Gay & Lesbian Pride Week, for 1st graders?

[Jhony5]

http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html

 

 

If you have the time, watch these videos. This is probably the most disgusting I've ever seen pushed upon children at school.

[snafu]

Teaching to respect others is one thing but to condone it is another. And what if the kids want to know specifics. I don't want any kid that young knowing or thinking about oral and anal sex. What about other behavors? I guess you could have another book ?Mommy and her many sleepovers? too. Or ?Mommy and her own toys?. ?Daddy diddles and it?s Ok?. I mean what?s next?

[Jhony5]

In the first video, the little boy is asked what he thinks tolerance means. He goes on to explain "Tolerance is like when your parents want you to try a vegetable that you've never tried before, and you don't want to. But then you try it and you find out you like it". The teacher validates this as correct.

 

 

Given the context of the conversation being about gays. They have just taught this boy that he should experiment with homosexuality before he determines his orientation.

 

Truly sick.

[timesjoke]

Considering your possitions against anything religious, I would think you should be defending these teaching methods. It is proven that most gays are Athiests.

 

I find these things to be disturbing from a family values standpoint but with the way the world is stepping away from God and morlas, this is what takes it's place.

 

You cannot run God out of town "and" cry when the result is immoral behavoir in that town, that is just stupid.

[snafu]

Oh how about:

 

Daddy's dog collar

Or

Mommy likes bruises

[snafu]

In the first video, the little boy is asked what he thinks tolerance means. He goes on to explain "Tolerance is like when your parents want you to try a vegetable that you've never tried before, and you don't want to. But then you try it and you find out you like it". The teacher validates this as correct.

 

 

Given the context of the conversation being about gays. They have just taught this boy that he should experiment with homosexuality before he determines his orientation.

 

Truly sick.

 

Excellent point and I'm sure the plan was well thought out in advance.

[snafu]

Considering your possitions against anything religious, I would think you should be defending these teaching methods. It is proven that most gays are Athiests.

 

I find these things to be disturbing from a family values standpoint but with the way the world is stepping away from God and morlas, this is what takes it's place.

 

You cannot run God out of town "and" cry when the result is immoral behavoir in that town, that is just stupid.

 

I don't think its proven who are more gay, atheists or religious people. Most religious ones would probably be hiding the fact.

[timesjoke]

I don't think its proven who are more gay, atheists or religious people. Most religious ones would probably be hiding the fact.

 

While there are a few in the closet, most religious people have children and build a family, it ia a tad difficult for bill and jhony to make a child when they have no womb.

 

 

Obviously there are exceptions to every rule but the gay community do vote over 90% liberal and most admit to being followers of the Athiest belief structure.

 

Who could balme them, religion calls what they do a sin, no real point in being religious at that point now is there?

[Jhony5]

Considering your possitions against anything religious, I would think you should be defending these teaching methods. It is proven that most gays are Athiests.

 

I find these things to be disturbing from a family values standpoint but with the way the world is stepping away from God and morlas, this is what takes it's place.

 

You cannot run God out of town "and" cry when the result is immoral behavoir in that town, that is just stupid.

 

Thats about narrow minded. Its a hang-up of theist and anti-theist to tie things together like that.

This isn't, nor should it be, a religious issue.

 

Its defiance of human nature. Not a defiance of your lord.

 

Again, you have some serious hang-ups.

 

I'M NOT AN ATHEIST!!!!

 

 

Gay people reject God because God rejected gay people.

 

 

Not the other way around.

[snafu]

"Oodles of fun with Ron, John, Dawn and Billy the Goat".

[timesjoke]

Thats about narrow minded. Its a hang-up of theist and anti-theist to tie things together like that.

This isn't, nor should it be, a religious issue.

 

Maybe in your mind it is a seperate issue but reality says it is connected. If you remove the only reason for morals and family values to stick around (religion) then the result is immoral, non-family values will take it's place.

 

 

 

Its defiance of human nature. Not a defiance of your lord.

 

Again, you have some serious hang-ups.

 

Facts are facts, the further away people get from religion, the more things like gay and lesbian relationships will become the norm.

 

Thrashing about attacking religion will not change the fact that if you push away God from our societies, this is the result, you are begging for it so stop complaining about the result of your request.

 

 

I'M NOT AN ATHEIST!!!!

 

Then stop acting like one.

 

Gay people reject God because God rejected gay people.

 

 

Not the other way around.

 

Nice fantacy but not true. As an Athiest I don't expect you to understand religion so I guess your constant mistakes about religion is expected to a certain degree but if someone is "truly" religious, they cannot be Gay.

 

God made Adam and then made Eve to be Adam's mate, God did not create Jhony to be Adam's mate.

[Jhony5]

Maybe in your mind it is a seperate issue but reality says it is connected. If you remove the only reason for morals and family values to stick around (religion) then the result is immoral, non-family values will take it's place.

You see.....thats messed up right there. Religion IS NOT the only reason for morals. WTF is wrong with you? I'd like to think my household has a functioning set of morals, devoid entirely of religion. Built on respect for ones self and others.

 

If you want to make your assertions stick, you must be able to prove that religious people have a stronger moral code than do atheist/agnostic people. If you would like, I could dig up a few dozen examples of religious LEADERS that seem to wander astray from these iron clad morals you speak of. It goes a long way to prove that people are either morally intact, or they are not. In spite of their spiritual views.

 

Then stop acting like one

Do you even know the difference between agnostic and atheist? Do you?

 

 

Nice fantacy but not true. As an Athiest I don't expect you to understand religion so I guess your constant mistakes about religion is expected to a certain degree but if someone is "truly" religious, they cannot be Gay.

I'm not an atheist. Would you like it if I kept referring to you as a Jew?

 

God made Adam and then made Eve to be Adam's mate, God did not create Jhony to be Adam's mate.

Now thats a solid scientific and wholeheartedly logically explanation for creation.

 

 

Now if you please. Discontinue hijacking this thread with preachy religious bull . Don't drag a discussion from another thread into this one. You may think that religion is a valid point to make in this thread, and to some extent it is. But you are attacking me for what was said in another thread, tying it to this one and derailing it substantially. As well you continue to call me an atheist when I have repeatedly exclaimed that I am not.

[timesjoke]

You see.....thats messed up right there. Religion IS NOT the only reason for morals. WTF is wrong with you? I'd like to think my household has a functioning set of morals, devoid entirely of religion. Built on respect for ones self and others.

 

You were raised in a religious based environment even if you did not follow that structure yourself. By being surrounded with these religious based morals, you learned mush from it just from that exposure.

 

As each generation comes along, our societies are more diluted with less religious based morals and more immoral and selfish behavoirs. The result is we get more individual wants and desires and less sociatial needs and desires, that selfish side is what causes the decline of morals.

 

That is why a non-religious person has either flexable or no morals, he has no sociatial drive forcing him to put aside his personal wants or desires for the good of the society.

 

It makes no difference what you would "like" to think is possible, it only matters what reality tells and shows us. Your own moral fiber is tainted because you like to experiment with illegal drugs and be intollerant to those of faith. You are part of the decline in society, a part of the taint but you see yourself through your selfish eyes and make excuses for your behavoir.

 

I see no difference between your actions and the actions of these people showing this kind of programming to children because it all leads to the moral decline of society.

 

If you want to make your assertions stick, you must be able to prove that religious people have a stronger moral code than do atheist/agnostic people. If you would like, I could dig up a few dozen examples of religious LEADERS that seem to wander astray from these iron clad morals you speak of. It goes a long way to prove that people are either morally intact, or they are not. In spite of their spiritual views.

 

The proof is in the pudding. We have higher crime rates, high abortion rates, high divorce rates, even gay education in our schools to show for our society moving away from religious beliefs.

 

We even have so many negative things to show for our modern and Godless movement in society. Without this move away from religion, we would not have sayings like "my baby daddy" or "booty call".

 

 

 

Do you even know the difference between agnostic and atheist? Do you?

 

An agnostic is a fence sitter, a person who does not take sides one way or the other concerning the existence of God.

 

So far you have directly attacked religion several times, attacked all believers of faith calling them stupid, and even said religion should be removed from society, these are things an Agnostic would never do.

 

So, by element of elimination, you are an Athiest based on your own statements and actions.

 

 

 

I'm not an atheist. Would you like it if I kept referring to you as a Jew?

 

Being as you hate anything religious I could see how you would think being called a Jewish person would be an insult but being as Jewish people are respectable, devout, and follow almost all of the same moral standards as I do, I would be proud to be called Jewish.

 

But, my own stands on religious faith are pretty clear and there would be no basis for anyone to call me Jewish. Your own attacks on all faith is what is making you look like an Athiest because Agnostic people don't do that.

 

 

 

 

Now thats a solid scientific and wholeheartedly logically explanation for creation.

 

It was never meant to be.

 

The DNA science has already completely removed the notion of evolution from nothing to human already so why waste time on that?

 

 

 

Now if you please. Discontinue hijacking this thread with preachy religious bull . Don't drag a discussion from another thread into this one. You may think that religion is a valid point to make in this thread, and to some extent it is. But you are attacking me for what was said in another thread, tying it to this one and derailing it substantially. As well you continue to call me an atheist when I have repeatedly exclaimed that I am not.

 

Ya, and Craig keep saying he is not gay too.........

 

It is your actions that define you.

 

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then there is a good chance it is a duck.

 

 

 

 

The two topics are linked because it is stupid to pettition for the removal of all faith based morals and then start complaining at the results of that removal. If you want to bring back morals and family values, you must bring back religious followings, the two go hand in hand no mattter how much you may "wish" they were not connected.

 

Look around you, see the loss of morals, accept the truth no matter how painful it may be if you truly want to stop things like the intrusion of gays in schools. Or, continue to wear your blinders and witness the slow decline of society.

[hugo]

We really need school vouchers so parents can once again raise their children as they see fit.

[timesjoke]

We really need school vouchers so parents can once again raise their children as they see fit.

 

 

Those that want to anyway, be honest, most parents don't even care about thier kids and want the government to take over their parenting jobs for them. That is why public schools teach things like home economics and sex education.

[Jhony5]

Look around you, see the loss of morals, accept the truth no matter how painful it may be if you truly want to stop things like the intrusion of gays in schools. Or, continue to wear your blinders and witness the slow decline of society.

 

Explain for me then, the decline of morals in religion. If you're right, then this should not be.

 

How can this be?

 

http://www.gaychristian.net/

The Gay Christian Network is a nonprofit ministry serving Christians who happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. We also work with pastors, family members, and others who want to understand the issues from a Christ-centered perspective.

 

How can this be?

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/11/06/a_gay_priest_receives_the_sacrament_of_acceptance/

While there are no firm statistics, supporters and critics of gay priests agree there is a substantial number of gay priests in the US, although only two or three are open about it.

 

http://www.cathnews.com/news/310/44.php

A priest from the Diocese of Rockhampton molested a brother and sister in the confessional and behaved indecently with altar boys moments before conducting Mass, a court was told yesterday.

 

Gay priest? Gay Christians? Gay Priests raping children?

 

How can this be?

 

You wanna know what the real issue is with our society? We live in a self-indulgent society. Abundant food, employment and an age of instant information. We are a self-entitled lot. With each generation the desire for deviant excess grows. No matter your beliefs. No matter whether you have a god. Whether you are atheist, Christian or even a preacher that stands upon a pulpit, religious morals are an illusion. We have only social morals.

 

Stealing is wrong.

Lying is wrong.

Killing is wrong.

Cheating on your wife is wrong.

 

The rules made of stone are not the starting point of these basic social moral beliefs. These beliefs exist, and have existed, in almost every society that ever existed, be it tribe or city, going back to the day of homo-erectus.

 

The religious morals you speak of spawn from the ten commandments. Etched in stone is the moral foundation for all man.

 

Then how is it that the Amahuaca tribe of the amazon remains crime free and a perfectly functioning society, despite no religion having ever been present in their world? Many hundreds of isolated tribes share the same social responsibility, without regard too, or any presence of religion.

 

How can this be?

 

Because they aren't capitalist. They aren't selfish self entitled brats that live for excess.

 

The two topics are linked because it is stupid to pettition for the removal of all faith based morals and then start complaining at the results of that removal. If you want to bring back morals and family values, you must bring back religious followings, the two go hand in hand no mattter how much you may "wish" they were not connected.

 

If you can explain for me the corruption and deviancy we see in the religious community. If you can explain depravity and deceit, sinful indulgence that we see on a MASSIVE scale within the church and the parishioners of the church, then I may lend weight to your argument. The facts speak loud to the truth. Religious decline has little to do with our morals declining. Its temptation by way of our excessive indulgent self entitled spoiled society. Your religion shields you not from this fate. Not the Atheist, the Agnostic, or the Christian can stop it. Not with rules made of stone or just common sense can morality be restored with such fervent pleasures to be had.

[hugo]

Less religion equals more queers. It is a simple deduction. The Abrahamic religions are definitely anti-gay as those religions decline homosexuality is certain to increase. Your grandsons could end up taking it up the ass.

 

Standard atheist opinion:

 

http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/p/ProGayMarriage.htm

[Jhony5]

Less religion equals more queers. It is a simple deduction. The Abrahamic religions are definitely anti-gay as those religions decline homosexuality is certain to increase. Your grandsons could end up taking it up the ass.

 

Standard atheist opinion:

 

http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/p/ProGayMarriage.htm

 

Nope. Less religion equals more openly queer people. There are no more or less gays than there were a thousand years ago (per-capita). Only now, there is less fear of death and torture for being outed.

 

You are either gay, or you are not gay. Lacking belief in God doesn't increase your odds of turning queer.

 

As a matter of fact. This sort of slanted reality has led to an alarming suicide rate among homosexuals. Especially teens raised in a religious household. They are so torn, knowing that they are indeed gay, and aware of the fact that they are sinful and immoral for this, the stress and emotional torment leads to their death. Think about it people.

 

Lets say you're 12 years old and all your friends are starting to notice girls. Yet, you are noticing your friends, not the girls. You find yourself sexually attracted to males, yet you are taught that this is evil, by your church. You honestly believe the bible and its moral codes that are etched in stone, yet, you get a hard-on from watching the mens Olympic volleyball team. What happens to your religious morals then? Do they learn you to not be gay? Or, do you denounce the teachings that explained to you that your are evil and will rot in hell for who you are? Or, do you slit your wrists in the bathtub because you are torn between false morals, and your personal feelings?

 

 

 

 

I wish greatly for someone to address the issue of massive amounts of "religious" people, whom all have these iron clad morals installed, behaving in such a deviant and immoral way?

 

How can this be?

 

If what you say is true, how can this be?

 

If religion = morals. Then how does one explain religious people acting so immorally on such a massive scale? These are not isolated incidents. Exceptions to the rule. This is common. Most religious people I know are hypocrites to one extent or another, and they gladly indulge in depraved immoral behavior. Only, they do it in secret. Whereas a guy like me, unbounded by religious pressure, will openly tell you that I smoked a joint last night, right before I jacked off to some hot porn. A religious guy won't admit it. I will.

 

Religious morals are a facade. An illusion. You are either moral, or immoral. Despite your religion, or lack thereof.

 

Social morals are real, religious morals are not.

 

Social moral; Stealing is immoral and wrong.

 

Religious moral; Blasphemy will earn you an eternity of horror and torment in the pits of hell.

[jokersarewild]

My f cking god, what is wrong with you guys?

 

They're trying to get kids to be OK with homosexuals, maybe even experiment, and suddenly: apocalypse? Come on!

 

1. Since the days of homo-erectus? Yes, let's talk about a point in time where there was no recorded history, because ignorance is now common knowledge. Stealing, lying, killing, ing someone else's wife was "morally wrong"? Or, (get this) those led to survival. Stealing? If you were dying, hell yeah! Of course others didn't like it. Because it's their stuff. But it's yours once you bludgeon them to death with a blunt object. Lying? No, this just got you killed. People don't like being lied to. No morals there. Just simple preference. ing someone else's wife? If you wanted to procreate, the other guy. If you have no mate, instinct says "you, woman, make me baby". Science at its finest.

 

2. Yes, Jhonny, the BIBLE is the reason you have morals. Why? Because the Bible (I'm speaking of the Old Testament...the New is just a bunch of fables about a Jew with holes in him) was a book that should have been titled "how to sur- in'-vive". "Morals" were their way of saying "Ok, God won't punish you if you, say, don't touch a man for a week after your vag stops bleeding". And why is this? Blood harbors communicable diseases. I'm sure fewer people died after they stopped coming into contact with their lover's poon blood.

 

3. Want to know why people are against homosexuality? Not because it is bad, gross, or disgusting. It's because of the BIBLE that you claim you are not influenced by. It says to KILL a man who lies with another as a WOMAN WOULD LIE WITH A MAN. Wanna hear some funny info? NEWS FLASH: Homosexuality is OK, and was OK until the Bible came along and said "kill the queers". You're disgusted by it because to you, it is SIN, and SIN IS EVIL. You can't claim "oh, I'm disgusted because I don't like seeing two penises" as your claim to homophobia. It's CHRISTIANITY, buddy. Oh, and want to give a guess as to why you were to kill someone like that? BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T BREED. And since people keep dying, you need people to keep ing so that the human race will continue.

 

4. It's not disgusting. Granted, I don't think they should be showing this to those who can't possibly understand what the difference between gay and straight people are. That's a fallacy on the part of the school. Either way, it's a good idea. Kids who turn out to be gay often are shunned by others in their schools because of a lack of tolerance. But that's OK, because they're disgusting, slobbering, poor excuses for human beings, right? No. But that's what Jhonny and Timewaster or TimeSlave or whatever the crap his name is would have you believe.

[Jhony5]

They're trying to get kids to be OK with homosexuals, maybe even experiment, and suddenly: apocalypse? Come on!

Teaching tolerance is fine and can be done without teaching 1st graders terms like "lesbian". Teaching first graders that the word "tolerance" means to experiment with gay sex before you determine your sexual orientation, is ing warped brother. Don't tell me its not.

 

 

Yes, Jhonny, the BIBLE is the reason you have morals. Why? Because the Bible (I'm speaking of the Old Testament...the New is just a bunch of fables about a Jew with holes in him) was a book that should have been titled "how to sur- in'-vive". "Morals" were their way of saying "Ok, God won't punish you if you, say, don't touch a man for a week after your vag stops bleeding". And why is this? Blood harbors communicable diseases. I'm sure fewer people died after they stopped coming into contact with their lover's poon blood.

You don't even want to start that with me. Would you like me to fill in the blanks in your citation of the wisdom of the bible's thinking on menstruation?

 

OK. I'll help to reinforce the wisdom of Leviticus for you. As you implied, these things were written for survivals sake, and surely this is the wisdom of an omnipotent being.

 

 

LEVITICUS 15:19 -33

'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening'.

 

Until evening? But you said this was for communicable diseases. Infectious diseases wear off after a few hours?

 

'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 22 Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening

What happens in the evening? I don't get it.

 

OK, here's where it gets weird.

'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge

It would appear that this "survival" guide seems to view woman as unclean and sinful, simply for having periods. Which, unbeknownst to them at the time that the ignorant cave trolls wrote this , menstruation is a vital process in the creation of life. Not a sign that women are unclean and sinful.

 

Ignorant ing bastards they were.

 

So tell me again, JAW, in the face of this ridiculous old testament passage, how is it that this is helpful with survival again?

 

Want to know why people are against homosexuality? Not because it is bad, gross, or disgusting. It's because of the BIBLE that you claim you are not influenced by.

First off, I'm not "against" homosexuality. I think its nasty. Its gross. Its kinda funny. Do I think so because of the bibles teachings? No. I think if you want to gay your buddy, go for it. I don't care either way. Just don't do it in front of me. The bible has nothing to do with why I find it gross. I think actually it would be the sights and odors of a hairy naked man that rather turns me off.

 

I am against teaching 1st graders about sex. Hetero, homo or otherwise. Its dumb. Its poisonous. It needs to stop. It won't, because people like you and TJ won't stop injecting religion as the only reason to not do such things. You make it a religious issue, just like abortion, and you'll see people supporting such behavior just to spite religion. Dumbass mutha can't figure that out.

 

You're disgusted by it because to you, it is SIN, and SIN IS EVIL. You can't claim "oh, I'm disgusted because I don't like seeing two penises" as your claim to homophobia. It's CHRISTIANITY, buddy. Oh, and want to give a guess as to why you were to kill someone like that? BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T BREED. And since people keep dying, you need people to keep ing so that the human race will continue.

 

Who the hell are you to tell me why I think what I do? I have no problem with sin. I do it all the time. Why would I be opposed to homosexuality because its a sin, when I sin every in day bro? You make no sense, and your silly rant is getting killed here.

 

But that's OK, because they're disgusting, slobbering, poor excuses for human beings, right? No. But that's what Jhonny and Timewaster or TimeSlave or whatever the crap his name is would have you believe.

I would suggest waking up before you post. Or something. Whatever it takes to get you to comprehend. I don't hate queers. I understand their anxiety when confronting religion. Did you not even read my post, the one right before yours?

 

This sort of slanted reality has led to an alarming suicide rate among homosexuals. Especially teens raised in a religious household. They are so torn, knowing that they are indeed gay, and aware of the fact that they are sinful and immoral for this, the stress and emotional torment leads to their death. Think about it people.

 

Lets say you're 12 years old and all your friends are starting to notice girls. Yet, you are noticing your friends, not the girls. You find yourself sexually attracted to males, yet you are taught that this is evil, by your church. You honestly believe the bible and its moral codes that are etched in stone, yet, you get a hard-on from watching the mens Olympic volleyball team. What happens to your religious morals then? Do they learn you to not be gay? Or, do you denounce the teachings that explained to you that your are evil and will rot in hell for who you are? Or, do you slit your wrists in the bathtub because you are torn between false morals, and your personal feelings?

 

Where did I once say that gays are "disgusting, slobbering, poor excuses for human beings"?

 

Where you idiot? Don't put words in my god damn mouth.

 

 

This is what I hate about our PC society. One cannot speak out against an action taken by a person in a minority grouping, without being seen as slamming the entire minority group. I think the Gay & Lesbian Pride Parades are horrible, disgusting displays. If I say this, I am a fag bashing redneck son-of-a-bitch. But, many gays agree with me, and state that the Gay & Lesbian Pride marches set the homosexual rights movement back 50 years. The same with this at the school. I guarantee you that many gays think this is abhorrent.

 

You sir, JAW, are not paying enough attention to attend this debate. Have some coffee. Make sure to read everyones post thoroughly before replying, and please try not to be so hateful when applying the "bigot" tag to everyone that has something bad to say about something a homo does.

 

Also I would like to address the fact that this school is trying to teach tolerance. Not of all people, but of specifically gays. Tolerating people? I tolerate loud idiots and people with body odor. I tolerate racists and assholes. You shouldn't "tolerate" people because they're gay. The use of that very word invokes the feeling of disgust being repelled. You shouldn't "tolerate" gays. You should accept them. Not "put up with them", as the word tolerance suggests.

[timesjoke]

Explain for me then, the decline of morals in religion. If you're right, then this should not be.

 

With 90% of the world believing in some kind of religion, your pathetically small numbers are the exception, not the rule.

 

There will always be people that are confused or even mentally ill who "say" they believe one thing or another but in reality they do not. Just recently a group of homosexuals crashed a catholic church and dressed as nuns, disrupted the proceedings.

 

We can't explain most of the crazy stuff people do but I can tell you that false believers do not define me or other true believers.

 

 

You wanna know what the real issue is with our society? We live in a self-indulgent society. Abundant food, employment and an age of instant information. We are a self-entitled lot. With each generation the desire for deviant excess grows. No matter your beliefs. No matter whether you have a god. Whether you are atheist, Christian or even a preacher that stands upon a pulpit, religious morals are an illusion. We have only social morals.

 

All morals are based on religious standards.

 

You were raised in a society that had established religious based morals and even if you reject religion now, you cannot ignore that your exposure to these religious based morals did effect you.

 

As you got older, the religious based morals got more diluted and that is why even you can see there are problems, but not understanding the true basis of the existence of morals, you can only talk about the symptoms, not the real root of the problem.

 

 

Stealing is wrong.

Lying is wrong.

Killing is wrong.

Cheating on your wife is wrong.

 

Ten comandments.

 

The rules made of stone are not the starting point of these basic social moral beliefs. These beliefs exist, and have existed, in almost every society that ever existed, be it tribe or city, going back to the day of homo-erectus.

 

The religious morals you speak of spawn from the ten commandments. Etched in stone is the moral foundation for all man.

 

And those without these written in stone morals make excuses for their loss of morals, like killing a baby in the womb. Horrible acts become acceptable without a religious based set of morals.

 

 

Then how is it that the Amahuaca tribe of the amazon remains crime free and a perfectly functioning society, despite no religion having ever been present in their world? Many hundreds of isolated tribes share the same social responsibility, without regard too, or any presence of religion.

 

How can this be?

 

As with any rule, there are exceptions, I have never studied these people so I cannot explain their situation but as I always say, God made man, man made the many religions, who is to say that these people are not following God's plan in their own way?

 

 

Because they aren't capitalist. They aren't selfish self entitled brats that live for excess.

 

And that selfish attitude can take many forms, like the Athiest religion.

 

 

If you can explain for me the corruption and deviancy we see in the religious community. If you can explain depravity and deceit, sinful indulgence that we see on a MASSIVE scale within the church and the parishioners of the church, then I may lend weight to your argument. The facts speak loud to the truth. Religious decline has little to do with our morals declining. Its temptation by way of our excessive indulgent self entitled spoiled society. Your religion shields you not from this fate. Not the Atheist, the Agnostic, or the Christian can stop it. Not with rules made of stone or just common sense can morality be restored with such fervent pleasures to be had.

 

Being religious does not mean you become perfect overnight. Being religious is a constant journey, not a destination.

 

The differance between being religious and not being religious from a morals point of view is the standards. With religion, you have a clearcut standard, even if you fail to always reach that standard because of human frailty and mistakes. Without religion, morals become flexable or even invisible based on public desires. Excuses for immoral behavoir become acceptable without a religious standard.

[hugo]

You are either gay, or you are not gay. Lacking belief in God doesn't increase your odds of turning queer.

 

 

Environmental factors strongly influence gender preference selection. You might be born predisposed to being a fag but environment is a stronger factor. Living in a society that condemns homosexuality decreases the odds of someone being a fag. Don't regurgitate fag talking points.

 

A little info:

 

The Importance of Twin Studies

N. E. Whitehead, Ph.D.

A constant stream of media articles--several per year--assures us that there is a link between homosexuality and biological features. These articles mention genes, brain structure, hormone levels in the womb, ear characteristics, fingerprint styles, finger lengths, verbal skills...... and by the time you read this, some others may have appeared. The headlines imply that people are born with tendencies which infallibly will make them gay or lesbian, and that change of sexual orientation will be impossible.

 

Individually some of these pieces are not very convincing, but the sheer volume of them suggests that they must amount to an overwhelming influence--or if not, further research will add to them and make it so. This is not true either, and we see shortly that twin studies refute it.

 

 

Twin Studies

Twin studies in their modern form investigate both identical and fraternal twins, but this article emphasizes studies of identical twins, which are sufficient for our purposes. Studies of non-identical twins are detailed elsewhere (1).

 

Earlier studies mostly used informal or "snowball" samples of twins recruited from gay and lesbian associations, and by advertisements (e.g. 2,3). Such studies are possibly biased by the nature of twins who volunteer, but even so, if one identical twin was homosexual, only about half the time was the co-twin concordant (i.e. also homosexual).

 

Better research, however, was based on twins who were recruited for other reasons, and only subsequently asked about their sexual orientation. These are known as "registry" studies, and they similarly gave a concordance rate between identical twins of less than 50%. There have been two major published registry studies (4,5), one based on the Minnesota Registry, the other on the Australian Registry. The larger of the two registry studies is the Australian one, done by Bailey, Martin and others at the University of Queensland. Using the 14,000+ Australian twin collection, they found that if one twin was homosexual, 38% of the time his identical brother was too. For lesbianism the concordance was 30%. Whether 30% or 50% concordance (snowball samples), all the studies agree it is clearly not 100%.

 

The critical factor is that if one identical twin is homosexual, only sometimes is the co-twin homosexual. There is no argument about this in the scientific community.

 

 

Interpretation

Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too. But we know that only about 38% of the time is the identical twin brother homosexual. Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average, they do not force people into homosexuality. This conclusion has been well known in the scientific community for a few decades (e.g. 6) but has not reached the general public. Indeed, the public increasingly believes the opposite.

 

Identical twins had essentially the same upbringing. Suppose homosexuality resulted from some interaction with parents that infallibly made children homosexual. Then if one twin was homosexual, the other would also always be homosexual. But as we saw above, if one is homosexual, the other is usually not. Family factors may be an influence, but on average do not compel people to be homosexual.

 

Twin studies suggest that as a class, events unique to each twin--neither genetic nor family influences--are more frequent than genetic influences or family influences. But many individual family factors (such as the distant father) are commoner than the individual unique factors. Unique events would include seduction, sexual abuse, chance sexual encounters, or particular reactions to sensitive events, when young. Everyone has their own unique path which only partly follows that of the theoreticians!

 

A fascinating sidelight on all this comes from the work of Bailey (7). His team asked non-concordant identical twins (one was homosexual, one not) about their early family environment, and found that the same family environment was experienced or perceived by the twins in quite different ways. These differences led later to homosexuality in one twin, but not in the other.

 

 

Strength of Influences

At this point, some of you will be asking--what about the concordant identical twins who were both homosexual? Could their genes have "made them do it"?

 

No. It can be a strong influence for a few, but even for those few, it is never overwhelming. The record strengths for genetic influence on behaviors are 79% in a group of highly addicted women cocaine addicts (8) and about the same or somewhat higher, for ADHD (9). Because those figures are not 100%, even among addicts or those strongly pushed towards some other behavior, there is room for outside intervention and change. Hence even if homosexuality is as addictive as cocaine for a few individuals, their genes didn't "make them do it."

 

For perspective, it is valuable to compare genetic contributions to homosexuality with the question - is a girl genetically compelled to become pregnant at 15? Her genes might give her physical characteristics that make her attractive to boys - but whether she gets pregnant will depend greatly on whether her community is Amish or urban, conservative or liberal, whether they use contraceptives, and whether the parents are away for the evening.

 

So the influence of the genes is very indirect. We can see this by thinking further - if she was in solitary confinement all her life, would her genes make her become pregnant? Of course not! Some influence from the environment (in this case a boy) is essential! The effects of genes on behaviors are very indirect because genes make proteins, not preferences.

 

So the results of identical-twin studies are critical in understanding the biological influences on homosexuality. Only for physical traits like skin color are identical twins 100% concordant; otherwise they don't necessarily follow either their parents' genes...or their parents' admonitions! In this, homosexuality proves to be no different from such unrelated behaviors as violence, being extroverted, or getting divorced. All may be influenced by genes, but not overwhelmingly determined by them.

 

 

 

 

Future Psychological Research

The complementary finding is just as true. There are many influences from upbringing, and probably many we have not yet discovered--but however many we find, it will always remain true (because the twin studies tell us so) that family influences will never overwhelmingly compel children to be homosexual.

 

Childhood Gender non-conformity (essentially strong sissiness, rather than a diagnosis of GID) is the strongest single influence ever found associated with adult homosexuality, but even this factor is not overwhelmingly compelling. 75% of a sample of extremely "sissy" boys became homosexual when followed through to adulthood (10). But we must remember they were so sissy that parents were extremely concerned and referred them to the research clinic for help. Only a small percentage of sissy boys from the general population become homosexual as adults (11). This is even more true of other factors which have been researched and publicized in the media, and leads to a another important rule of thumb: "Only a small minority of those exposed to any predisposing factor become homosexual."

 

This may be a surprise to some clinicians, who may have found high percentages of sissiness, tomboyishness or same-sex parent deficits in their clients. But that is a clinical sample - out in the extra-clinical world, surveys show that only a small percentage of those with poor same-sex parent relationships become homosexual. For whatever reason those factors have often become extremely influential in such clients' lives and must be taken very seriously; but because they are minor factors in the whole population, clinicians must not force everyone into the same box, which may be uncomfortable, or simply not fit. They must be open to any unusual factor which has been important for the specific client.

 

The scientific truth is - our genes don't force us into anything. But we can support or suppress our genetic tendencies. We can foster them or foil them. If we reinforce our genetic tendencies thousands of times (even if only through homoerotic fantasy), is it surprising that it is hard to change? Similarly, we have a genetic tendency to eat, but it is possible to foster this tendency and overeat for the pleasure it brings. If we repeat that often enough, we will not only reinforce a genetic tendency to become overweight, but find that "starving" the habit takes a long time!

 

In summary:

 

1. No scientist believes genes by themselves infallibly make us behave in specified ways. Genes create a tendency, not a tyranny.

 

2. Identical twin studies show that neither genetic nor family factors are overwhelming.

 

3. Conclusion 2 will not be altered by any research in the future.

 

4. We can foster or foil genetic or family influences.

 

5. Change is possible.