A "CURE" for lesbians?

[grahame]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727682.600-gene-switches-sexual-desires-of-female-mice.html
"Female mice lacking a vital enzyme reject the advances of males and attempt to mate with other females instead"

This is one reply to this article on another forum:

Unfortunately, if the tide of homophobia itself isn't turned, what's eventually going to happen is some religious nut is going to decide he's (it's usually a male) a geneticist and start offering "genetic cures" for the Homosexual "disease".

Now let me make it quite clear at the outset that I endeavour to treat everyone equally and without prejudice. My belief is that everyone has the right to live their lives freely and without persecution. I am not concerned about how "The Church" or "Muslims" have treated or treat homosexuals and lesbians. Although I am of course concerned about persecution of "anyone" whoever they may be. I am just stating what I personally believe. We must treat everyone whoever they may be with equal love and preach to every creature the grace of the gospel of Christ.

BUT. I do protest that just because someone has an opinion against homosexuality and lesbianism they are immediately labelled "homophobic". Homosexuals and lesbians demand that their views be heard without prejudice yet many shout others down in an attempt to shame those who express an opinion against gay people. They "must be religious nuts" they say.

But if this article is correct then surely it must be pursued scientifically to see if homosexuality and lesbianism is an imbalance in genes? Because (1) Logic dictates that if people have male genitalia then they are male. An likewise with women. They are physically male and female and therefore something must be wrong if they have sexual feelings for the same sex?
(2) Psychologically if a person thinks that he is someone else, say Napoleon for instance is he automatically treated as if he IS Napoleon? No of course not. Why, then is someone who says he is a woman trapped in a man's body treated as if he is a woman? Surely the logical and sensible thing would be to try and discover why he has these feelings?

But my main objection is that our rights as heterasexual citizens are being undermined by the homosexual lobby in being termed "homophobic" whilst they must "never" be called "heterophobic".

[Reformed Baptist]

The gay lobby has a voice far louder then it's size, they actually represent a tiny portion of the community, what they conveniently forget is that it is the 'homophobic religious nutters' who actually won freedom of speech in this country for them, without us noncomformists there ride to acceptence in society would have been much harder then it actually was. Now, what we recognised when fighting for such freedoms, is something they conveniently forget, if you want freedoms for yourself, you have accept that others should also be free to practise what they believe. So much of what we term political correctness etc is actually a restriction of freedom that my baptist forbears suffered for, and that gets me down!

[grahame]

The gay lobby has a voice far louder then it's size, they actually represent a tiny portion of the community, what they conveniently forget is that it is the 'homophobic religious nutters' who actually won freedom of speech in this country for them, without us noncomformists there ride to acceptence in society would have been much harder then it actually was. Now, what we recognised when fighting for such freedoms, is something they conveniently forget, if you want freedoms for yourself, you have accept that others should also be free to practise what they believe. So much of what we term political correctness etc is actually a restriction of freedom that my baptist forbears suffered for, and that gets me down!

Yes that is true of a lot of rights that Christians have won for mankind under various oppressive regimes down the years. Solomon had it taped when he wrote,

There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it: 15 Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man.

(Ecclesiastes 9:14-5)

[theatheistguy]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727682.600-gene-switches-sexual-desires-of-female-mice.html
"Female mice lacking a vital enzyme reject the advances of males and attempt to mate with other females instead"

Thanks for the link, very interesting reading.

Now let me make it quite clear at the outset that I endeavour to treat everyone equally and without prejudice. My belief is that everyone has the right to live their lives freely and without persecution. I am not concerned about how "The Church" or "Muslims" have treated or treat homosexuals and lesbians.

What is your opinion on the bible's attitude towards homosexuals (ie stoning them to death)?

BUT.

I'm not calling you a homophobe, but it rarely goes well after someone who says, "I'm not homophobic, BUT..."

I do protest that just because someone has an opinion against homosexuality and lesbianism they are immediately labelled "homophobic".

Well that would be the definition of being homophobic:
"Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual. Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear."

Homosexuals and lesbians demand that their views be heard without prejudice yet many shout others down in an attempt to shame those who express an opinion against gay people. They "must be religious nuts" they say.

Exactly the same thing could be said about the religious:

But if this article is correct then surely it must be pursued scientifically to see if homosexuality and lesbianism is an imbalance in genes?

Imbalance? No. Different? Yes. We're all genetically different, and this just is a single gene they've removed. I'd like to think we've come past the days of classifying homosexuality as a disorder or disease.

Logic dictates that if people have male genitalia then they are male. An likewise with women. They are physically male and female and therefore something must be wrong if they have sexual feelings for the same sex?

Waoh, that is terrible logic. I have brown eyes, someone else has blue, therefore we must be attracted to each other...no.

Many things make us male and female, genitalia is a tiny proportion of that make up, you can get girls born with male genitalia, and vice versa, their real sex only becomes evident at puberty. Of course there is always the case of hermaphrodites, genetics is obviously a massive player, as well as neuro-chemistry and structure. The sexually dimorphic nucleus is just one example that has been shown to be twice the size in heterosexual men than in homosexual men, female-male transsexuals and heterosexual women.

Psychologically if a person thinks that he is someone else, say Napoleon for instance is he automatically treated as if he IS Napoleon? No of course not. Why, then is someone who says he is a woman trapped in a man's body treated as if he is a woman? Surely the logical and sensible thing would be to try and discover why he has these feelings?

This is a personal identity issue rather than a gender identity issue, the two are very different. But you're partially right, which is why any person who wants to go through with gender reassignment must pass medical and psychological tests, and in many cases live as their desired sex for a year before the surgery. And as explained above, it tends to be physiological rather than psychological causes that lead a person feeling that they were 'born the wrong sex'.

But my main objection is that our rights as heterasexual citizens are being undermined by the homosexual lobby in being termed "homophobic" whilst they must "never" be called "heterophobic".

Actually, much like racism, discrimination/prejudice based on sexuality is not a one way street. And 'heterophobia' is of course a lesser used term, but it is used, though much like now, usually used inappropriately. First, I feel confident saying that the massive majority of homosexuals embrace freedom of speech, as it is something often denied to them. However, the few that do complain when a religious person says anything about homosexuality, try to have them sued, arrested, or whatever else, they're not being heterophobic, they're just trying to silence 'the religious nuts' as said before, they probably have no issue with other heterosexuals or heterosexuality in general. This is like when a white guy gets arrested for getting in a fight with a black guy, more often than not, racism is brought up, even though it may have had nothing to do with it.

I think I should add that although I support the right of religious people to say that their god doesn't like homosexuality and that gays and lesbians will burn for it, when that then becomes shouting in the street that homosexuals are bad people and should be stoned or that this certain person want to see them in hell, then yea, I think a line has been crossed.

[Reformed Baptist]

Exactly the same thing could be said about the religious:

Interesting considering the latitude that is shown to non christains on this forum and elsewhere. The point does however remain that freedom of speech, is well, freedom of speech, it is not just for one group. For homosexual to demand the right to speak freely about their lifestyles, they have to also accept the right of those who believe diferently to speak out against them, or do you disagree with that?

[theatheistguy]

Interesting considering the latitude that is shown to non christains on this forum and elsewhere.

Could you give examples please?

The point does however remain that freedom of speech, is well, freedom of speech, it is not just for one group.

No one ever said it was.

For homosexual to demand the right to speak freely about their lifestyles, they have to also accept the right of those who believe diferently to speak out against them, or do you disagree with that?

I believe the main complaint from homosexuals is that they do not have the right live as they wish, for example equal rights to get married, adopt children (or for lesbians, receive IVF) and in some states, practice their sex life as they wish (though granted this can also affect heterosexuals too).

As I said above, "I support the right of religious people to say that their god doesn't like homosexuality and that gays and lesbians will burn for it, when that then becomes shouting in the street that homosexuals are bad people and should be stoned or that this certain person want to see them in hell, then yea, I think a line has been crossed."

So to clarify, yes I support the right of the religious and the right of homosexuals, and even the right of homophobes, to free speech. My only qualifying point for that is that once the line of 'incitement to hatred or violence' is crossed (by any side) then they've gone too far. Till that point though, the religious person can say that homosexuality and homosexuals are wrong, the homophobe can say he hates gays and the homosexual can call his opponents 'religious nuts'. The homosexual can get the other two arrested if they cross the aforementioned line, and they can sue the homosexual if (s)he wrongly takes legal action against them.

[grahame]

I like your one sided cartoon. There are of course no atheistic nuts according to your cartoon.
Also according to you if religious folk protest about the extremes of homosexuals they are fanatics. But if homosexuals protest about thec extremes of religious people they are just "redressing the balance". Nicely balanced reasoning I must say.
It seems that Christians must forever tolerate homosexual tyrades against them. But if they protest then we must be termed "religious nuts".

In answer to your question what do I think about the Bibles attitude towards homosexuals ie by putting them to death. Let me just correct you. It says nothing against homosexuals, but against the homosexual act. If a man lay with a man as he does with a woman etc.
My answer would be that the whole Bible is not just the Levitical Law. Let me tell you what the New Testament says about the Old Testament Law, which was by the way for the Jews.
It says this

And of his fulness have all we received , and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

(John 1:16-18)
Strange that when Atheists talk about Christians they always try and show God in a bad light. Well if you want to play that game my friend what do you think of this law?

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it , Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

(Matthew 22:37-40) or this

for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery , Thou shalt not kill , Thou shalt not steal , Thou shalt not bear false witness , Thou shalt not covet ; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

(Romans 13:8-9)

There you see the real meaning of the law. Now if you take the first text that I gave you, you will see that it says "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ". Therefore the Christian's attitude (who is not under the law but under grace) is to show love to everyone, not only to homosexuals and lesbians, but also towards those who hate God so much that they take little bits of scripture because they think is supports their idea that Christians are unforgiving and unreasonable monsters for speaking out against homosexual acts.

Let me just direct you to another scripture that is like the ones that I gave you. Remember the woman who was taken in adultery, who was brought to our Lord and he was asked that as Moses directed that she should be stoned? Remember what he said? Here is the story if you would like to read it and study it at your leisure. (John 8:3-11)
He said "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." And remember they all went out one by one leaving Jesus alone with the woman. Then he asked the woman, " Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?" She replied "No man Lord". He then said to her "Neither do I condemn thee: go , and sin no more"

Does this not reflect the true God rather than the one you try to portray? One who is full of grace and ready to forgive. But I rather see that attitude of unreasonableness, intolerance and unforgiveness in the world of atheists and unbelievers towards Christians than in Christians towards unbelievers and their excesses, do you not think?

[Trips]

As I said above, "I support the right of religious people to say that their god doesn't like homosexuality and that gays and lesbians will burn for it, when that then becomes shouting in the street that homosexuals are bad people and should be stoned or that this certain person want to see them in hell, then yea, I think a line has been crossed."

So to clarify, yes I support the right of the religious and the right of homosexuals, and even the right of homophobes, to free speech. My only qualifying point for that is that once the line of 'incitement to hatred or violence' is crossed (by any side) then they've gone too far. Till that point though, the religious person can say that homosexuality and homosexuals are wrong, the homophobe can say he hates gays and the homosexual can call his opponents 'religious nuts'. The homosexual can get the other two arrested if they cross the aforementioned line, and they can sue the homosexual if (s)he wrongly takes legal action against them.

In light of your post above, what's your take on these: http://www.article8.org/docs/news_event ... f_1029.htm
http://www.article8.org/docs/news_event ... _signs.htm

Who crossed the line?
?

[Reformed Baptist]

No one ever said it was.

Except just about every gay activist in existence.

I believe the main complaint from homosexuals is that they do not have the right live as they wish, for example equal rights to get married, adopt children (or for lesbians, receive IVF) and in some states, practice their sex life as they wish (though granted this can also affect heterosexuals too).

So what you are saying is they want more rights then everyone else, is that correct? Besides children are not a right, they are a priviledge.

However lets think about the extremely expensive process called IVF, in this country it is available to people for two cycles on the NHS when all other avenues have been exhausted, and it requires a male sperm doner. Now, actually, no doctor would prohibit IVF to any couple that have been through the due process. A lesbian women then has just as much right to IVF as a hetersexual women, it is simply her life choice that prohibits her. Interestingly, even a women whose husband has died is not allowed to use his frozen sperm for IVF under English law.

Let's think about marriage as well, marriage is defined as the joining together of a man and a women, again this is not denied to any gay person, except through there life choice. They can marry iof they wish to marry.

The point is simple, we all make choices on how we will live and thgose decisions effect what we can and cannot do in our society, under our law. The things youi comment on have nothing to do with Christainity, but are the laws of the land, so more specifically then all this smoke and mirrors which is meant to distract from the point at hand, perhaps you are able to address how attacking the Christain faith acheive these goals for the militant gay voice?

[grahame]

This is how Wikipedia defines a phobia:

A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος,phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is an irrational, intense and persistent fear of certain situations

This is theatheistguy's definition:

Well that would be the definition of being homophobic:
"Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual. Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear."

[theatheistguy]

I like your one sided cartoon. There are of course no atheistic nuts according to your cartoon.

Funnily enough, political cartoons tend to deliver a single message. I freely admit there are anti-theistic nutjobs.

Also according to you if religious folk protest about the extremes of homosexuals they are fanatics. But if homosexuals protest about thec extremes of religious people they are just "redressing the balance". Nicely balanced reasoning I must say.

You may care to read what I said again actually. I said that if either side crosses the line of incitement to hatred or violence, then they have gone too far, I also said that Christians are free to say that homosexuality it evil and the homosexuals will go to hell. Please do not lie so readily.

It seems that Christians must forever tolerate homosexual tyrades against them. But if they protest then we must be termed "religious nuts".

Tell me, what are the 'tirades' against Christianity by homosexuals?

In answer to your question what do I think about the Bibles attitude towards homosexuals ie by putting them to death. Let me just correct you. It says nothing against homosexuals, but against the homosexual act. If a man lay with a man as he does with a woman etc.

So you look and feel about someone of the same sex in a sexual way, but you can't do anything about it? So what then? Live a lie?

Let me tell you what the New Testament says about the Old Testament Law, which was by the way for the Jews.
It says this

And of his fulness have all we received , and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

(John 1:16-18)[

I point you in the direction of Matt 5:17-19.

Strange that when Atheists talk about Christians they always try and show God in a bad light. Well if you want to play that game my friend what do you think of this law?

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it , Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

(Matthew 22:37-40) or this

for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery , Thou shalt not kill , Thou shalt not steal , Thou shalt not bear false witness , Thou shalt not covet ; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

(Romans 13:8-9)

What do I think of the golden rule? I like it, at least in most cases anyway, though Christianity doesn't have the soul or original claim to it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

Therefore the Christian's attitude (who is not under the law but under grace) is to show love to everyone, not only to homosexuals and lesbians, but also towards those who hate God so much that they take little bits of scripture because they think is supports their idea that Christians are unforgiving and unreasonable monsters for speaking out against homosexual acts.

Waoh...lies just keep on coming don't they? I never said anything like this. You may also wish to know that my parents and best friends are Christians, my Grandfather was a minister and I've been to Church more often then many professing Christians (though recently not as much due to ill health). I have nothing against Christians as a whole, but rather I take issue with much of what they believe, and the supposed acts of the deity they worship.

Remember the woman who was taken in adultery, who was brought to our Lord and he was asked that as Moses directed that she should be stoned? Remember what he said? Here is the story if you would like to read it and study it at your leisure. (John 8:3-11)...Does this not reflect the true God rather than the one you try to portray? One who is full of grace and ready to forgive.

I have never once said that there is not good in the bible. Seriously, you misrepresentations of my words is getting tiresome, please grow up.

But I rather see that attitude of unreasonableness, intolerance and unforgiveness in the world of atheists and unbelievers towards Christians than in Christians towards unbelievers and their excesses, do you not think?

Sounds like you have a bit of a persecution complex there. People do good and bad, no matter their religious conviction or if they lack one. It is impossible to say for groups that measure in their million, if they are better on a whole. However, for a group that does not hold to unfounded supernatural beliefs, who do not hold to the some truly horrific teaching, who do not believe that the ultimate source of love and justness will throw all those who do not believe in it into a place of eternal torture; those people I would probably like better on a whole. But again, I agree that there are anti-theistic and atheistic nutjobs, some of whom I would hate to spend any length of time with.

[theatheistguy]

This is how Wikipedia defines a phobia:

A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος,phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is an irrational, intense and persistent fear of certain situations

This is theatheistguy's definition:

Well that would be the definition of being homophobic:
"Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual. Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear."

Grahame...read the first sentence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

I could have also included the next 2 sentences, but I didn't as I believe they don't describe the broadest definition of homophobia.

[theatheistguy]

In light of your post above, what's your take on these: http://www.article8.org/docs/news_event ... f_1029.htm
http://www.article8.org/docs/news_event ... _signs.htm

Who crossed the line?
?

Hi Trips, welcome to the forum.

I'm not sure why there was next to no press coverage, and I believe the police acted correctly (any demonstration I've been on, there's always one idiot that goes too far).

As for the protest itself, well so long as no threats were made against anyone, no property was damaged, there was no incitement to hatred or violence, then I don't see there being any harm here. They were protesting against the holding of an 'ex-gay' conference, something I would have joined. They did not stop the conference going ahead, nor did they threaten or say anything against those going in, rather it was a protest against the topic of the conference itself. I don't see a single one of their signs as being threatening or offensive, perhaps you could correct me if there are any you feel that crossed the line?

I would support the allowing of a similar protest by Christians at a gay pride parade.

[theatheistguy]

Except just about every gay activist in existence.

Ha...oh you're serious? None of those I've talked to, and, although I'm not gay, I do support their struggle of equality, I also do not hold that view. Perhaps you could link me to an article or video where a few gay activist express these attitudes?

So what you are saying is they want more rights then everyone else, is that correct? Besides children are not a right, they are a priviledge.

No. This has been said else where on this forum, but the argument I believe you're making is that homosexuals currently have the right marry someone of the opposite sex. Well I think we both see why they're not exactly happy about that. However, if same sex marriage was made legal, then this would also be open to everyone, heterosexuals would also be able to marry someone of the same sex, though why they would want to is beyond me. There would be no 'gay test' when applying for a same sex marriage license.

I agree that children are not a right, however, in many states and countries homosexual couples are restricted or prevented from adopting. Why should they be prevented from giving children a much needed, loving home?

However lets think about the extremely expensive process called IVF, in this country it is available to people for two cycles on the NHS when all other avenues have been exhausted, and it requires a male sperm doner. Now, actually, no doctor would prohibit IVF to any couple that have been through the due process. A lesbian women then has just as much right to IVF as a hetersexual women, it is simply her life choice that prohibits her.

My apologies, I didn't realise you're also from the UK (though I'm not sure why I assumed you were from the States either). Just to clarify, are you saying that homosexuality is a persons choice or that being in a homosexual relationship is the choice? Also, I'm not sure lesbians are restricted from NHS IVF any more:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 719152.ece

Interestingly, even a women whose husband has died is not allowed to use his frozen sperm for IVF under English law.

Seriously? Do you support that? I think might extend from the 'need for a father' that was cited in the article above.

The things youi comment on have nothing to do with Christainity, but are the laws of the land, so more specifically then all this smoke and mirrors which is meant to distract from the point at hand, perhaps you are able to address how attacking the Christain faith acheive these goals for the militant gay voice?

Sorry, I think you may have misunderstood my point, usually these are brought up by Christians as good things and that they should be upheld, which appears to be the consensus here.

As for 'attacking the Christian faith', I'm not sure if you're referring to me or 'the militant gay voice', but perhaps you could clarify what you mean? What attacks?

[Reformed Baptist]

the atheistguy,

Is it worth my while answering your questions, I say a lesbian women is not restricted from IVF in response to your claims they are, and you respond with an 'actually gay woen are not restricted!'

You asked me to substantiate claims that have already been substantiated by 'trips as well.

As to what I was refering to when I said 'choice' well having reread what I wrote I believe the context is obvious so does not need further clarification. As for link this, link that or you are wrong, well I have little time for your games my friend, we, as Christains, can speak from experience on these matters.

However as I said, all of this smoke and mirrors as it is not Christains that create the laws of our land, so again I ask you why does the militant gay voice spend so much time and effort mounting protests against us, why is it that the gay community wishes people to have the freedom of live as they please, yet want to deny me the freedom to leave as I please? I have preached against cohabiting heterosexual relationships as being sinful for more often then gay relationships yet I have never being accused of hatred by any of them.