I think I've got it figured it out now. If and iPod tries to go gay, it gets fried. Was that a sneaky metaphor?
38 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Let me get this straight. (No pun intended.) So ... God had already created human beings, and we were all just milling around down here, and THEN God created sex so we would have something to do that would be FUN?
Welllllllllllllllllllllll, nice try; but somehow I just don't think it happened quite like that.
I do wonder, though, how long it took him to come up with this particular theory in order to support his conclusion.
This may be out of line but ... My "GAYDAR" went off the second I heard this guy speak. You mark my words some day we will hear about a "toe tapping" airport thing or some homo~sexual meeting.
And I didnt know God created sex ... WOW ... that explains ALOT !!! And my IPOD keeps looking at me in a wierd way?
Did you know that everyone is a girl first when conceived. Then when the chromozones mix that is when you become a girl or boy. Sometimes the chromozones get mixed up and you so you are different.
I've always found it odd that Godius combined the happy happy joy joy function with the excretion function in the same part/area. He could have put some distance between them. I mean, He had a whole body to work with, was he trying to save space or what?
The last part of that sermon went something like this "and once again tithing is 20% off the top. That is gross, NOT net income. Pleeeease people, don't force us to audit. Now I'm going to pass this around a second time. Brather Barry, you'll do the honors."
The Bible says what it says in those few passages. It says a great deal more in the other 100k passages.
My mind can't reconcile it. The best I can do is follow Christ's 2nd commandment to love my fellow man as I love myself. Think this one trumps all but the "have no other gods before me passage."
Meanwhile, if stats are accurate, sitting in the congregation were less than 3% gay people. Of the remaining 97% hetro, half are married one or more times, half the children born to them were born out of wedlock, and roughly 49% are living together without benefit of marriage.
This modern day Nero is fiddling while his house is burning.Wouldn't a preacher start his sermon selection with "what do most of my people need to hear?"
But it keeps the coffers full and overflowing if you don't antognize the 97%.
Only the evangelicals are holding to the "choice argument" Most others have recognized the gene connection.
If you attempt to meld the two, I guess you come to the conclusion that God created gays this way so that the insecurity, mistreatment, abuse, etc is to make them better persons. So bigots are doing God's work I guess.
I have yet to figure out how recognizing gay unions/marriage lessens/threatens my marriage.Right now the only threat to my marriage is my selfish, thoughtless, imcompetent husband.
2:58 aka 4:47 Let me explain. Every egg a female produces has one x chromosome in it. The sperm males produce have some sperm that have an x chromosome and some that have a y chromosome. If a sperm with an x chromosome penetrates the wall and fertilizes the egg first, you have 2 x chromosomes which will produce a female. If, however, a sperm with a y chromosome penetrates the wall first to fertilize the egg, you will have 1 x chromosome and 1 y chromosome, which will produce a male baby.
Now students, I know this all sounds very sexy, but there will be a multiple choice quiz tomorrow at this same batman time and same batman channel.
5:26 & 7:08 It would probably not effect your marriage now, but the main concern is the long term effects on our society. Our society and the quality of our society is based on the family unit, which begins with marriage. Marriage itself is such an important institution in the very fabric of our society. It's main purpose is in raising the next generation and so one can say "How the family goes, so goes society." We can easily see the many societal ills today that have been caused by the degradation of the family unit. Part of that, you both have experienced it sounds like, when one partner does not live up to their marriage covenants. I'm sorry for that. I know the hurt, pain and frustration that causes and seems to never completely go away.
But even though the family and its' importance has been diminished, we don't need to diminish it's importance even more by changing the definition of what constitutes a marriage relationship. It drastically cheapens it even more than it has been already.
The folks I think who should be outraged are the blacks. For these gay and lesbians to try and say this is a civil rights issue and that it's on par with the civil rights movement of the 60's is absolutely a slap in the face of every black.
I've yet to hear any preacher espousing the "choice" theory of homosexuality tell his story. I keep waiting to hear this from the pulpit.
"...and when I was 14 I stared at the Wrangler wearin' behinds of the boys in my class... and I stared at the Wrangler wearin' behinds of the girls in my class... I found both of them equally, highly erotic and exciting and I dreamed of caressing them all. I had carnal thoughts about both the boys & girls in my class. Then, after reading my Bible and meditating on the applicable verses of the Old Testament, I chose to turn my back on those incredibly attractive and delectable boys and I chose only be attracted to girls. Go forth and do likewise. Amen."
I don't know about you, but that's not the way it worked for me. I don't remember weighing the options and making a choice. I was sneakin' peeks of Playboy, Sports Illustrated, the JC Penny catalog, National Geographic and anything else I could get my hands on just to get a private glimpse of women.
IMO, if you argue that there's a choice...you're either choosing not to be sexually active with the sex you find attractive or you're bi.
m-m, I understand that you're concerned about families. I share some of your concerns. But I know gay men that are married and gay men that are fathers. Some were open about their sexuality prior to marriage, but most were not...or they didn't "figure it out" until after marriage. Wouldn't a culture that promotes honesty and accepts homosexuality be more likely to have people who make honest relationship decisions? I find the fact that gay men, who are unwilling to come out of the closet, and choose to act straight (including a sham marriage) to be much more of an attack on marriage and their spouse than any two homosexuals that openly profess their love and commitment to each other.
I believe when two people of any sex commit to one another they not only strengthen their own bond, they also strengthen the foundation of our society in general.
I was born with a strong desire to kick other people in their buttocks. Ever since I was a little kid, I've fought these urges constantly. Everyday, I must choose to give in to my fleshly, butt-kicking ways or to refrain from such illicit behavior. Just because I was born a "butt-kicker" does'nt necessarily make me a "butt-kicker" unless I CHOOSE to act out these urges does it? Could I have been born with "butt-kicking" genes? Can someone please help me? I promise I won't kick you in the buttocks if we ever meet.
Born a butt-kicker or choose to be a butt-kicker? You decide?
9:27 I think it depends on ones point of reference. From a worldly point of view, which says anything goes and there is no right or wrong, then yes I see your point about the guys who are married heterosexually, but think they are gay. But from a spiritual and religious perspective, it is totally different. If God, through scripture, tells us homosexuality, fornication, and adultery are sinful, then if our desire is to be obedient to him, we will not involve ourselves in such sin, no matter what or how strong the attraction is.
You seemed to contradict yourself in your entry by using the wrangler jean story to prove a point about it not being a 'choice', yet in describing the men you know who are married and gay you used the phrase 'figure it out'. Seems to me if a person is born that way, how can it be that they figure it out at 13 or 30 or even 50 years old. To me, that's one reason why I don't think it can be compared to the blacks and the civil rights, because it doesn't take them 13, 30 or 50 years to figure out they are black.
The best proof is in the studies done on identicle twins. They are hard wired exactly the same, yet you have many where one is gay the other is not. According to the 'born that way theory', that can't be. They would both have to be gay, yet they are not.
m-m, firstly I appreciate your measured response. Thank you for not name-calling or attempting to use hyperbole to make your point.
I do not feel that my previous comments were contradictory. They were not meant to be so and if they can be read that way, it is a sign of my poor writing, rather than the thought behind it. The Wrangler story is intended to paint a picture of what must be the premise behind many of the answers provided by the clergy. In truth, almost no individual reports that as their history. Therefore, I think the people that cling to an answer (choice) that isn't supported by much (if any) evidence are wrong.
My reference to "figure it out" is not a contradiction of that, but is more of a nod to the incredible societal forces that attempt to mainstream homosexuals. They are told that their desires are unnatural and that they can just choose otherwise. They are told that they should not be allowed to teach. They are told that the should not be allowed to have children. They are told that they should never have physical intimacy with someone they are attracted to. They are told that they will go to hell. Very few rational people would choose to be a part of a group that is treated, labeled and despised in that way. It would be a very odd choice.
But, many men who determine later in their lives that they are homosexual, report that they tried desperately to live as a heterosexual, to fake it, but eventually were unable to do so. Sometimes, this crushed their marriage and families.
It's interesting that you reference the identical twin studies. From the studies that I have reviewed, most point to the results as lending credibility to a strong genetic component to sexuality. A paragraph from one such study is as follows:
"Later that same year, Boston University psychiatrist Richard Pillard and Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey announced the results of their study of male twins. They found that, in identical twins, if one twin was gay, the other had about a 50 percent chance of also being gay. For fraternal twins, the rate was about 20 percent. Because identical twins share their entire genetic makeup while fraternal twins share about half, genes were believed to explain the difference. Most reputable studies find the rate of homosexuality in the general population to be 2 to 4 percent, rather than the popular "1 in 10" estimate."
A 50% correlation among identical twins is still very significant. When coupled with the complexity of sexuality and the stigma related to homosexuality, the results are overwhelming. There is almost no credible scientific research that supports the "upbringing" or "choice" theory. It's probably more complicated than one gene, but that doesn't mean that the genetic component is not one of, if not the, most important factors in determining sexuality.
2:01 I have read that study as well and recognize the higher correlation among identical twins compared to fraternal. But my interpretation of such studies, is that it is damning to the 'born that way theory' because if they are hard wired that way then it should be 100% correlation, not 50%. So, even though it shows a higher correlation, anything under 100% disproves the theory. Does that make sense? It does to me, though I'm often accused of being to black or white and not allowing for any grey.
m-m, I don't know enough to say that you are "wrong" and the research related to homosexuality is certainly different. But, my understanding is that many things, schizophrenia for example, are thought to have a genetic basis. They run in families, but they are not exactly inherited, such as widow's peak or attached earlobes. The manifestation of schizophrenia is thought to be affected by other matters than just genetics...or at least not just one gene. It has a significant genetic component, but not a 100% correlation.
While I am not equating homosexuality to a mental illness, I do believe the genetic component argument is valid. It certainly does not require 100% correlation.
.jpg)
38 comments:
Let me get this straight. (No pun intended.) So ... God had already created human beings, and
we were all just milling around down here, and THEN God created sex so we would have
something to do that would be FUN?
Welllllllllllllllllllllll, nice try; but somehow I just don't think it happened quite like that.
I do wonder, though, how long it took him to come up with this particular theory in order to support his conclusion.
ʇɹnɥ ɹǝʌǝu
ʇsoן ɹǝʌǝu
pǝʌoן ɹǝʌǝu
pǝʌıן ɹǝʌǝu
ʇɟǝן ɹǝʌǝu
pǝıן ɹǝʌǝu
This may be out of line but ... My "GAYDAR" went off the second I heard this guy speak. You mark my words some day we will hear about a "toe tapping" airport thing or some homo~sexual meeting.
And I didnt know God created sex ... WOW ... that explains ALOT !!! And my IPOD keeps looking at me in a wierd way?
I'll second that 2:21
Did you know that everyone is a girl first when conceived. Then when the chromozones mix that is when you become a girl or boy. Sometimes the chromozones get mixed up and you so you are different.
I've always found it odd that Godius combined the happy happy joy joy function with the excretion function in the same part/area. He could have put some distance between them. I mean, He had a whole body to work with, was he trying to save space or what?
Double Fake listening to High Voltage by AC/DC
Well, the subject matter may be interesting, but those dudes in the choir looked extremely bored.
Gay?
That's interesting 2:58. So, we punish and shun people whose chromozones are not functioning correctly? SAD. Sounds like a birth defect to me.
2:58 You need to go and study your human physiology and reproduction a little better. That whole entry is pure stupidity.
The last part of that sermon went something like this "and once again tithing is 20% off the top. That is gross, NOT net income. Pleeeease people, don't force us to audit. Now I'm going to pass this around a second time. Brather Barry, you'll do the honors."
Which came first? The chicken or the egg/ I keep forgetting.
And yea, his whole being exudes a queer aura. Just kind of makes me gag and want to gut a wild animal with my bare hands.
That guy is THE biggest unouted knob slobber in the world!
So gay!
I could never associate myself with gaydom but, if I were he- I'd give it up brother, and go over to the dark side.
The House of R&R has been removed- what's going on?
I bet he's got some great stuff on that iPod.
The Bible says what it says in those few passages. It says a great deal more in the other 100k passages.
My mind can't reconcile it. The best I can do is follow Christ's
2nd commandment to love my fellow man as I love myself. Think this one trumps all but the "have no other gods before me passage."
Meanwhile, if stats are accurate, sitting in the congregation were less than 3% gay people. Of the remaining 97% hetro, half are married one or more times, half the children born to them were born out of wedlock, and roughly 49% are living together without benefit of marriage.
This modern day Nero is fiddling while his house is burning.Wouldn't a preacher start his sermon selection with "what do most of my people need to hear?"
But it keeps the coffers full and overflowing if you don't antognize the 97%.
Gays Suck
3:23 not a birth defect. I'm just saying maybe that is why some people are gay and some are lesbians. They are born that way.
Only the evangelicals are holding to the "choice argument" Most others have recognized the gene connection.
If you attempt to meld the two, I guess you come to the conclusion that God created gays this way so that the insecurity, mistreatment, abuse, etc is to make them better persons. So bigots are doing God's work I guess.
I have yet to figure out how recognizing gay unions/marriage lessens/threatens my marriage.Right now the only threat to my marriage is my selfish, thoughtless, imcompetent husband.
2:58 aka 4:47 Let me explain. Every egg a female produces has one x chromosome in it. The sperm males produce have some sperm that have an x chromosome and some that have a y chromosome. If a sperm with an x chromosome penetrates the wall and fertilizes the egg first, you have 2 x chromosomes which will produce a female. If, however, a sperm with a y chromosome penetrates the wall first to fertilize the egg, you will have 1 x chromosome and 1 y chromosome, which will produce a male baby.
Now students, I know this all sounds very sexy, but there will be a multiple choice quiz tomorrow at this same batman time and same batman channel.
Annobama here:
Barry ~ Could you do a "poll" or maybe a "Vote" with the readers?
"Are you Born Gay" (chromosome theory)
or
"You choose to be gay" (One time at band camp theory)?
I bet that more of your readers think .... You choose to be gay !
I will accept all wagers (err .... except from Denny Crane)
amen 5:26, the only threat to my marriage was my husband's inability to stay faithful and the couthless secretary who took advantage of that fact.
born gay
Annobama votes ... Born Gay.
If you can be born gay, can you be born melancholy?
its a 110 outlet not a 120. what a homo!!! hahah
5:26 & 7:08 It would probably not effect your marriage now, but the main concern is the long term effects on our society. Our society and the quality of our society is based on the family unit, which begins with marriage. Marriage itself is such an important institution in the very fabric of our society. It's main purpose is in raising the next generation and so one can say "How the family goes, so goes society." We can easily see the many societal ills today that have been caused by the degradation of the family unit. Part of that, you both have experienced it sounds like, when one partner does not live up to their marriage covenants. I'm sorry for that. I know the hurt, pain and frustration that causes and seems to never completely go away.
But even though the family and its' importance has been diminished, we don't need to diminish it's importance even more by changing the definition of what constitutes a marriage relationship. It drastically cheapens it even more than it has been already.
The folks I think who should be outraged are the blacks. For these gay and lesbians to try and say this is a civil rights issue and that it's on par with the civil rights movement of the 60's is absolutely a slap in the face of every black.
No, it's 120 and 240.
Too many homosexuals have the same issues in common- sexual abuse, neglect etc. for it to be inborn every time.
m-m
I don't think it is a contest. Both groups of human beings have been and are mistreated by society.
I've yet to hear any preacher espousing the "choice" theory of homosexuality tell his story. I keep waiting to hear this from the pulpit.
"...and when I was 14 I stared at the Wrangler wearin' behinds of the boys in my class... and I stared at the Wrangler wearin' behinds of the girls in my class... I found both of them equally, highly erotic and exciting and I dreamed of caressing them all. I had carnal thoughts about both the boys & girls in my class. Then, after reading my Bible and meditating on the applicable verses of the Old Testament, I chose to turn my back on those incredibly attractive and delectable boys and I chose only be attracted to girls. Go forth and do likewise. Amen."
I don't know about you, but that's not the way it worked for me. I don't remember weighing the options and making a choice. I was sneakin' peeks of Playboy, Sports Illustrated, the JC Penny catalog, National Geographic and anything else I could get my hands on just to get a private glimpse of women.
IMO, if you argue that there's a choice...you're either choosing not to be sexually active with the sex you find attractive or you're bi.
m-m, I understand that you're concerned about families. I share some of your concerns. But I know gay men that are married and gay men that are fathers. Some were open about their sexuality prior to marriage, but most were not...or they didn't "figure it out" until after marriage. Wouldn't a culture that promotes honesty and accepts homosexuality be more likely to have people who make honest relationship decisions? I find the fact that gay men, who are unwilling to come out of the closet, and choose to act straight (including a sham marriage) to be much more of an attack on marriage and their spouse than any two homosexuals that openly profess their love and commitment to each other.
9:09
And so do many heretosexuals who have been abused,neglected etc., so they must have chosen their sexual orientation also.
9:27 - I appreciated your comments.
Years ago, I remember hearing Billy Graham say, "you cannot help that first look", but beware of the second one".....referencing sexual attraction.
That can still work, whether a person is gay or straight.
I'd much rather see somebody say with one person rather than have sex with multiple partners and spread disease.
That "second look" usually leads to trouble.
I believe when two people of any sex commit to one another they not only strengthen their own bond, they also strengthen the foundation of our society in general.
I was born with a strong desire to kick other people in their buttocks. Ever since I was a little kid, I've fought these urges constantly. Everyday, I must choose to give in to my fleshly, butt-kicking ways or to refrain from such illicit behavior. Just because I was born a "butt-kicker" does'nt necessarily make me a "butt-kicker" unless I CHOOSE to act out these urges does it? Could I have been born with "butt-kicking" genes? Can someone please help me? I promise I won't kick you in the buttocks if we ever meet.
Born a butt-kicker or choose to be a butt-kicker? You decide?
9:27 I think it depends on ones point of reference. From a worldly point of view, which says anything goes and there is no right or wrong, then yes I see your point about the guys who are married heterosexually, but think they are gay. But from a spiritual and religious perspective, it is totally different. If God, through scripture, tells us homosexuality, fornication, and adultery are sinful, then if our desire is to be obedient to him, we will not involve ourselves in such sin, no matter what or how strong the attraction is.
You seemed to contradict yourself in your entry by using the wrangler jean story to prove a point about it not being a 'choice', yet in describing the men you know who are married and gay you used the phrase 'figure it out'. Seems to me if a person is born that way, how can it be that they figure it out at 13 or 30 or even 50 years old. To me, that's one reason why I don't think it can be compared to the blacks and the civil rights, because it doesn't take them 13, 30 or 50 years to figure out they are black.
The best proof is in the studies done on identicle twins. They are hard wired exactly the same, yet you have many where one is gay the other is not. According to the 'born that way theory', that can't be. They would both have to be gay, yet they are not.
m-m, firstly I appreciate your measured response. Thank you for not name-calling or attempting to use hyperbole to make your point.
I do not feel that my previous comments were contradictory. They were not meant to be so and if they can be read that way, it is a sign of my poor writing, rather than the thought behind it. The Wrangler story is intended to paint a picture of what must be the premise behind many of the answers provided by the clergy. In truth, almost no individual reports that as their history. Therefore, I think the people that cling to an answer (choice) that isn't supported by much (if any) evidence are wrong.
My reference to "figure it out" is not a contradiction of that, but is more of a nod to the incredible societal forces that attempt to mainstream homosexuals. They are told that their desires are unnatural and that they can just choose otherwise. They are told that they should not be allowed to teach. They are told that the should not be allowed to have children. They are told that they should never have physical intimacy with someone they are attracted to. They are told that they will go to hell. Very few rational people would choose to be a part of a group that is treated, labeled and despised in that way. It would be a very odd choice.
But, many men who determine later in their lives that they are homosexual, report that they tried desperately to live as a heterosexual, to fake it, but eventually were unable to do so. Sometimes, this crushed their marriage and families.
It's interesting that you reference the identical twin studies. From the studies that I have reviewed, most point to the results as lending credibility to a strong genetic component to sexuality. A paragraph from one such study is as follows:
"Later that same year, Boston University psychiatrist Richard Pillard and Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey announced the results of their study of male twins. They found that, in identical twins, if one twin was gay, the other had about a 50 percent chance of also being gay. For fraternal twins, the rate was about 20 percent. Because identical twins share their entire genetic makeup while fraternal twins share about half, genes were believed to explain the difference. Most reputable studies find the rate of homosexuality in the general population to be 2 to 4 percent, rather than the popular "1 in 10" estimate."
A 50% correlation among identical twins is still very significant. When coupled with the complexity of sexuality and the stigma related to homosexuality, the results are overwhelming. There is almost no credible scientific research that supports the "upbringing" or "choice" theory. It's probably more complicated than one gene, but that doesn't mean that the genetic component is not one of, if not the, most important factors in determining sexuality.
2:01 I have read that study as well and recognize the higher correlation among identical twins compared to fraternal. But my interpretation of such studies, is that it is damning to the 'born that way theory' because if they are hard wired that way then it should be 100% correlation, not 50%. So, even though it shows a higher correlation, anything under 100% disproves the theory. Does that make sense? It does to me, though I'm often accused of being to black or white and not allowing for any grey.
m-m, I don't know enough to say that you are "wrong" and the research related to homosexuality is certainly different. But, my understanding is that many things, schizophrenia for example, are thought to have a genetic basis. They run in families, but they are not exactly inherited, such as widow's peak or attached earlobes. The manifestation of schizophrenia is thought to be affected by other matters than just genetics...or at least not just one gene. It has a significant genetic component, but not a 100% correlation.
While I am not equating homosexuality to a mental illness, I do believe the genetic component argument is valid. It certainly does not require 100% correlation.
Post a Comment