Is homosexuality a sin?

Originally posted by deeprivergal
I got this in an email forward, I wanted to get some feedback on what some of our board members thought about it. Peronally, I believe that homosexuality is a sin.

 

sin is something you CHOOSE to do. I know of
no one, myself included, who chose
to be homosexual. I know of no one who chose to be
Bi-Sexual, or Lesbian or straight

Sin is something that you choose to do indeed. And Homosexuality is something that you choose to do. People aren't 'born' gay. They choose to be because they can't accept the fact that maybe, just maybe that the special person in their lives may come later. They do not want to wait for they are impatient. People that say they are born gay do not know the Bible, they know nothing of the entire religion. God gave people a Free Will and saying someone was born gay is harshly incorrect.

I get so tired of the "they chose to be" concept.

Did a hermaphrodite choose to be what one is?

Yes, that is a relitave question to this thread, homosexual/bi-sexual is as a hermaphrodite - wrong/both sexes in one.

Misfit

Nope. You're wrong. They say that so that they could possibly make it more able to 'Fit In' if one said it, it would have a domino effect for the groupings of people who are vastly impatient. You're wrong. Anyone who says they were born gay is wrong. wrong.

Some of you people are laughable! Not only are you laughable...but exactly the type of people that perpetuate hate and ignorance! Homosexuality is a crossing of...for lack of better terms, the wiring in the brain and hormonal imbalances....science is finally discovering this.....so no YOUR THE ONES WRONG!


Biology behind homosexuality in sheep, study confirms

OHSU researchers show brain anatomy, hormone production may be cause

PORTLAND, Ore. � Researchers in the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine have confirmed that a male sheep's preference for same-sex partners has biological underpinnings.

A study published in the February issue of the journal Endocrinology demonstrates that not only are certain groups of cells different between genders in a part of the sheep brain controlling sexual behavior, but brain anatomy and hormone production may determine whether adult rams prefer other rams over ewes.

"This particular study, along with others, strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans," said the study's lead author, Charles E. Roselli, Ph.D., professor in the Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, OHSU School of Medicine. "The hope is that the study of these brain differences will provide clues to the processes involved in the development and regulation of heterosexual, as well as homosexual, behavior."

The results lend credence to previous studies in humans that described anatomical differences between the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual men, as well as sexually unique versions of the same cluster of brain cells in males and females.

"Same-sex attraction is widespread across many different species." said Roselli, whose laboratory collaborated with the Department of Animal Sciences at Oregon State University and the USDA Agricultural Research Service's U.S. Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois, Idaho.

Kay Larkin, Ph.D., an OHSU electron microscopist who performed laboratory analysis for the study, said scientists now have a marker that points to whether a ram may prefer other rams over ewes.

"There's a difference in the brain that is correlated with partner preference rather than gender of the animal you're looking at," she said.

About 8 percent of domestic rams display preferences for other males as sexual partners. Scientists don't believe it's related to dominance or flock hierarchy; rather, their typical motor pattern for intercourse is merely directed at rams instead of ewes.

"They're one of the few species that have been systematically studied, so we're able to do very careful and controlled experiments on sheep," Roselli said. "We used rams that had consistently shown exclusive sexual preference for other rams when they were given a choice between rams and ewes."

The study examined 27 adult, 4-year-old sheep of mixed Western breeds reared at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station. They included eight male sheep exhibiting a female mate preference � female-oriented rams � nine male-oriented rams and 10 ewes.

OHSU researchers discovered an irregularly shaped, densely packed cluster of nerve cells in the hypothalamus of the sheep brain, which they named the ovine sexually dimorphic nucleus or oSDN because it is a different size in rams than in ewes. The hypothalamus is the part of the brain that controls metabolic activities and reproductive functions.

The oSDN in rams that preferred females was "significantly" larger and contained more neurons than in male-oriented rams and ewes. In addition, the oSDN of the female-oriented rams expressed higher levels of aromatase, a substance that converts testosterone to estradiol so the androgen hormone can facilitate typical male sexual behaviors. Aromatase expression was no different between male-oriented rams and ewes.

The study was the first to demonstrate an association between natural variations in sexual partner preferences and brain structure in nonhuman animals.

The Endocrinology study is part of a five-year, OHSU-led effort funded through 2008 by the National Center for Research Resources, a component of the National Institutes of Health. Scientists will work to further characterize the rams' behavior and study when during development these differences arise. "We do have some evidence the nucleus is sexually dimorphic in late gestation," Roselli said.

They would also like to know whether sexual preferences can be altered by manipulating the prenatal hormone environment, such as by using drugs to prevent the actions of androgen in the fetal sheep brain.

In collaboration with geneticists at UCLA, Roselli has begun to study possible differences in gene expression between brains of male-oriented and female-oriented rams.

www.ohsu.edu...

homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk...


Research shows the brains of homosexuals are structurally different
from heterosexuals, which could suggest that the homosexual tendency
is imprinted in the brain from birth. So it is not necessarily a
psychological condition, nor a religious one. Since homosexually has
been around since...well..homo sapiens, this makes more since with the
real world as well.

Simon LeVay observed that INAH3 was more than twice as large in the
men as in the women. But INAH3 was also between two and three fumes
larger in the straight men than in the gay men. In some gay men, as in
the example shown at the top of the opposite page, the cell group was
altogether absent. Statistical analysis indicated that the probability
of this result's being attributed to chance was about one in 1,000. In
fact, there was no significant difference between volumes of INAH3 in
the gay men and in the women. So the investigation suggested a
dimorphism related to male sexual orientation about as great as that
related to sex.

One other feature in brains that is related to sexual orientation has
been reported by Allen and Gorski. They found that the anterior
commissure, a bundle of fibers running across the midline of the
brain, is smallest in heterosexual men, larger in women and largest in
gay men. After correcting for overall brain size, the anterior
commissure in women and in gay men were comparable in size.

At first glance, the very notion of gay genes might seem absurd. How
could genes that draw men or women to members of the same sex survive
the Darwinian screening for reproductive fitness? Surely the parents
of most gay men and lesbians are heterosexual? In view of such
apparent incongruities, research focuses on genes that sway rather
than determine sexual orientation. The two main approaches to seeking
such genes are twin and family studies and DNA linkage analysis.

Twin and family tree studies are based on the principle that
genetically influenced traits run in families. The first modern study
on the patterns of homosexuality within families was published in 1985
by Richard C. Pillard and James D. Weinrich of Boston University.
Since then, five other systematic studies on the twins and siblings of
gay men and lesbians have been reported.

The pooled data for men show that about 57 percent of identical twins,
24 percent of fraternal twins and 13 percent of brothers of gay men
are also gay. For women, approximately 50 percent of identical twins,
16 percent of fraternal twins and 13 percent of sisters of lesbians
are also lesbian. When these data are compared with baseline rates of
homosexuality, a good amount of family clustering of sexual
orientation becomes evident for both sexes. In fact, J. Michael Bailey
of Northwestern University and his co-workers estimate that the
overall heritability of sexual orientation--that proportion of the
variance in a trait that comes from genes-- is about 53 percent for
men and 52 percent for women. (The family clustering is most obvious
for relatives of the same sex, less so for male- female pairs.)

To evaluate the genetic component of sexual orientation and to clarify
its mode of inheritance, we need a systematic survey of the extended
families of gay men and lesbians. One of us (Hamer), Stella Hu,
Victoria L. Magnuson, Nan Hu and Angela M. L. Pattatucci of the
National Institutes of Health have initiated such a study. It is part
of a larger one by the National Cancer Institute to investigate risk
factors for certain cancers that are more frequent in some segments of
the gay population.

Although most of the anatomical and functional studies done so far
have focused on the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for the
higher intellectual and cognitive functions of the brain, other
researchers, such as Dr. Simon LeVay, have shown that there are gender
differences in more primitive parts of the brain, such as the
hypothalamus, where most of the basic functions of life are
controlled, including hormonal control via the pituitary gland. LeVay
discovered that the volume of a specific nucleus in the hypothalamus
(third cell group of the interstitial nuclei of the anterior
hypothalamus) is twice as large in heterosexual men than in women and
homosexual men, thus prompting a heated debate whether there is a
biological basis for homosexuality . Dr. LeVay wrote an interesting
book about the sex differences in the brain, titled "The Sexual Brain"
.

During the development of the embryo in the womb, circulating hormones
have a very important role in the sexual differentiation of the brain.
The presence of androgens in early life produces a "male" brain. In
contrast, the female brain is thought to develop via a hormonal
default mechanism, in the absence of androgen. However, recent
findings have shows that ovarian hormones also play a significant role
in sexual differentiation.

One of the most convincing evidences for the role of hormones, has
been shown by studying girls who were exposed to high levels of
testosterone because their pregnant mothers had congenital adrenal
hyperplasia . These girls seem to have better spatial awareness than
other girls and are more likely to show turbulent and aggressive
behavior as kids, very similar to boys'. But do these differences mean
a superiority/inferiority relationship between men and women?

The hormones, determine the distinct male, female or homosexual
organisation of the brain as it develops in the womb. We share the
same sexual identity for only the first few weeks after conception.
Thereafter, in the womb, the very structure and pattern of the brain
begins to take specifically male, female or homosexual form.
Throughout infant, teenage, and adult life, the way the brain was
forged will have, in subtle interplay with the hormones, a fundamental
effect on the attitudes, behavior, and intellectual and emotional
functioning of the individual. Most neuroscientists and researchers
into the mysteries of the brain are now prepared, like the American
neurologist Dr Richard Restak, to make the confident assertion "it
seems unrealistic to deny any longer the existence of male and female
brain differences. Just as there are physical dissimilarities between
male and females . . . there are equally dramatic differences in brain
functioning". The way our brains are made effects how how we think,
learn, see, feel, smell, communicate, love, make love, fight, succeed,
or fail. Understanding how our brains, and those of others, are made
is a matter of no little importance.

Infants are not blank slates, on whom we scrawl instructions for
sexually-appropriate behavior. They are born with male, female or
homosexual minds of their own. They have, quite literally, made up
their minds in the womb, safe from the legions of social engineers who
impatiently await them.

Originally posted by AeroQuake

Originally posted by deeprivergal
I got this in an email forward, I wanted to get some feedback on what some of our board members thought about it. Peronally, I believe that homosexuality is a sin.

 

sin is something you CHOOSE to do. I know of
no one, myself included, who chose
to be homosexual. I know of no one who chose to be
Bi-Sexual, or Lesbian or straight

Sin is something that you choose to do indeed. And Homosexuality is something that you choose to do. People aren't 'born' gay. They choose to be because they can't accept the fact that maybe, just maybe that the special person in their lives may come later. They do not want to wait for they are impatient. People that say they are born gay do not know the Bible, they know nothing of the entire religion. God gave people a Free Will and saying someone was born gay is harshly incorrect.

Ignorance on this subject IS astounding. Here is what the American Psycological Association says:

www.apa.org...

"Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. "

There are many other questions answered at this website as well.

Homophobes use homosexuality as just another means to polarize society just like religion and skin color. Polarization, however, can be summed up in one word: FEAR. The fear of that which we don't understand.

BTW: I think two men together sexually is reprehensible (to watch) but I'll watch two or more women any day of the week!!

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

BTW: I think two men together sexually is reprehensible (to watch) but I'll watch two or more women any day of the week!!

Why!? This double standard is absolutely ridiculous! Homosexuality, is homosexuality regardless of whether it's two men or two woman......I hear this from many Christians that against homosexuality....but they don't mind that stupid double stand of watching two woman......very, very sad world isn't it!? This isn't ok...but if I get my jollies from it...alls well.

Originally posted by AeroQuake
Nope. You're wrong. They say that so that they could possibly make it more able to 'Fit In' if one said it, it would have a domino effect for the groupings of people who are vastly impatient. You're wrong. Anyone who says they were born gay is wrong. wrong.

How narrow-minded. Did you make the choice to be straight? Was there ever a point where you debated the positives and negatives of going out with Suzie as opposed to asking Bobby out on a date? Was this ever a conscious decision for you?

Actually the issue of GAY v. STRAIGHT is not so simple as most people want it to be and it definitely is NOT going away any time soon !

Maybe they should teach THIS in school :

Here is some gereric gossip on "gay men" terms and some of their own labels that are in current 21st century usage (at least in the US):

(I'll leave it to the ladies to post a lesbian or female bisexual perspective)

Some "Gay Men" prefer to be what are known as TOPS all or most of the time (i.e. the dominant "male"role = i.e. the socalled "penetrating" partner) and others prefer to be sexually what are called BOTTOMS (i.e. the passive "female"role =i.e. the so-called "penetrated" partner).

TOPS are generally considered (and see themselves as) more stereo-typically "masculine" in appearance and attitude (and walk, talk, interests like contact sports etc.): but there are some notable exceptions to that rule I could name off the bat...!

BOTTOMS (sexual passives) are generally considered (and see themselves) as more "stereotpically feminine" in certain aspects (e.g. the MakeOver series on television) and are stereotypically seen (especially in the media) being interested in fasion, and the arts and culture etc.

But again, there are so many exceptions to these "rules" they are hardly rules at all...!

(And you don't have to be homosexual to appreciate the Arts, literature, fashion and culture...!)

These two role labels (TOP/BOTTOM) in sex are vastly different in expression: yet both are lebelled "gay" in modern parlance (go figure)!

Many other men who consider themselves "gay" also label or think of themselves as sexually "VERSATILE" (i.e. either do not care which role in sex to play--depending on the partner, in other words--- or actually like both and act both roles out when they can in sexual encounters).

Many males in the "gay community" (wherever or whatever that is) joke that "versatile" is a cover word for "bottom" but there are many persons who actually enjoy both roles without any real preference (sex is sex is sex is sex to them).

Most (but not all) "gay men" have had some kind of sexual experience with females in their lives: a significant portion of men calling themselves "gay" also are married and/or have children by heterosexual intercourse (i.e. not in a testube)

Many "MALE TOPS" are happilly married with children and have sex with women most of the time (not always ONLY with their wives!) but sometimes hook up with with "men on the side" --"on the DL i.e. the down-low) yet often these types of individuals do NOT consider themselves gay at all...

People in the West, with its social/sexual male-dominant "attitude" and its repression and exploitation of "the female" ---even now in the 21st century---tend to think of "gay men" stereotypically--i.e. as always being "effeminate bottoms" but most gay men cannot be spotted in a crowd, especially if they've taken all the trouble to hide it socially (through marriage and the "visible" signs of offspring, i.e. the bearing of children by a wife etc.).....

Labels are a way of dealing with the fear-factor surrounding male homosexuality---but homo sapiens-sapiens refuse time and time again to be labelled in neat little jars.....

[it is strange (to say the least) to see that many "straight" (!!) men do not mind at all (and even are sexually aroused!!) watching "homosexual women" doing overt homosexual things with each other------ but literally cringe when they see two men doing similar "homosexual" things with each other----why is this, do you think?

I suspect this gross "double standard" has to do with the larger so-called Indo-European ideas of manhood (especially in "puritanical America"), where men/males are highly encouraged and praised for being dominant (and "strong") , and highly dis-couraged and even villified for being weak and passive----a kind of Anglo Saxon Warrior-Empire Mentality)]

And now, ladies, feel free to throw in your own perspectives on Lesbianism and bisexuality in women, which is another grossly mis-understood phenomenon in the western world...!

My boss is definitely a "top". He is gay, but masculine, and an aggressive businessman. On the other hand though, he is a florist and we have great conversations about home decorating, etc., so he seems to have a blend of masculine and feminine traits. Also, when I asked him if he chose to be gay, he said no, it was just something he knew from the time he hit puberty. As for lesbians, I have asked many men that question, and the standard answer has been a shrug and " I dunno, it's just so soft and sexy". I think Amadeus is right when he says that the double standard is because of the view that men are not supposed to show signs of weakness, while 2 women together is perceived as okay because after all, we are the weaker sex anyway. (I'm being sarcastic btw)

Originally posted by jadestonedoll
Also, when I asked him if he chose to be gay, he said no, it was just something he knew from the time he hit puberty.

Of course it wasn't a choice. Well, at least not for the majority of gay people. That was what my question above was trying to show. I don't think anyone claims that straight people CHOOSE to be that way, it's just how they are. So if straight people are born straight, or at the very least, don't have a choice in the matter, why is it so unbelievable that gay people were born gay? Or that it's not a choice for them?

Why would someone who's really straight, CHOOSE to be gay? What exactly are the perks of being gay, someone fill me in.

Originally posted by LadyV

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

BTW: I think two men together sexually is reprehensible (to watch) but I'll watch two or more women any day of the week!!

Why!? This double standard is absolutely ridiculous! Homosexuality, is homosexuality regardless of whether it's two men or two woman......I hear this from many Christians that against homosexuality....but they don't mind that stupid double stand of watching two woman......very, very sad world isn't it!? This isn't ok...but if I get my jollies from it...alls well.

LadyV;

It's not a double standard! I believe that two men have the right to be together just as two women or a hetero couple do. But since I am ONLY attracted to women, the idea of two men together does nothing for me--in fact the idea is reprehensible. But because I am attracted to women, watching lesbians together sexually is a turn on--as long as they're lipstick lesbians and not chapstick lesbians! BTW: I'm agnostic.

So...If I fantasm to sleep with a beautiful girl (and I'm...good looking too) it's o.k for me u say?!?! I won't have to confess myself if I do?! Just to my BF, if he's jealous

I'll be sin free for havin sex with a sexy chick, because I'm not gay in a REAL way....I don't LOVE girls, I just like them

U see, this makes no sens...what is sin and what's not...where is the limit
:bnghd:

Ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Originally posted by Amelia
So...If I fantasm to sleep with a beautiful girl (and I'm...good looking too) it's o.k for me u say?!?! I won't have to confess myself if I do?! Just to my BF, if he's jealous

I'll be sin free for havin sex with a sexy chick, because I'm not gay in a REAL way....I don't LOVE girls, I just like them

U see, this makes no sens...what is sin and what's not...where is the limit
:bnghd:

Ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Valid questions Amelia. If you're religious then you face some moral dilemmas. From my view, however, one's sexual feelings is purely a human trait, regardless of whether it's with the same gender or not, and it's not a sin to be human.

@ Freedom_for_sum

Perhaps you should change you choice of words, as I do understand what you are actually implying.

To say 2 men together is reprehensible is to say that they should be chastised/put down/stopped from being such.

Perhaps a better choice would be repugnant - that it simply disgusts you.

Misfit

Dammit -

The post to Freedom_For_Sum is posted by Misfit.
My PC is down, so I am on LadyV's PC.
While I did login as myself - Misfit - I guess this thread comes under the jurisdiction of her higher point boards er something (even tho I am in this thread from my PC/my login).

Anyway, the terms of choice to Freedom is by me, Misfit.

Thanx

Misfit

Originally posted by LadyV
@ Freedom_for_sum

Perhaps you should change you choice of words, as I do understand what you are actually implying.

To say 2 men together is reprehensible is to say that they should be chastised/put down/stopped from being such.

Perhaps a better choice would be repugnant - that it simply disgusts you.

Misfit

Misfit;

I stand corrected: (From Dictionary.com)

Reprehensible

\Rep`re*hen"si*ble\ (-h?n"s?-b'l), a. [L. reprehensibilis: cf. F. r['e]pr['e]hensible.] Worthy of reprehension; culpable; censurable; blamable. -- Rep`re*hen\"si*ble*ness, n.

adj : bringing or deserving severe rebuke or censure; "a criminal waste of talent"; "a deplorable act of violence"; "adultery is as reprehensible for a husband as for a wife" [syn: condemnable, criminal, deplorable]

Repugnant

adj : offensive to the mind; "an abhorrent deed"; "the obscene massacre at Wounded Knee"; "morally repugnant customs"; "repulsive behavior"; "the most repulsive character in recent novels" [syn: abhorrent, detestable, obscene, repulsive]

Repugnant is the more correct word for what I was saying.

Thanks Misfit.

Being homosexual is not a sin. God created you that way. Commiting homosexual acts is a sin. That is your choice.



[Edited on 10-10-2004 by Herman]

For all you people that say "I KNOW gays choose to be gay"

You arent gay..
How the hell would you know?

I mean really, you never consciously choose to be straight, why would gays ever consciously choose to be gay? We just wake up one day and say: "You know, I think I want to live in fear for the rest of my life, with my family and strangers persecuting me for who I love.. Yup, that sounds pretty good to me"

Gays DO NOT choose to be that way!!
Wether it is genetic, a mental defect, or just something that happens, I dont know. BUT, I do know that we dont have a say in it.

I wish for just ONE DAY you could feel what is it that you people do to us. The pain, the fear, the HATE that you people casually inundate us with. Hell yes I would change if I could, just to be able to have a normal happy life free from what you people put us through, BUT I CANT, and so here I am.

EDIT:
(ACK, missed out on the "gay is a choice" part of this thread )

Also, I agree with herman..
I always thought that being gay wasnt a sin, afterall, how could pure and honest love ever be evil.. But the act of sodomy always seemed kinda sinnish to me. (That doesnt mean the relationship has to be devoid of any physical contact, just that particular kind)

There is actually a movement (lol, I feel stupid saying that) called g0y's (with a zero) that are gay but dont do sodomy. Im not really one for it either, so I guess count me among the g0ys. lol..



[Edited on 10-10-2004 by shidge.]

I feel Homosexuality is like mental retardation. You�re born with it! Their should be some sort of institute or center to at the least repress if not cure people of these "birth defects". The whole point of evolution (I�m not getting religion into this) in bringing man and woman together was to propagate the species of humans otherwise we would just die out.

If nature wants Homosexuals to exist and flourish it would make it possible that it was possible to procreate in this type of union.

So all those reporting "gay" sheep and the like should understand that they are freaks of nature / aberrations not meant to survive with the race (ie.humans). I could get reports of six legged frogs or cats with wings and the like that doesn't make them natural and normal.

I read all this " I didn't choose it to be this way" and stuff which implies that "gays" themselves aren't so "gay " about their sexuality (Pun intended!) So instead of saying god made them that way and we should open our hearts for them and accept them.

No where in any religious text does it say- "Love thy neighbor and thy gay�?
So stop blaming god for it.

No, I don't want them punished or persecuted, instead I feel that they should be rehabilitated (Some sort of psychological counseling, hypnosis perhaps or even some sort of medication) so that they learn to suppress or control these emotions, feelings or tendencies.

In this way both stand to benefit (i.e. straight and gay) as straight people are the majority the minority must try to blend with the majority instead of making the majority bend to the minority, it would be impossible and their will always be tension between people of both sexual orientations against each other.

Finally their are those people who think that they are being highly cultured or very humanitarian or very suave by promoting and propagating homosexual orientations, I want to say to these people -drop the act, fine if your best friend or relative is gay seek counseling for them rather than supporting them. Would you say that a person suffering from dyslexia or autism is normal and doesn't need some help. If you would then that shows your moral fiber and integrity.

The Expletives and superlatives that follow this post are welcome

Originally posted by IAF101
I feel Homosexuality is like mental retardation. You�re born with it! Their should be some sort of institute or center to at the least repress if not cure people of these "birth defects". The whole point of evolution (I�m not getting religion into this) in bringing man and woman together was to propagate the species of humans otherwise we would just die out.

No, I don't want them punished or persecuted, instead I feel that they should be rehabilitated (Some sort of psychological counseling, hypnosis perhaps or even some sort of medication) so that they learn to suppress or control these emotions, feelings or tendencies.

No way- how can you say homosexuality is like mental retadation- that is so low. If you arnt Gay then why should other people being gay bother you so much ?
Oh and im glad you dont want the punished or persecuted- thats nice to know.

I personaly dont think being gay is a sin( i dont really say much about it being a choice or if you born gay- i dont know!) but i am not religious in anyway- so my morals are going to be complety different to that of a religious person. But saying someone is wrong for what they are is terrible-

i dont really know how to put this into words but i will try( and i really dont want to offend anyone in the process)- take christianity- the romans would really single christans out- in the roman world christianity was bad, wrong whatever- if you think about it, christainity is doing exactly the same to the homosexual community- saying its wrong its a sin blah blah blah-


If that made no sense what so ever please tell me- my point there is that you shouldnt do to others what you dont like yourself!