Gay-rights leader quits homosexuality

[Bicycleman]

He was a rising star in the "gay rights" movement, but Michael Glatze now declares not only has he given up activism – he's no longer a homosexual.

Glatze – who had become a frequent media source as founding editor of Young Gay America magazine – tells the story of his transformation in an exclusive column published today by WND.

Although Glatze cut himself off from the homosexual community about a year and a half ago, he says the column likely will surprise some people.

"This will actually be news to anybody I used to relate to," he told WND.

The radical change in his life, Glatze recalls, began with inner "promptings" he now attributes to God.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56481

[Eddie]

Why would someones sexual preference be news?

[Dutch]

Apparently he doesn't realize he has no choice whatsoever about his sexual orientation, poor devil. "Guess they'll have to get another poster boy. :cool:

[Eddie]

Apparently he doesn't realize he has no choice whatsoever about his sexual orientation, poor devil. "Guess they'll have to get another poster boy. :cool:

Choice? I don`t really see how change equals choice. I will change from living to dead one day and I would not really characterize that as a "choice"...

[Bicycleman]

Why would someones sexual preference be news?

It's news because the left keeps claiming homosexuality is inherited, and gays can't help themselves. This guy was able to get out of that "genetic predisposed" lifestyle through God's help. I see this is being very good news for all homosexuals. All they have to do is accept the path that Glatze chose as well.

[Eddie]

It's news because the left keeps claiming homosexuality is inherited, and gays can't help themselves. This guy was able to get out of that "genetic predisposed" lifestyle through God's help. I see this is being very good news for all homosexuals. All they have to do is accept the path that Glatze chose as well.

See above regarding equalizing choice with change.

[Bicycleman]

Choice? I don`t really see how change equals choice. I will change from living to dead one day and I would not really characterize that as a "choice"...

That would depend on which way you're going, and you do have a choice there as well.;)

[green lantern]

It's news because the left keeps claiming homosexuality is inherited, and gays can't help themselves. This guy was able to get out of that "genetic predisposed" lifestyle through God's help. I see this is being very good news for all homosexuals. All they have to do is accept the path that Glatze chose as well.amen...

[Eddie]

That would depend on which way you're going, and you do have a choice there as well.;)

Hehe, true enough. But it doesn`t change the fact that changes does not equal choice. Many, if not most, changes are not chosen but imposed upon us by external and internal factors.

[Bicycleman]

Hehe, true enough. But it doesn`t change the fact that changes does not equal choice. Many, if not most, changes are not chosen but imposed upon us by external and internal factors.

Yes, there are external consequences after death if one continues in that way during life.

[Eddie]

Yes, there are external consequences after death if one continues in that way during life.

You mean that Allah will punish the wicked folks who loved people of the same sex?

[steveksux]

It's news because the left keeps claiming homosexuality is inherited, and gays can't help themselves. This guy was able to get out of that "genetic predisposed" lifestyle through God's help. I see this is being very good news for all homosexuals. All they have to do is accept the path that Glatze chose as well.I've heard of a lot of drunks that have declared they gave up drinking. THere've been gay people married for years before they finally admitted they were really gay.

If you were looking for evidence instead of affirmation you'd be more skeptical of his claims until he's proven the change is real.

Ted Haggard's meth fueled *** banging sessions didn't mean that Haggard became homosexual on the first Tuesdays of the month, or whenever his liasons occurred.

Randy

[steveksux]

Apparently he doesn't realize he has no choice whatsoever about his sexual orientation, poor devil. "Guess they'll have to get another poster boy. :cool:I suppose you think men change their sexual orientation while in prison? That they become homosexuals until their release? I suspect they're simply resorting to "any port in a storm", and do not change their sexual orientation whatsoever.

Randy

[The Big Bog]

Let's see ...

10 million gay people say they were born that way and can't change.

1 or 2 say they are able to change.

Therefore ...

Those other 10 million people MUST lying through their teeth!

Give it up, fellas. These (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-exgay28jun28,0,1590125.story?coll=la-home-local) three prominent former leaders of Exodus have.

[burntgorilla]

It's news because the left keeps claiming homosexuality is inherited, and gays can't help themselves. This guy was able to get out of that "genetic predisposed" lifestyle through God's help. I see this is being very good news for all homosexuals. All they have to do is accept the path that Glatze chose as well.

Like Ted Haggard did, you mean?

There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life

And yet, according to you, he could just change his mind and not be gay? Wow, I wish someone had told him that.

Did it ever occur to you that some gay people might actually be happy enough being gay, by the way?

Also, why do gay people have physiological differences to straight people? See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual#Biological_explanations

[Bicycleman]

Like Ted Haggard did, you mean?



And yet, according to you, he could just change his mind and not be gay? Wow, I wish someone had told him that.

Did it ever occur to you that some gay people might actually be happy enough being gay, by the way?

Also, why do gay people have physiological differences to straight people?

Some gay people would rather be gay and never change. Does that mean their lifestyle is normal? Are those gays who do realize their error and strive to change through faith in God now wrong according to what the world thinks of them?

[The Big Bog]

Some gay people would rather be gay and never change. Does that mean their lifestyle is normal? Are those gays who do realize their error and strive to change through faith in God now wrong according to what the world thinks of them?

Define "normal." Normal height for men is about ... what? 5'9"?

How tall are you Bicycleman?

[Eddie]

Define "normal." Normal height for men is about ... what? 5'9"?

How tall are you Bicycleman?

Depends on where you live though. Hmmm... perhaps you should deport all short people to Malta and all tall people to the Netherlands. All in the name of normality of course.

[The Big Bog]

Depends on where you live though. Hmmm... perhaps you should deport all short people to Malta and all tall people to the Netherlands. All in the name of normality of course.

What about dwarfs? They're certainly not normal.

Or blind people? Or autistic people? Or people with no legs?

[Eddie]

What about dwarfs? They're certainly not normal.

Or blind people? Or autistic people? Or people with no legs?

This is all about choice though. I`ve heard about people going blind and then regain their eyesight (and vice versa)... Must be choice. I`ve also heard aboput people suddenly loosing their legs due to injury or disease. Must be choice as well. I think they just need to find god and be convinced that they can see and that they do have legs. How about legislating that you cannot be blind or that you have to have legs all the time? that would at least be one step in the right direction.

Dwarfs are scary carni people and should remain so.

[Bicycleman]

Define "normal." Normal height for men is about ... what? 5'9"?

How tall are you Bicycleman?

Shhh! Mrs Bikeman will become suspicious. :eek:

6' 2"

[Eddie]

Shhh! Mrs Bikeman will become suspicious. :eek:

6' 2"

Off to Netherlands with you. Enjoy the porn and marijuana (I sure as hell did), all in the name of normality of course ;)

[Bicycleman]

This is all about choice though. I`ve heard about people going blind and then regain their eyesight (and vice versa)... Must be choice. I`ve also heard aboput people suddenly loosing their legs due to injury or disease. Must be choice as well. I think they just need to find god and be convinced that they can see and that they do have legs. How about legislating that you cannot be blind or that you have to have legs all the time? that would at least be one step in the right direction.

Dwarfs are scary carni people and should remain so.


Eddie, if you keep grasping for straws, you will end up short, uh, er, with the short straw.;)

[Bicycleman]

Off to Netherlands with you. Enjoy the porn and marijuana (I sure as hell did), all in the name of normality of course ;)

Oh, I'm sorry.

[dittohead not!]

It's news because the left keeps claiming homosexuality is inherited, and gays can't help themselves. This guy was able to get out of that "genetic predisposed" lifestyle through God's help. I see this is being very good news for all homosexuals. All they have to do is accept the path that Glatze chose as well.

That darned left always seems to listen to fact and reason, rather than ideology and supposition.

[Camera I]

Some gay people would rather be gay and never change. Does that mean their lifestyle is normal? Are those gays who do realize their error and strive to change through faith in God now wrong according to what the world thinks of them?

Mel White begs to differ with you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_White

[Dutch]

Why would someones sexual preference be news?

Here homosexuality has political implications. :cool:

[Dutch]

That darned left always seems to listen to fact and reason, rather than ideology and supposition.

In your dreams. :laughter: :laughter:

[Dutch]

Define "normal." Normal height for men is about ... what? 5'9"?

How tall are you Bicycleman?

I don't know about b man, but I'm 6ft. ;)

[burntgorilla]

Some gay people would rather be gay and never change. Does that mean their lifestyle is normal? Are those gays who do realize their error and strive to change through faith in God now wrong according to what the world thinks of them?

Now try and answer my other questions in that post.

Error? Tell me, when did you consciously decide to be heterosexual? Oh wait, you probably didn't, because you don't consciously decide your sexuality. You might have had a period during your teens when you thought you were gay, but for most of your life you have simply never found other men attractive. I don't see why it's so hard to accept that gay people don't consciously decide either.

Well wait, I do know for some people, at least. As with evolution, some types of Christians will be unable to ever accept that homosexuality is not a choice since it would bugger up their opinions on Bible inerrancy. I don't see why it is so difficult for others though.

[dittohead not!]

In your dreams. :laughter: :laughter:

Yes, I dreamed that the glaciers started to melt, and the "left" didn't try to deny it.
I dreamed that the Earth was more than 6,000 years old, and the "left" didn't try to deny it.
I dreamed that evolution was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the "left' didn't deny it.
I dreamed that people were either born homosexual or not, and the "left' didn't deny it.
I dreamed that stem cell research had the potential for curing diseases, and the "left' didn't deny it.

The "left" = anyone who disagrees with the point of view of whoever is calling them the left.

I suppose I'm the left, as I rely on fact and reason far more than hope and ideology.

[Dutch]

I suppose you think men change their sexual orientation while in prison? That they become homosexuals until their release? I suspect they're simply resorting to "any port in a storm", and do not change their sexual orientation whatsoever.

Randy

I'm very uncomfortable with the notion we have no choice with who we sleep with. If, indeed, we don't have the power of choice, what does that say about child molesters? those who sleep with dogs, with the dead? Where does that leave us?

[Dutch]

Yes, I dreamed that the glaciers started to melt, and the "left" didn't try to deny it.
I dreamed that the Earth was more than 6,000 years old, and the "left" didn't try to deny it.
I dreamed that evolution was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the "left' didn't deny it.
I dreamed that people were either born homosexual or not, and the "left' didn't deny it.
I dreamed that stem cell research had the potential for curing diseases, and the "left' didn't deny it.

The "left" = anyone who disagrees with the point of view of whoever is calling them the left.

I suppose I'm the left, as I rely on fact and reason far more than hope and ideology.

Ahhhh stop it! Your making me all misty. :p

[Eddie]

I'm very uncomfortable with the notion we have no choice with who we sleep with. If, indeed, we don't have the power of choice, what does that say about child molesters? those who sleep with dogs, with the dead? Where does that leave us?

We can certainly choose who we sleep with (to a certain extent), but we might not be able to choose which individuals we find atractive. A prostitute can certainly choose who to sleep with, a nun can as well. That doesn`t mean that the prostitute feels attracted by those he/she sleeps with or that the nun never feels attraction.

[The Big Bog]

I'm very uncomfortable with the notion we have no choice with who we sleep with. If, indeed, we don't have the power of choice, what does that say about child molesters? those who sleep with dogs, with the dead? Where does that leave us?

Well I COULD have tried to learn to write with my left hand I guess but then no one would have been able to read my writing and I probably would have flunked out of school. Not sure what possible good suppressing this natural predisposition would have done for me or society as a whole. :confused:

[steveksux]

I'm very uncomfortable with the notion we have no choice with who we sleep with. If, indeed, we don't have the power of choice, what does that say about child molesters? those who sleep with dogs, with the dead? Where does that leave us?Seems you're confused. All it takes to make a gay man straight is to start sleeping with women?

Randy

[burntgorilla]

I'm very uncomfortable with the notion we have no choice with who we sleep with. If, indeed, we don't have the power of choice, what does that say about child molesters? those who sleep with dogs, with the dead? Where does that leave us?

God, not this again. Here's what I believe:

Sexuality is not a choice. There is unlikely to be something as simple as a "gay gene", so anyone who says something like "I will not believe it until they discover the gay gene" is being disingenuous and skewing the debate. I think it is a mixture of disposition and the environment, as well as complex biological things. I don't think there is a way to make someone fully gay, or fully straight. That said, some people might have a fluid attitude to their sexuality over time, or just be pure bisexual. The fact that Ted Haggard battled his sexuality for his whole life makes me wonder about his "cure". Plenty of people might be completely heterosexual/homosexual and never feel any different. I am willing to bet that most heterosexual people feel "curious" at least once in their life, whether or not they admit it.

Instead of having the binary straight/gay option, I think it is more like a continuum, so some people might be a little gay, others might be totally heterosexual, others might be totally gay, whatever. I'm repeating myself a little, I think. I also believe that things such as paedophilia, bestiality and the like also fit into this system. Maybe it's a big circle, with them around the edges like one of those colour charts on computer programs. At this point someone raises the whole "slippery slope" argument. This is total bull, in my opinion. Homosexuality is, or should be, accepted because it does not harm anyone else. Perhaps on a societal or species level they do not aid the continuation of the human race, but then neither do straight people who do not or cannot have children, and they're not looked down on. Paedophilia and bestiality are harmful, therefore they should not be allowed. Homosexuality is between two consenting adults, paedophilia is between an adult and a non consenting child, and bestiality is between an adult and a non consenting animal. That is why the first is acceptable and the other two are not. I'm all for polygamous relationships, if they are what all of the consenting adults wish for. The same with incestuous relationships. The issue of children is tricky in these types of relationships however, but I will leave that for another time. Incestuous relationships bring up another type of slippery slope argument - the idea that if we legalise same sex marriages then suddenly everyone will be buggering each other and society will fall apart. To everyone with siblings - do you find them attractive? The answer is almost certainly "no". Legalising incestuous marriages would only appeal to a tiny portion of society, brothers and sisters are not going to suddenly find each other attractive. It is the same with homosexuality. Legalising same sex marraiges/unions will not cause more people to be gay. More people might feel that they can be open about their sexuality, so it may appear that more people are gay, but there is no real change.

To your original comment about being unhappy with the idea of having no choice: when did you decide to be heterosexual?

[Democritus]

I'm very uncomfortable with the notion we have no choice with who we sleep with. If, indeed, we don't have the power of choice, what does that say about child molesters? those who sleep with dogs, with the dead? Where does that leave us?

Didn't I ask you once not to compare me to pedophiles? Now you feel the need to compare me to zoophiles and necrophiliacs as well? I really don't care how uncomfortable it makes you feel, I'd argue it further, but frankly that opinion expresses a level of utter ignorance that I had earnestly hoped no longer existed in America, and such a level that I am ill equipped to rectify. And frankly I expect this post to be censored and myself to be warned, because while accusing you of ignorance is a personal attack, comparing people like me to pedophiles, zoophiles, and necrophiliacs is perfectly legitimate discourse.

[dittohead not!]

I'm very uncomfortable with the notion we have no choice with who we sleep with. If, indeed, we don't have the power of choice, what does that say about child molesters? those who sleep with dogs, with the dead? Where does that leave us?

We choose who we sleep with, but we don't choose who we're attracted to. Some homosexuals choose to sleep with women, and deny their real feelings. Such an action is fair neither to the homosexual, nor to the consort.

[Bicycleman]

Now try and answer my other questions in that post.

Error? Tell me, when did you consciously decide to be heterosexual?

Probably by the age of 5. I was curious why Suzy was different from me.

Oh wait, you probably didn't, because you don't consciously decide your sexuality.

Can you say normal development? That is the way God intended it to be. God wouldn't have made men and women different had he not wanted them to create life. It is only Satan who is corrupted the normal use of the body and brought men together with men and women with women. There is no procreation there, is there?


You might have had a period during your teens when you thought you were gay,

No, you mean you did?

but for most of your life you have simply never found other men attractive.

Nope, never did.

I don't see why it's so hard to accept that gay people don't consciously decide either.

God made man and woman to create life. The same sex doesn't create life. How can same sex attractions be normal? They aren't

Well wait, I do know for some people, at least. As with evolution, some types of Christians will be unable to ever accept that homosexuality is not a choice since it would bugger

I hope that is just a term used in the UK because in the states it has another meaning, and it is not nice to say.

You believe the Bible is in error, but yet you profess no belief in God. If you are not familiar with the Bible's author and do not believe in God, how can you say the book is in error?

[Antipathy]

It's news because the left keeps claiming homosexuality is inherited, and gays can't help themselves.Inherited? You sure about that? I've heard say it's genetic or pre-determined, but never inherited. "He/she is gay because his/her mom/dad was gay." Nope... I've never heard that. :shrug:

[Dangerrmouse]

The bible book collection has many authors, not to mention editors. How can you play silly buggers about not knowing the author, when no-one can?
Your argument such as it is, appears to suggest that nothing you read can be believed, unless the author is personally known to you. What nonsense.

[Bicycleman]

Inherited? You sure about that? I've heard say it's genetic or pre-determined, but never inherited. "He/she is gay because his/her mom/dad was gay." Nope... I've never heard that. :shrug:

Yeah, you're right Anti. I meant genetic disposition, rather than inheritance. My bad.:o

[Bicycleman]

The bible book collection has many authors, not to mention editors. How can you play silly buggers about not knowing the author, when no-one can?
Your argument such as it is, appears to suggest that nothing you read can be believed, unless the author is personally known to you. What nonsense.

You're definitely not born-again because if you were, you would already know the author.

[Camera I]

God made man and woman to create life. The same sex doesn't create life. How can same sex attractions be normal? They aren't

So God made some heterosexual people infertile as a joke then?

[Dangerrmouse]

You're definitely not born-again because if you were, you would already know the author.

Getting born isn't so difficult, and as the man said, "Pardon me for getting it right the first time"!

You persist in this ludicrous claim that a highly edited group of stories written by many individuals over a period of hundreds of years, has one putative homophobic bigot as its author?
:rolleyes: :lol:

[Antipathy]

First of all, the odd infrequent case of someone claiming their former homosexuality was a choice, does not make it a fact.

Secondly, I don't see how someone who has found religion can be held up as an example of why homosexuality is a choice when the religion they have embraced explicitly denies them the right to be homosexual.

Give me evidence of many homosexual turning straight who haven't been forced into it by the constraints of religion or society and then I might give this notion some credence. Until then, I will stick with my conviction that there is no choice for the vast majority of homosexuals.

[Ethos]

Since seemingly straight individuals have later found themselves to be unquestionably homosexual, it is hardly surprising to find gays who later find themselves to be heterosexual.

Then again, suppression is not an unknown human quality, especially where religion is concerned. Nothing in the column alters the current understanding of scientific study concerning the nature of homosexuality.

Ethos

[Dutch]

God, not this again. Here's what I believe:

Sexuality is not a choice. There is unlikely to be something as simple as a "gay gene", so anyone who says something like "I will not believe it until they discover the gay gene" is being disingenuous and skewing the debate. I think it is a mixture of disposition and the environment, as well as complex biological things. I don't think there is a way to make someone fully gay, or fully straight. That said, some people might have a fluid attitude to their sexuality over time, or just be pure bisexual. The fact that Ted Haggard battled his sexuality for his whole life makes me wonder about his "cure". Plenty of people might be completely heterosexual/homosexual and never feel any different. I am willing to bet that most heterosexual people feel "curious" at least once in their life, whether or not they admit it.

Instead of having the binary straight/gay option, I think it is more like a continuum, so some people might be a little gay, others might be totally heterosexual, others might be totally gay, whatever. I'm repeating myself a little, I think. I also believe that things such as paedophilia, bestiality and the like also fit into this system. Maybe it's a big circle, with them around the edges like one of those colour charts on computer programs. At this point someone raises the whole "slippery slope" argument. This is total bull, in my opinion. Homosexuality is, or should be, accepted because it does not harm anyone else. Perhaps on a societal or species level they do not aid the continuation of the human race, but then neither do straight people who do not or cannot have children, and they're not looked down on. Paedophilia and bestiality are harmful, therefore they should not be allowed. Homosexuality is between two consenting adults, paedophilia is between an adult and a non consenting child, and bestiality is between an adult and a non consenting animal. That is why the first is acceptable and the other two are not. I'm all for polygamous relationships, if they are what all of the consenting adults wish for. The same with incestuous relationships. The issue of children is tricky in these types of relationships however, but I will leave that for another time. Incestuous relationships bring up another type of slippery slope argument - the idea that if we legalise same sex marriages then suddenly everyone will be buggering each other and society will fall apart. To everyone with siblings - do you find them attractive? The answer is almost certainly "no". Legalising incestuous marriages would only appeal to a tiny portion of society, brothers and sisters are not going to suddenly find each other attractive. It is the same with homosexuality. Legalising same sex marraiges/unions will not cause more people to be gay. More people might feel that they can be open about their sexuality, so it may appear that more people are gay, but there is no real change.

To your original comment about being unhappy with the idea of having no choice: when did you decide to be heterosexual?

My, my. It certainly seems I've stirred up a hornet's nest. I just feel awful. Let's just limit this to pedophilia. Not all relationships are the result of an adult and a non consenting child. I'm not going into some of the web sites I found defending this practice for pretty good reasons (retch factor). However they do exist.

I would like to point out this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Kay_Letourneau)as an example of consenting adult and consenting (?) child. There have been numerous other examples of late. I even observed two instances of this at my last school. How does this affect your thesis of non consenting child? How does this affect our society's treatment of some pedophiles?

[Craig]

Can you say normal development? That is the way God intended it to be. God wouldn't have made men and women different had he not wanted them to create life. It is only Satan who is corrupted the normal use of the body and brought men together with men and women with women. There is no procreation there, is there?



Are you truly offering this up as a serious argument? Satan can only do what God allows him to do. God is far more powerful than Satan, some might even say omnipotent, and could easily stop Satan on this one if he so chose. The more interesting question then is why He does not.

But seriously, I am always astounded when people give a Satan argument of this sort, mostly because they actually believe it. It's almost the same as a "God of the Gaps Argument", only it takes the form of "Something sinful or bad exists in the universe, therefore Satan must be the cause of it". I find such arguments staggering because they reflect an inability to interpret something outside of a very confined religious context. It's almost as though you're straining to interpret reality within your Christian world view, struggling to make the facts match up with your belief. Of course, I doubt you see it this way, but I certainly do.

Maybe biology and human development are not as straight forward, unambiguous, and simple as you think.

[dittohead not!]

Probably by the age of 5. I was curious why Suzy was different from me.



Can you say normal development? That is the way God intended it to be. God wouldn't have made men and women different had he not wanted them to create life. It is only Satan who is corrupted the normal use of the body and brought men together with men and women with women. There is no procreation there, is there?




No, you mean you did?



Nope, never did.



God made man and woman to create life. The same sex doesn't create life. How can same sex attractions be normal? They aren't



I hope that is just a term used in the UK because in the states it has another meaning, and it is not nice to say.

You believe the Bible is in error, but yet you profess no belief in God. If you are not familiar with the Bible's author and do not believe in God, how can you say the book is in error?

If God made some people homosexual, who are we to say that He was wrong?

[burntgorilla]

Probably by the age of 5. I was curious why Suzy was different from me.

5? Precocious kid. ;) But did you actually saw to yourself "I am only going to like girls from now on"? Or did you just think what felt natural? It is not as if you were ambivalent before, but make a conscious decision to pick one "side", as it were. You just went along with whatever seemed natural?

No, you mean you did?


Yeah.

Can you say normal development? That is the way God intended it to be. God wouldn't have made men and women different had he not wanted them to create life. It is only Satan who is corrupted the normal use of the body and brought men together with men and women with women. There is no procreation there, is there?

God made man and woman to create life. The same sex doesn't create life. How can same sex attractions be normal? They aren't


Well, I can't really argue with this if you're going to resort to religion. But other people have asked some rather pertinent questions so I'll leave it to them.



I hope that is just a term used in the UK because in the states it has another meaning, and it is not nice to say.

Well, it has the same meaning but it's not regarded as a very bad word. More humorous than anything.

You believe the Bible is in error, but yet you profess no belief in God. If you are not familiar with the Bible's author and do not believe in God, how can you say the book is in error?

Can you lay out your logic on that? I think I must be missing a bit.

[burntgorilla]

My, my. It certainly seems I've stirred up a hornet's nest. I just feel awful. Let's just limit this to pedophilia. Not all relationships are the result of an adult and a non consenting child. I'm not going into some of the web sites I found defending this practice for pretty good reasons (retch factor). However they do exist.

I would like to point out this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Kay_Letourneau)as an example of consenting adult and consenting (?) child. There have been numerous other examples of late. I even observed two instances of this at my last school. How does this affect your thesis of non consenting child? How does this affect our society's treatment of some pedophiles?

The pupil was underage. Our societies have deemed that, beneath a certain age, children cannot give meaningful consent. Therefore the pupil did not give consent. I feel this doesn't apply with a 16 or 17 year old boy and a slightly underage girl, but hopefully you'll agree that is a different case. But a 13 year old boy cannot give meaningful consent, according to our societies' laws. Personally, I think that this kind of case is different to an uncle or a priest raping a child (most offenders are related to the victim, I think), but only in a very small sense. She is still a paedophile and she should still be punished. I'm only talking about taking one or two years off her sentence. In this particular example, since she broke all of the rules when she was released early and continued to meet with the boy, I would give her the full punishments. That they ended up married is interesting. It does show that she felt love rather than pure carnal desire. But she still had sex with a child who could not give proper consent. I imagine most boys that age would be after anything on two legs.

I assume you are referring to groups like NAMBLA? While pederasty might have been accepted in other cultures, it is not accepted in ours. It all comes back down to meaningful consent.

[Bicycleman]

Mary K. Where was she or her like when I was growing up and coming of age? What guy wouldn't have wanted to be in that kid's shoes?:) Sure, she was wrong at taking advantage of the kid, but he didn't think of it as that. To him, it was an opportunity that doesn't come to all.

I value Wikipedia's information, but I note some bias from the author in that there is much emphasis placed on her parents' conservative backgrounds.

[The_Comedian]

Mary K. Where was she or her like when I was growing up and coming of age? What guy wouldn't have wanted to be in that kid's shoes?:) Sure, she was wrong at taking advantage of the kid, but he didn't think of it as that. To him, it was an opportunity that doesn't come to all.
Would you say the same if the teacher was male and the pupil was a thirteen year old girl?
I mean, this would also be "an opportunity that doesn't come to all". :rolleyes:

[serenity]

Can you say normal development? That is the way God intended it to be. God wouldn't have made men and women different had he not wanted them to create life. It is only Satan who is corrupted the normal use of the body and brought men together with men and women with women.

Ah, ha ha ha ha ha!

Homosexuals are driven by Satan.

Followed by this gem:

I hope that is just a term used in the UK because in the states it has another meaning, and it is not nice to say.


Not nice to say? But calling homosexuals Satanic, and comparing them to pedophiles, is civil political discourse.

[dittohead not!]

5? Precocious kid. ;) But did you actually saw to yourself "I am only going to like girls from now on"? Or did you just think what felt natural? It is not as if you were ambivalent before, but make a conscious decision to pick one "side", as it were. You just went along with whatever seemed natural?

My grandsons showed an affinity for females long before they reached the ripe old age of 5, certainly long before they knew why. I'm pretty sure that they still don't know why, but they will learn soon enough. Sexual attraction is innate, no question about it.

[Bicycleman]

Ah, ha ha ha ha ha!

Homosexuals are driven by Satan.

Followed by this gem:



Not nice to say? But calling homosexuals Satanic, and comparing them to pedophiles, is civil political discourse.

I suppose God just isn't politically correct, is he?

[Bicycleman]

Would you say the same if the teacher was male and the pupil was a thirteen year old girl?
I mean, this would also be "an opportunity that doesn't come to all". :rolleyes:

Oh, I'm not condoning what she did, but looking from the boy's perspective, he didn't think he was a victim at all. In fact, when she got out of prison, he married her.

[Ethos]

Oh, I'm not condoning what she did, but looking from the boy's perspective, he didn't think he was a victim at all. In fact, when she got out of prison, he married her.

If a twelve year old girl does not consider herself a victim, should we celebrate her relationship with older men?

Ethos

[dittohead not!]

I suppose God just isn't politically correct, is he?

If he were politically correct, he wouldn't have made homosexuals in the first place.

[Dutch]

The pupil was underage. Our societies have deemed that, beneath a certain age, children cannot give meaningful consent. Therefore the pupil did not give consent. I feel this doesn't apply with a 16 or 17 year old boy and a slightly underage girl, but hopefully you'll agree that is a different case. But a 13 year old boy cannot give meaningful consent, according to our societies' laws. Personally, I think that this kind of case is different to an uncle or a priest raping a child (most offenders are related to the victim, I think), but only in a very small sense. She is still a paedophile and she should still be punished. I'm only talking about taking one or two years off her sentence. In this particular example, since she broke all of the rules when she was released early and continued to meet with the boy, I would give her the full punishments. That they ended up married is interesting. It does show that she felt love rather than pure carnal desire. But she still had sex with a child who could not give proper consent. I imagine most boys that age would be after anything on two legs.

I assume you are referring to groups like NAMBLA? While pederasty might have been accepted in other cultures, it is not accepted in ours. It all comes back down to meaningful consent.

There was a time when homosexuality wasn't accepted either. All of which brings us back to my original question; if homosexuality isn't a matter of choice then, perhaps, paediophelia isn't either. At just what point are children permitted to choose to engage in sex. You indicated 16 or 17. Why not 14 or 15, why not 13?

Please don't misunderstand, I don't care if folks are homosexual. I also detest paediophiles. I'm a teacher, this is affecting all of us. However, it would seem there needs to be more to the argument that homosexuals don't have a choice because if they don't, neither do paediophiles.

[Ethos]

Please don't misunderstand, I don't care if folks are homosexual. I also detest paediophiles. I'm a teacher, this is affecting all of us. However, it would seem there needs to be more to the argument that homosexuals don't have a choice because if they don't, neither do paediophiles.

Leaving aside scientific research for a moment, perhaps we could look toward personal experience as an answer. It's been pointed out that homosexuals often know of their orientation from puberty (or before), just as heterosexuals. Is there any information - anecdotal or otherwise - supporting this early recognition of sexual deviance relating to pedophilia?

Ethos

[dittohead not!]

There was a time when homosexuality wasn't accepted either. All of which brings us back to my original question; if homosexuality isn't a matter of choice then, perhaps, paediophelia isn't either. At just what point are children permitted to choose to engage in sex. You indicated 16 or 17. Why not 14 or 15, why not 13?

Please don't misunderstand, I don't care if folks are homosexual. I also detest paediophiles. I'm a teacher, this is affecting all of us. However, it would seem there needs to be more to the argument that homosexuals don't have a choice because if they don't, neither do paediophiles.

It's quite possible that pedophelia isn't a choice any more than homosexuality is a choice. The real difference is that homosexuality between consenting adults isn't doing any harm to anyone. Predators who target children are a plague on society who do irreperable harm to their young victims.

The argument that accepting homosexuality will lead to accepting pedophiles simply doesn't hold water. The guiding principle needs to be that another person's freedom ends where mine begins. Children have the freedom to grow up without the trauma of being the victim of a pedophile. Adults who were born homosexual should have the freedom to be what they are, and not have to apologize to the rest of us.

[burntgorilla]

Oh, I'm not condoning what she did, but looking from the boy's perspective, he didn't think he was a victim at all. In fact, when she got out of prison, he married her.

I believe that is the kind of argument used by organisations such as NAMBLA.

[burntgorilla]

There was a time when homosexuality wasn't accepted either.

Indeed. But then it was realised that there was no reason not to accept it - a relationship between two consenting adults cannot have a victim, surely? If you can find a conclusive reason for letting younger children to have sex, and demonstrate that they would not be victims, then I'm all ears. Which leads on to:

All of which brings us back to my original question; if homosexuality isn't a matter of choice then, perhaps, paediophelia isn't either. At just what point are children permitted to choose to engage in sex. You indicated 16 or 17. Why not 14 or 15, why not 13?

Well, it is arbitrary to a degree. I'm sure as a teacher you've seen how some children in a class are more mature than others. For some people they might be ready for sex at 14 or 15, others might not even be mentally ready at 17. I do understand that as such some people might be classed as paedophiles because they are having sex with someone who is not mature enough according to law, but who are nevertheless ready for sex. But I think it is important to remember that the age of consent is more of a protective law than a preventative one. It was designed to protect children from people who would take advantage of them, not to randomly decree that kids shouldn't have sex. In an ideal world, the age of consent would be different for each child, reflecting their maturity. But this isn't an ideal world. And even the children themselves are not necessarily the best judge. I read and hear plenty of people who thought they were mature or that they were ready for this or that, but with hindsight they realise that they weren't. Teenagers especially always think that they're right and that they know best, even if they don't. But then who is best placed to say? The state?

I think our only viable options are either no age of consent laws, or an inevitably arbitrary age of consent law. Given that the age of starting puberty is continually dropping, young people are increasingly becoming more developed and more mature at a younger age. Perhaps a review every ten years or so could decide whether to change it. But since everyone is different it will still not be correct for many many people. Of course, maturity in this sense is mental maturity, not physical. Kids from the age of 11 onwards are probably quite capable of having sex, but are they mentally ready for it? I said that children are increasingly maturing at an earlier age - this is certainly true for physical development, but I'm not sure about mental. I assume they are closely linked. Parents would probably be the best judge of their child's mental age, so perhaps they should be free to decide when their child can have sex, maybe within a certain range of ages. However, since most sexual abuse is done by a family member or close acquaintance of the family this would be very open to exploitation. And of course not everyone would have parents or carers in a good enough position to make the decision. And I'm sure that plenty of youths would question their parents' authority and their right to impose such a restriction.

Please don't misunderstand, I don't care if folks are homosexual. I also detest paediophiles. I'm a teacher, this is affecting all of us. However, it would seem there needs to be more to the argument that homosexuals don't have a choice because if they don't, neither do paediophiles.

As said earlier, you don't choose who you are attracted to, but you can choose who you sleep with. Paedophiles do not choose to be attracted to children, which is why I believe they should be offered treatments that reduce libido or similar things. I think there is a voluntary system in the UK which is quite popular. These are people who do not want to sleep with children, even if they are attracted to them, if you follow. Then there are people who want to sleep with children and are attracted to them. They should be treated differently from the first group, in my opinion.

[Bicycleman]

I believe that is the kind of argument used by organisations such as NAMBLA.

Keep grabbing for straws BG because you're getting all short ones.

[Bicycleman]

If he were politically correct, he wouldn't have made homosexuals in the first place.

He gave man free will to sin or not.

[dittohead not!]

He gave man free will to sin or not.

He also made homosexuals, right along with the rest of humankind.

Personally, I have no motive to "sin" by having sex with another male. Is it a sin for homosexuals to be who god made them? Should they try to conform to the dogmas set by some of the churches in order to avoid "sin"?

How is it a sin to engage in behavior that harms no one?

[Eddie]

There was a time when homosexuality wasn't accepted either.

And there was several times and places where homosexuality has been even more accepted than it is today.

[burntgorilla]

Keep grabbing for straws BG because you're getting all short ones.

NAMBLA do not believe that what they are doing is wrong because they do not see the children as victims - it is (meant to be) consensual.

[FilmFestGuy]

It's news because the left keeps claiming homosexuality is inherited, and gays can't help themselves. This guy was able to get out of that "genetic predisposed" lifestyle through God's help. I see this is being very good news for all homosexuals. All they have to do is accept the path that Glatze chose as well.

And you choose to be a Christian. You know what? We all have choices and even if he "chose" to not be gay, it's his right.

The ignorant thing you project here is that "orientation" is generally agreed to be a genetic disposition. While the science isn't 100%, it's a generally accepted fact of life. Even evangelicals admit that in their "ex-gay ministries". The "choice" is whether to live in a way that matches ones genetic disposition or to live against it.

In this country we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If his pursuit of happiness was choosing a Christian lifestyle, sobeit. It's your right to choose to be a Christian or not. His rights to pursue happiness shouldn't be based on his choice to deny his sexual orientation. His rights as an American should be protected either way.

A friend was raised as a Christian, but is now a Buddhist. Is that evidence that people can "choose" to leave the Christian lifestyle? Of course it is. But my point is we should protect people's rights to make choices that result in no harm to anyone.

[Bicycleman]

And there was several times and places where homosexuality has been even more accepted than it is today.

Back in Greece and Rome. Wonder why they are no longer great empires? Hmm?

[Bicycleman]

NAMBLA do not believe that what they are doing is wrong because they do not see the children as victims - it is (meant to be) consensual.

So BG, are you telling me that if Mary K. came up and propositioned you, that you would have turned her down, and would have much preferred the companionship of an older male teacher?:eek: :confused:

[Eddie]

Back in Greece and Rome. Wonder why they are no longer great empires? Hmm?

Not only Greece and Rome but throughout the entire christian community, homosexuality was accepted and quite common among the clergy for quite some time. Even homoerotic litterature was published by catholic monks with the good memory of the church. And that is merely Europe.

As for not being great empires anymore. Get back to me when the US empire has lasted for more than a millenium and I might consider your point ;)

Oh, and perhaps I`m reading you wrong but are you trying to assert that acceptane of homosexuality somehow had anything to do with the fall of the roman and greek empires? I hope you`re not because that would even be too stupid to debate. ;)

[The Big Bog]

Not only Greece and Rome but throughout the entire christian community, homosexuality was accepted and quite common among the clergy for quite some time. Even homoerotic litterature was published by catholic monks with the good memory of the church. And that is merely Europe.


Oh so you're saying if a Greek or a Roman or a Catholic monk jumped off a cliff, so would you? :p

Say, that reminds me of a funny joke. A Greek, a Roman, and a monk walked into a bar ...

[Bicycleman]

Not only Greece and Rome but throughout the entire christian community, homosexuality was accepted and quite common among the clergy for quite some time. Even homoerotic litterature was published by catholic monks with the good memory of the church. And that is merely Europe.

As for not being great empires anymore. Get back to me when the US empire has lasted for more than a millenium and I might consider your point ;)

Oh, and perhaps I`m reading you wrong but are you trying to assert that acceptane of homosexuality somehow had anything to do with the fall of the roman and greek empires? I hope you`re not because that would even be too stupid to debate. ;)

Homosexuality has never been accepted among evangelical Christians. I am quite aware that many people consider themselves Christians because they go to church, but that is not always the case. There are many mainstream churches who have broken with Biblical teachings and embraced homosexuality as being normal, but that doesn't excuse the sin of homosexuality nor does it make it right in God's eyes. Also,some say it is questionable as to Catholicism being a true part of Christianity if you consider how the Catholic church has misinterpreted biblical teachings and how it has added to the Bible.

[Bicycleman]

Oh so you're saying if a Greek or a Roman or a Catholic monk jumped off a cliff, so would you? :p

Say, that reminds me of a funny joke. A Greek, a Roman, and a monk walked into a bar ...

and, and? The punch line was lost somewhere in the interpretation.:D

[Eddie]

Oh so you're saying if a Greek or a Roman or a Catholic monk jumped off a cliff, so would you? :p

That depends. Is he my boyfirend?

Say, that reminds me of a funny joke. A Greek, a Roman, and a monk walked into a bar ...

Was the monk Greek or Roman? Where was the bar, in Greece, Rome or Monk? Who is this Monk fellow? What`s their names? Why do they walk into a bar at the same time? What`s their political preferences? Is it a muslim involved? etc, etc. You can`t just make statements like that without giving some background info first. It`s really hard to debate.

:p

[Eddie]

Homosexuality has never been accepted among evangelical Christians.

This took place long before there was any protestants. I don`t know about evangelical chatolics, but it`s quite possible that these existed at the time, and naturally embraced the same norms as their clergy brethrens. The point was not that "true" christians engaged in homosexual activities (as I don`t give a flying ... about what you consider true christians to be). It was an observation of the history of the view on homosexuality. It`s far ore complex than many with a certain political agenda wants us to think...

[The Big Bog]

and, and? The punch line was lost somewhere in the interpretation.:D

You'll have to fill in the blanks yourself. We're trying to run a good old-fashioned wholesome website here.

[Bicycleman]

You'll have to fill in the blanks yourself. We're trying to run a good old-fashioned wholesome website here.

Please see my new joke thread on Whistlestop Station, you know the one about women and dogs?:D

[serenity]

Quote:
Originally Posted by serenity Ah, ha ha ha ha ha!Homosexuals are driven by Satan.Followed by this gem:Not nice to say? But calling homosexuals Satanic, and comparing them to pedophiles, is civil political discourse.


Posted by Bicycleman
I suppose God just isn't politically correct, is he?


My point, here, was to display that you yourself are calling for political correctness—when you perceive something “not nice to say”—but then reject political correctness when you wish to offer up insults.

[Bicycleman]

My point, here, was to display that you yourself are calling for political correctness—when you perceive something “not nice to say”—but then reject political correctness when you wish to offer up insults.

I don't use profanity, but that's not being politically correct. It's just politeness. Regarding politics, I'm definitely not politically correct.

[FilmFestGuy]

Homosexuality has never been accepted among evangelical Christians. I am quite aware that many people consider themselves Christians because they go to church, but that is not always the case. There are many mainstream churches who have broken with Biblical teachings and embraced homosexuality as being normal, but that doesn't excuse the sin of homosexuality nor does it make it right in God's eyes. Also,some say it is questionable as to Catholicism being a true part of Christianity if you consider how the Catholic church has misinterpreted biblical teachings and how it has added to the Bible.

Evangelical Christians are a relatively new phenomenon.

Historical documents show that translations of the Bible from its original Hebrew and Greek didn't start condemning homosexuality until the 12th century. This correlates with the translations that furthered the servitude of women and the acceptance of slavery. Simultaneously, all across Europe began the expelling of Jews and Muslems and the increasing physical punishments inflicted upon sinners by the church and the monarchies of the continent.

In fact, the word homosexual appears in no Biblical translation until 1946.

There are two types of religious people in this country - pluralists (who generally believe that we all take different paths to God and how one worships is one's own business) and fundamentalists (who believe that their form of worship is the only acceptable form of worship).

[FilmFestGuy]

Homosexuality has never been accepted among evangelical Christians. I am quite aware that many people consider themselves Christians because they go to church, but that is not always the case. There are many mainstream churches who have broken with Biblical teachings and embraced homosexuality as being normal, but that doesn't excuse the sin of homosexuality nor does it make it right in God's eyes. Also,some say it is questionable as to Catholicism being a true part of Christianity if you consider how the Catholic church has misinterpreted biblical teachings and how it has added to the Bible.

And many Evangelicals read from mistranslated Bibles. While the Bible may be the infallible word of God, it has been mistranslated over and over and over again throughout centuries by men who saw it as the perfect tool for their political agendas.

That's why one needs to approach the Bible with one's brain as well as with one's heart.

[dittohead not!]

Homosexuality has never been accepted among evangelical Christians. I am quite aware that many people consider themselves Christians because they go to church, but that is not always the case. There are many mainstream churches who have broken with Biblical teachings and embraced homosexuality as being normal, but that doesn't excuse the sin of homosexuality nor does it make it right in God's eyes. Also,some say it is questionable as to Catholicism being a true part of Christianity if you consider how the Catholic church has misinterpreted biblical teachings and how it has added to the Bible.

What gives the evangelicals the authority to speak for god, or to say what's right or wrong in god's eyes?

[rjamortega]

Choice? I don`t really see how change equals choice. I will change from living to dead one day and I would not really characterize that as a "choice"...

I think Eddie, what you're saying only applies some of the time, even if it may be the rule rather than the exception.

Most sexuality may be genetic, but much of it must also be conditioned. And in this realm we are bound to find many cases of people who for many personal and psychological reasons opted for the gay lifestyle. And naturaly there is bound to be some cases of people who one day just feel the inclination towards a change to heterosexuality. Some of them might even think it is God that brought them to that change.

[towski]

And naturaly there is bound to be some cases of people who one day just feel the inclination towards a change to heterosexuality. Some of them might even think it is God that brought them to that change.

Which is fine! Honestly, who outside of some militant members of the gay community has a serious problem with that? The problem is the subsequent claim by the religious right that because that happened for 1 homosexual, it's a viable choice for ALL homosexuals...

[Nuke the Oil]

Back in Greece and Rome. Wonder why they are no longer great empires? Hmm?

Well, with Rome it was all downhill once the Christian degenerates got into power...

[chukster8614]

I'm glad he quit. Homos could do without people like that.

[Democritus]

Homosexuality has never been accepted among evangelical Christians. I am quite aware that many people consider themselves Christians because they go to church, but that is not always the case. There are many mainstream churches who have broken with Biblical teachings and embraced homosexuality as being normal, but that doesn't excuse the sin of homosexuality nor does it make it right in God's eyes. Also,some say it is questionable as to Catholicism being a true part of Christianity if you consider how the Catholic church has misinterpreted biblical teachings and how it has added to the Bible.

Actually it was relatively accepted by everyone until around the 13th century. So how do you explain that?

[dittohead not!]

Well, with Rome it was all downhill once the Christian degenerates got into power...

That, and the fact that they lost control of their borders and had illegal barbarians entering at will, lost control of their budget and spent more money than they had, tried to impose a pax romana on the rest of the world through force of arms, allowed money to corrupt their political system, and tried to maintain a welfare state.

Of course, we're nothing like the Romans at all.

[Eddie]

I think Eddie, what you're saying only applies some of the time, even if it may be the rule rather than the exception.

Indeed. It depends on the circumstances. And the fact that there are many changes that are not "chosen" invalidates the argument that "since sexual preferences can change it must be a choice".

[rjamortega]

Which is fine! Honestly, who outside of some militant members of the gay community has a serious problem with that? The problem is the subsequent claim by the religious right that because that happened for 1 homosexual, it's a viable choice for ALL homosexuals...

Narrow-minded opportunism?

[rjamortega]

Indeed. It depends on the circumstances. And the fact that there are many changes that are not "chosen" invalidates the argument that "since sexual preferences can change it must be a choice".

Yup. No disagreement there.

[FilmFestGuy]

3 former leaders of ex-gay ministry apologize
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-exgay28jun28,0,1590125.story?coll=la-home-local

Uh...I just found this...

So if one guy "choosing" to not be gay, then these people "choosing" to go back to being gay (after working for an ex-gay ministry no less) must prove...
what exactly?

[Bicycleman]

What gives the evangelicals the authority to speak for god, or to say what's right or wrong in god's eyes?

The Evangelicals don't speak for God. God speaks to them through his Word.

[dittohead not!]

The Evangelicals don't speak for God. God speaks to them through his Word.

So, he tells the evangelicals what's right and wrong, and they pass the word on to us lower mortals?

Didn't Hirohito speak for god during WWII also? Was he an evangelical too?

[Dangerrmouse]

The Evangelicals don't speak for God. God speaks to them through his Word.

Sometimes in "tongues", and occasionally directly, as is alleged in George's case..