topic is has already been answered by the OP. “Now, to be clear, I am not questioning the right to spread this nonsense. I understand freedom of expression and its importance. But just because something is lawful that does not mean it is right” I like that one, what we talking about here is about rights and religious people have a right to define what sin is in their Church and they have the right to exclude from their ranks anybody that obstinately transgress their tenet, most gays and lesbians hate religion with a passion and get on these tits for tats with the church, their favorite debating strategy is play the victim, they don’t mention their constant slanderous attacks of religions that do not accept them as members, they want to force us to change our moral and ethic standards, to destroy the Church a model of righteous living, there are those that gave in and that would be OK if they don’t used the name of Christianity, marriage or allege right to force and infiltrate the Church
The right to excommunicate is an immediate and necessary consequence of the fact that the Church is a society. Every society has the right to exclude and deprive of their rights and social advantages its unworthy or grievously culpable members, either temporarily or permanently. This right is necessary to every society in order that it may be well administered and survive. The fundamental proof, therefore, of the Church's right to excommunicate is based on her status as a spiritual society, whose members, governed by legitimate authority, seek one and the same end through suitable means. Members who, by their obstinate disobedience, reject the means of attaining this common end deserve to be removed from such a society.

 

[Autodidact]

This turn out to be an interesting thread, but if kept on topic is has already been answeredby the OP. “Now, to be clear, I am not questioning the right to spread this nonsense. I understand freedom of expression and its importance. But just because something is lawful that does not mean it is right” I like that one, what we talking about here is about rights and religious people have a right to define what sin is in their Church and they have the right to exclude from their ranks anybody that obstinately transgress their tenet,

Of course they do. All of them. Including the gay ones and the many, probably the majority, who believe that God doesn't have a problem with it.

most gays and lesbians hate religion with a passion and get on these tits for tats with the church,

This is incorrect. The majority of Gay Americans are Christian, and the majority of American Christians support gay marriage or civil unions.

their favorite debating strategy is play the victim, they don’t mention their constant slanderous attacks of religions that do not accept them as members

If you think I've said anything factually incorrect, please cite what it is you think I said that is not true.

, they want to force us to change our moral and ethic standards, to destroy the Church a model of righteous living, there are those that gave in and that would be OK if they don’t used the name of Christianity, marriage or allege right to force and infiltrate the Church

There is no "they," emiliano. The people who are advocating for gay people to be included in Christianity are your fellow Christians.

The

right to excommunicate is an immediate and necessary consequence of the fact that the Church is a society. Every society has the right to exclude and deprive of their rights and social advantages its unworthy or grievously culpable members, either temporarily or permanently. This right is necessary to every society in order that it may be well administered and survive. The fundamental proof, therefore, of the Church's right to excommunicate is based on her status as a spiritual society, whose members, governed by legitimate authority, seek one and the same end through suitable means. Members who, by their obstinate disobedience, reject the means of attaining this common end deserve to be removed from such a society.

Nobody is disputing this. However, as your church changes and decides to grant full inclusion of gay people, you may find yourself on the other end of excommunication.

 

[LittleNipper]

Of course they do. All of them. Including the gay ones and the many, probably the majority, who believe that God doesn't have a problem with it.[/font][/color][/size] This is incorrect. The majority of Gay Americans are Christian, and the majority of American Christians support gay marriage or civil unions. If you think I've said anything factually incorrect, please cite what it is you think I said that is not true. There is no "they," emiliano. The people who are advocating for gay people to be included in Christianity are your fellow Christians.
Nobody is disputing this. However, as your church changes and decides to grant full inclusion of gay people, you may find yourself on the other end of excommunication.

Satan told JESUS to turn stone into bread ------ that didn't make him a christian now did it?

 

[Autodidact]

Satan told JESUS to turn stone into bread ------ that didn't make him a christian now did it?

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Autodidact]

So, LN, you told us that a bigot is someone who does not base his views on the research. The research makes it clear that same-sex parenting is not detrimental to children. So, are you a bigot, or do you agree that same-sex parenting is not detrimental to children?

 

[LittleNipper]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Christian are as christian do. If the fruits of the SPIRIT do not shine forth and they (supposed "christian") are providing advice ------- don't take their word as gospel...