Homosexual Liberal Atheists ~ What's UP with that?

[Carlene 12]

Do you really think that none of these denominations have met or had in their congregation a 'reformed' homosexual?

I don't know...because I've never heard one of their ministers say, "We cured a homosexual last week." I've heard fundamentalist ministers say that, but not mainstream Christians. And by fundamentalist, I mean those branches of Christianity that interpret the Bible literally.

Again, this implies that 'fundamentalists' are somehow 'out there' as opposed to Catholics, Methodists (where I was first baptised), Episcopalians, etc, etc. I just don't see how this broad statement can be reasonable. I'm sorry.

Fundamentalists ARE "out there", as compared to many other Christians. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing....my church is pretty far off the norm, too. Heck, we don't even get classified with the rest of the believers in Christ....the choices are always "Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or Other". I never understood that....why can't they just say "Christian or non-Christian"?

I currently attend a Baptist church. I happen to love my church and my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Every single person in my particular class has a history and are individuals with their own individual beliefs and questions of faith, but I just don't see how the church in which they feel comfortable to worship has anything to do with impairing their thought processes or encouraging some strange holographic idea of homosexuals who are struggling with the reality of the flesh vs the spirit.

This type of stereotyping really saddens me. :think

What stereotyping is that? Did I say that people who disagree with me on the issue of homosexuality are mentally impaired? Gee....I certainly hope not. My own church officially denounces homosexuality, too. I don't agree with that position, but I still love my church. Do you have any reformed homosexuals in your church?

[Carlene 12]

Ahhh, but remember, surviving anything is better than dying.

Momma T was a great example. She didn't believe in giving anything stronger than Aspirin for bone cancer, one of the most painful ways to die. She would remind people daily that her Christ person loves those that suffer.

It's a "thing" that is passed from one generation to another. Jews are the same, they won't even close a dying person's eyes in fear it will hurry the process along.

Sad.

My late husband died of liver cancer. Toward the end, we were going to do Hospice - go home from the hospital and just do the comfort care until he died. He had a DNR order, and I was okay with that. No heroic measures. But when the rep from Hospice came to talk to me, to make the arrangements, she pointed at the glucose drip and said, "You know, if you disconnected that, this whole thing would go a lot faster." I changed my mind about Hospice.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

...why can't they just say "Christian or non-Christian"?

Because the Christians can't decide what being a Christian means. Most of us atheists figure that means someone who believes in Christ and that Christ is their savior.

But we are silly, what do we know?

I STILL want you to join that forum I wrote to you about. I think you would be dearly loved there.

I have to admit, when I first encountered you on the boards I thought you were a pain in the arse. I have a TOTALLY different point of view now. I was just plain wrong. No way around it, I was dead, bare arsed wrong. I think you would thrive on that place I told you about.

I do hope you join, I think you'd do quite well there. I think you would be a respected member of the community. I think TOM would be too.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

My late husband died of liver cancer. Toward the end, we were going to do Hospice - go home from the hospital and just do the comfort care until he died. He had a DNR order, and I was okay with that. No heroic measures. But when the rep from Hospice came to talk to me, to make the arrangements, she pointed at the glucose drip and said, "You know, if you disconnected that, this whole thing would go a lot faster." I changed my mind about Hospice.

As horrible as it sounds, she was right.

A sugar IV does prolong what is going to happen anyway.

Consider this, when a person is dying of cancer their body is trying to fight the cancer by not feeding cancer cells. It shuts down hunger completely. The body fights cancer by not feeding the cancer cells. The problem is, when it does this it stops feeding the good cells too! That is why a cancer patient doesn't want to eat. They have NO hunger and often times, little to no thirst.

It looks heartless, I know it does. It looks mean and cruel, but it isn't. It is the body speaking and those around the person feel differently.

My Dad died of colon cancer but the reality is that he died of liver cancer. The colon cancer was surgically removed and he ended up dying of liver cancer. It's soooo hard to watch. It's likely harder on those watching it than it is the person dying.

He didn't want fluids and I advocated for him. If he wasn't thirsty, if he was dying, why force fluids?

It's a matter of what the family can withstand. I swear to you, it seems much worse than it is.

[Carlene 12]

As horrible as it sounds, she was right.

I'm sure the information she was imparting was correct. Of that I have no doubt. But was she "right" in saying what she did? Not by a long shot. Maybe if she had phrased it differently.....

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

I'm sure the information she was imparting was correct. Of that I have no doubt. But was she "right" in saying what she did? Not by a long shot. Maybe if she had phrased it differently.....

There, I totally agree. Her presentation was horrible. She should have explained how it all works and let YOU come up with the final realization. She wasn't really advocating for hubby, she was making her own job easier.

There was no excuse.

[Carlene 12]

I guess I just find it hurtful that only Bible believing Christians are the weirdos in this conversation. :faint: In fact, I've met some very very odd folks in this world who have nothing to do with believing the Bible at all, literally or not.

I'm a Bible believing Christian. The fact that I do not interpret every word literally does not make me less so. No one does that....absolutely no one. Many SAY they do, but they don't. They always have a reason why the verses/books they don't subscribe to aren't inspired by God. The last argument, I believe, dealt with "context". The Bible, some claimed, was to be interpreted literally, except when the context indicated otherwise. The problem was, no one could agree on when "context" should be applied and when it shouldn't.

[anonemouse 1]

I guess I just find it hurtful that only Bible believing Christians are the weirdos in this conversation. :faint: In fact, I've met some very very odd folks in this world who have nothing to do with believing the Bible at all, literally or not.

I was going to reply to this, and then realized that I wasn't sure which conversation you were referring to. There's been, like, three or four. Ah well, that's the great thing about this place. We can have multiple conversations at the same time.

[Carlene 12]

I have to admit, when I first encountered you on the boards I thought you were a pain in the arse. I have a TOTALLY different point of view now. I was just plain wrong. No way around it, I was dead, bare arsed wrong.

No you weren't....I can definitely be a pain in the ass.

I fit everywhere and nowhere. I am a conservative Democrat, a practicing Catholic who favors gay marriage and refuses to get involved in other people's reproductive systems.

I am rabidly anti-Bush, but not anti-Republican. I can even envision myself voting GOP if one came along that was somewhat liberal.

I like to argue...I don't enjoy it when the discussion turns nasty, however.

I love the people on LBT. I'm not an Atheist by a long shot, but I understand why intelligent, educated people might be. As I've often said, I didn't choose God....God chose me.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

No you weren't....I can definitely be a pain in the ass.

I fit everywhere and nowhere. I am a conservative Democrat, a practicing Catholic who favors gay marriage and refuses to get involved in other people's reproductive systems.

I am rabidly anti-Bush, but not anti-Republican. I can even envision myself voting GOP if one came along that was somewhat liberal.

I like to argue...I don't enjoy it when the discussion turns nasty, however.

I love the people on LBT. I'm not an Atheist by a long shot, but I understand why intelligent, educated people might be. As I've often said, I didn't choose God....God chose me.

Yeah, you are a pain in the ass but you are the good kind of pain in the ass. I'm rabidly anti-Bush as well. Yet I am still Republican. I vote according to the person instead of the party but I am still Republican. Although, I am a registered lib.

I am an atheist, through and through. Couldn't be true to myself and refer to my beliefs (or lack of) as any different.

There are a few folks I've invited to the forum I frequent. I think you'd do well there. Some would merely be chewed up and spit out, they wouldn't enjoy themselves and so what is the point of inviting them? You can hold your own. Once folks realize you aren't out to convert anyone, they would love you like a family member. Between holding your own and fighting opinionated people, I honestly think you would enjoy yourself. We have several theists that are family over there. I honestly believe you would be one of them.

I also think you would be challenged, just like I told LauranD and TOM. It takes a certain kind of person to enjoy that forum, I think you would be one of them.

[marjon9 6]

I guess I just find it hurtful that only Bible believing Christians are the weirdos in this conversation. :faint: In fact, I've met some very very odd folks in this world who have nothing to do with believing the Bible at all, literally or not.

leatha, I feel like you misunderstand completely why people have a problem with Bible believing Christians. It is not because people have some sort of prejudice against them. Not at all. When people have issues with Bible believing Christians it is IN RESPONSE TO ACTIONS TAKEN BY THEM. This is the key point you seem to misunderstand. No one is going out hunting Christians in order to hate them. The fact is, they are simply responding to what Christians do toward them.

I want to tell you that I have no problem in any way with "Bible believing Christians." I do not have the least bit of animosity toward any Christians based on their beliefs, or any other person for their beliefs. You are incorrect if you believe that Bible believing Christians are the "weirdos" in this conversation in any way. That is just not true.

The "weirdos" in this conversation, in fact, are those people who believe they know best how other people should live their lives. That is the type of person I have a fight with.

The plain truth is, most of the people who fit that bill also happen to be Bible believing Christians. But as far as I am concerned, that is an irrelevant coincidence. My problem is not with Christians. It is with people who believe they know best how other people should live their lives.

Many points of view exist on any topic. I have no problem with that. I have no need to force anyone else to believe as I do. These differences in opinion make for lively debate and I think that is great.

The problem for me comes in when people with one particular point of view also believe with absolute certainty they are correct because God said so. When a person thinks like that, there is no room left for discussion. When people believe that God says that homosexuality is an abomination, they believe with absolute certainty that they are right about that view. They don't consider it to be their own personal opinion. They consider it to be the Word Of God. Not only that, after all, since God said it, that means that people who think like that need to go out and force that point of view on all other citizens of this country through legislation. They believe that since God said, and therefore it must absolutely be correct, and that therefore we should be teaching it in schools. They believe that since, in their view, God said homosexuality is an abomination, that therefore they have a right to tell other citizens that they cannot serve in the military, adopt children, get married, visit a significant other in the hospital, etc.

That is what I have a problem with. It has nothing at all to do with whether or not someone is a Bible believing Christian. My fight is with any person who believes they have a right to tell someone else how they must live their lives.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Because the Christians can't decide what being a Christian means. Most of us atheists figure that means someone who believes in Christ and that Christ is their savior.

But we are silly, what do we know?

I STILL want you to join that forum I wrote to you about. I think you would be dearly loved there.

I have to admit, when I first encountered you on the boards I thought you were a pain in the arse. I have a TOTALLY different point of view now. I was just plain wrong. No way around it, I was dead, bare arsed wrong. I think you would thrive on that place I told you about.

I do hope you join, I think you'd do quite well there. I think you would be a respected member of the community. I think TOM would be too.

I have been reading there, but have not posted.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I guess this was missed or people just refused to comment on it. As anyone can see, it was posted in this thread quite a few pages back.

It offers a (possible) explanation of why (some) males are Gay.

I read about this experiment at least 25 years ago.

A medical research scientist noted that there was a difference in the shape of the Hypothalamus (in the brain) of gay men and straight men. He also noticed that the incidence of gay men was higher in England among males born in the late 1930's through the early 1940's, so he went to the UK to try to find out why. In the UK, he questioned the mothers of the gay males. He found that many of them were pregnant during air raids.

All humans are conceived as female but because of the xy chromosome, at a particular point during gestation, testosterone is released and the parts that would have been female, become destined to be male including the section of the hypothalamus that controls sexual desire. It has been shown (according to this research scientist) that testosterone can be neutralized in a test tube with adrenaline. The research scientist theorized that the pregnant women would have been pumping out massive quantities of adrenaline during an air raid and that adrenaline could have gotten through the umbilical cord and effected the fetus and the testosterone that the fetus was producing.

The research scientist came back to the USA to test out his hypothesis. He set up an experiment with rats. Half of the rats were put in a cage with 12 hours of light, 12 hours of dark, plenty of food and plenty of exercise wheels. The other half were put into a cage in a room with random light and dark, random feedings and broken exercise wheels. The first group had little stress, while the second group had plenty of stress.

The first (stress free) group had many less homosexual offspring that the stressed group. The research scientist then killed gay rats and straight rats, and took frozen sections of their brains. He found that the gay rats had the same difference in the shape of their hypothalamus (compared to straight rats) as the gay humans had compared to the straight humans.

[marjon9 6]

I guess this was missed or people just refused to comment on it. As anyone can see, it was posted in this thread quite a few pages back.

It offers a (possible) explanation of why (some) males are Gay.

My comment on this is that it is interesting. I would imagine there probably is a scientific explanation for homosexuality. The one you describe may be it. Personally I doubt that the explanation you describe really could be the scientific answer, because there are and always have been so many millions of gay people all around the world, that a single environmental answer of that nature seems unlikely to me. So many people experience stress in their lives. Are there more gay people born after the Rawandan masacres? Did people in Bosnia start having more gay children after the Serbian persecution? I just have not seen any evidence of that.

Besides, to me answers of this nature are not that important. In my view, the significant factor here is that gay people themselves, almost unanimously, believe that they are gay by nature, not by choice. Who am I to think that I know better? There may be a few gay people have learned to hate themselves through societal and religious condemnation to the point where they seek a "cure," or even go into churches declaring that they have been "reformed." But there can be no doubt that the overwhelming majority of gay people have the view that they were born that way. That is good enough for me. I don't feel like I am in a position to challenge that. And in light of the unanimity of that perspective among gay people themselves, that is good enough for me.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

My comment on this is that it is interesting. I would imagine there probably is a scientific explanation for homosexuality. The one you describe may be it. Personally I doubt that the explanation you describe really could be the scientific answer, because there are and always have been so many millions of gay people all around the world, that a single environmental answer of that nature seems unlikely to me. So many people experience stress in their lives. Are there more gay people born after the Rawandan masacres? Did people in Bosnia start having more gay children after the Serbian persecution? I just have not seen any evidence of that.

I do not know how many babies have been born in places like Rwanda during their stressful times. When the body is starving, the reproductive cycle comes to a halt. The British mothers were under stress, but had food. Also, I do not know of the social values of Bosnia or Rwanda and if Gay offspring could admit being Gay without persecution.

I wrote the informational piece from memory, I tried to make it short, so I left out that there was also a corresponding increase in Gay German males who were in the womb in cities while under air attacks. There was no information on Japanese Gay males which might be subject to different mores.

I hope that I did not make it sound like only war could cause the stress induced Gay male offspring. Family fights during pregnancy, financial woes, and dozens of other stress inducing reasons could be the cause, and I did not suggest that stress may be the only reason.

Besides, to me answers of this nature are not that important. In my view, the significant factor here is that gay people themselves, almost unanimously, believe that they are gay by nature, not by choice. Who am I to think that I know better? There may be a few gay people have learned to hate themselves through societal and religious condemnation to the point where they seek a "cure," or even go into churches declaring that they have been "reformed." But there can be no doubt that the overwhelming majority of gay people have the view that they were born that way. That is good enough for me. I don't feel like I am in a position to challenge that. And in light of the unanimity of that perspective among gay people themselves, that is good enough for me.

I agree with you that the reason why people are Gay should not really matter, but some people need to know that being Gay is not a choice. Unless these people know that, they will insist that Gays should just chose to be straight.

Members in this thread have spoken about their chances to be Gay that they passed over. They do not want to realize that a deep, non sexual feeling for a person of the same gender or a desire to experiment sexually with someone of the same gender, doesn't mean that they are or are not Gay, IMHO.

I know some bisexual people who while they do have sex with either gender, much prefer their own gender and others who much prefer the other gender. I can not picture myself with a member of my own gender having sex. If I was single and with a woman who decided to perform oral sex on me and afterwards I found out that it was a Gay male dressed as a woman, I would be more revolted if I had kissed her than by having the orgasm, because I would have had a "natural orgasm" as compared to giving oral sex to a male or being the receiver during anal sex.

It is not the inability to have sex, but the mind which says "no" in my case and in many other people's minds, according to prior discussions, to the thought of having sex with a member of my gender.