The CIC OT Zone's Official You're All Huge Idiots Religion Thread

[Wedge009]

I never said the Bible was right just because it's "old". I just said we have every reason to believe we have accurate documents, much more so that writings on other historical figures during the same time.

But you are correct in saying that the earliest Christians had no 'New Testament'. AFAIK, they simply followed what they knew of the teachings of Christ. It was the work of the Apostles to spread the Gospel, and most of them were executed for it.

 

[Bob McDob]

Neither of your statements have any reasoning to justify them.

I shall defer, as I'm generally very bad at this sort of thing.

"Forcing us to choose between genetics and choice is a false dilemma, because you leave out the option of "environment".

Environment is neither genetics or choice, and it is an enormous factor in our psychological makeup.

By the way, "choice" is simply absurd. Does a young man sit up in bed one day and say "you know, I think I shall find girls attractive"? Of course not; he just feels that way, and he doesn't know how he became that way. There is no conscious choice.

Do you choose to be sexually attracted to certain people? Or does it just happen?

I don't know if one can theorize how an environment might factor into homosexuality, but simply arguing that it won't happen because society frowns on homosexuality is a bit dicey. An upbringing is an extremely complex arrangement of variables, and it's pretty hard to theorize as to what might factor into something like that. It's a bit like asking how cold air causes rain when you don't understand how the environment works.

As for homosexuality, it is not "bred out" because it is not a distinct characteristic. It is merely one end of a continuous spectrum. The notion of a completely straight man is unrealistic; the "straightness" of a heterosexual is probably exaggerated by social conditioning. Put enough heterosexual males together for a long enough period of time with no female companionship (see French foreign legion), and you will find that straight men can be a little more flexible than expected.

If we imagine that people can be 90% hetero and 10% homo or 60% hetero and 40% homo etc., it's not hard to see how homosexuals could persist in society despite not breeding. They are simply sitting slightly outside the normal range of a continuously variable characteristic."

 

[vindicator]

That's where you are wrong, wedge009 They weren't excuted for their beliefs. They started to be excuted because the refused to appear at a roman cerimony honoring the other religions that existed in the empire.

They said theirs' was the way and refused to honor and respect anyother religions. It is also docutmented that christians preached martyrdom(sp).

There was a document that as this woman was to be executed the soldier hesitaed she pulled his sowrd into her guts and was killed sounds like brainwashing to me but then again who knows And the only reason christianty took hold i empire was because the emperor of the time needed forgiveness for murdering his family and christianty offered him that most all of the pegan religions did not.

-Rance-

 

[Bob McDob]

I'm a little hestitant to resort toRelgiousTolerance.org on this matter, but the fact is it does bring across my points more clearly than I've seen anywhere else.

Conversion rate estimates:
Unfortunately, as of 2001-MAY, no study of conversion therapy has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Those studies that have been conducted have many deficiencies. Often complete data has been withheld. This makes the "conversion rate" impossible to estimate accurately. However, a few studies have uncovered sufficient information by which we may be able to make a very crude estimate of the conversion rate:

Exodus International (1978): The ministry selected 30 of their 800 members as having changed from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual in orientation. Two outside psychiatrists interviewed the 30 and found that only three were actually heterosexual. Subsequent to the study, two of the male founders of Exodus fell in love and were united in a union ceremony. They claimed that the Exodus program was "ineffective...not one person was healed." The conversion rate, based on the study is 3 in 800, on the order of 0.4%

Masters and Johnson' (1979): This study claimed an impressive conversion rate of 50 to 60% which was maintained for 5 years after treatment. Unfortunately, only five of the 67 participants (7%) began the study with a homosexual orientation. From the available data is quite possible that none of these five converted to heterosexuality. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.

NARTH (1997): They studied 860 clients whose data was sent by 200 therapists who were members of the organization. When the subjects entered therapy, 68% identified themselves as totally or almost exclusively homosexual. It is not clear whether this referred to sexual behavior or sexual orientation. The actual percentage of homosexuals was not reported; most of the subjects might have been bisexual. When they left therapy, 33% said they were exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual. Again, it is unclear whether this refers to behavior or orientation. Again, the percentage of heterosexuals is unknown.

Unfortunately, 63% of the subjects were still undergoing therapy at the time of the survey. Of greater interest would be the percentage of subjects who entered with a homosexual orientation, converted to bisexuality or heterosexuality, and were able to sustain their sexual orientation for, say, two years following therapy. The NARTH report did not track the results of those clients after therapy. It is possible that none of the subjects who entered therapy with a homosexual orientation was able to change their orientation. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.

Schroeder & Shidlo (in progress): This study is aiming at analyzing the experience of 200 people who have undergone conversion therapy. As of late 1997, they had studied 100 subjects. They reported a conversion rate of 0%.

OCRT pilot study (2000): The sponsors of this web site surveyed each of the 36 websites of the GayChange WebRing. 3 These are mainly Internet sites created by individuals or small Christian ministries. From the sites' content, all appear to be Evangelical Christian in outlook. Of the 28 accessible web sites, only one reported what they felt were conversion success. They had two clients who entered therapy with a homosexual orientation, and decided during therapy to remain celibate. One entered therapy as a bisexual and has developed a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Neither actually changed their sexual orientation. The conversion rate of the Christian ministries sampled was 0%.

Exodus International (2000): On 2000-JAN-21, the board of directors of the National Association of Social Workers issued a statement which condemned all therapies which attempt to change a person's sexual orientation. Exodus International (EI) offered a rebuttal to that statement. In his rebuttal, Bob Davies, North American director of EI wrote that: Over 250,000 individuals have contacted various EI offices inquiring about a sexual orientation change. This includes "gays, lesbians, family members, friends, counselors and pastors."

Thousands of men and women have stopped homosexual behavior. That is, they have decided to become celibate. These are now "in the process of seeking deeper change in their sexual feelings and attractions."

Unfortunately, he does not estimate how many of these thousands of clients have actually changed their sexual orientation. On 2001-MAY-14, we Emailed EI asking for additional information. Davies does mention that some "are now happily married and raising children." However he does not give estimates of their number, nor does he indicate how many were entered EI as bisexuals and have remained with that sexual orientation. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.

Spitzer (2000): Dr. Robert Spitzer conducted a study of 143 "ex-gays" and 57 "ex-lesbians" who had reported that they had become "straight." In fact, the data shows that few are now heterosexual. He reported that 89% of the men and 63% of the subjects emerged from therapy still having feelings of attraction to persons of the same-sex. 16 (11%) of the men and 21 (37%) of the women report that they now have a heterosexual orientation. Again, it is not known how many entered therapy as bisexuals or as homosexuals.

A total of 86 of the 200 subjects were referred to Dr. Spitzer by conservative Christian groups specializing in homosexual ministry; NARTH referred 46 subjects; other sources provided 68. It is apparent that the individuals that Dr. Spitzer interviewed were hand-selected from a very large group of persons who had either a homosexuals or a bisexual orientation. The 46 subjects from NARTH might have been chosen as the most successful patients from as many as 250,000 individuals who entered therapy. Unfortunately, no data has been reported about the total number of persons from whom the 200 carefully selected patients were provided. Assuming that only 100,000 subjects were involved -- a VERY conservative figure, then 37 "success stories" represents a conversion rate of 0.04%

 

[vindicator]

wow bob you are my hero!


I mean that in an apreciative fashon

-Rance-

 

[Quarto]

I know you're from Catholic-dominated Poland, Q, but how does "technically" justify that statement? Also, all Christians are one in Christ... but of course, as imperfect humans we have different ideas on different things. Just look at all the so-called Bible-based 'Christian' cults out there.

Well, the Anglican church was formed because Henry VIII wanted a divorce without a justifiable cause. The Pope refused to give permission, and Henry VIII's archbishop seized this as an opportunity to end his subordination to the Pope. The Anglican church, in short, was formed out of lust for sex and power - and Henry VIII, not exactly renowned for his marital fidelity, was its first leader. So, whatever Protestant-inspired reforms they brought in later, the Anglicans' heretical roots are pretty undeniable - the motivations for its formation are wrong not only in the eyes of the Catholic church, but also from a Biblical point of view.

Please take the above paragraph with a grain of salt - I'm merely answering your question, and my answer does not actually express my personal views.

 

[vindicator]

Wow Look what I helped do

-Rance-

 

[Wedge009]

Well, the Anglican church was formed because Henry VIII wanted a divorce without a justifiable cause...

Ah yes, I remember when I first learned that's how the Church of England came about. I also wonder at how people who are supposedly Catholic or Protestant did such things in Ireland. Whatever the history, I can't fault the way things are done at my own Anglican church (the congregation, not the institution) - generally, all I see in denominations are different ways of doing things.

 

[vindicator]

Wedge,

That means your faith was created to serve man's needs, not God's to try and seperate the congregation and the institution is ludicris it's like trying to separate the chicken and the egg.

-Rance-

 

[Wedge009]

No, no, no, you miss my meaning. Whatever happens to the Church as a whole, every one of us is still liable to God's judgement for our rebellion against him. I don't serve anyone's needs.

Church is about the people, not the buildings, not the institution. I'd elaborate, but I have to catch a bus to go home.

 

[vindicator]

Ok but will you elaborate later?

-Rance-

 

[Erkle]

So long as you realize that God has by no means abandoned the Jew, and still has a vital place for them in His plan. As such, their sin then *has* been forgiven (Luke 23:34), just as ours (Christians) have been *since* then...

I'm sorry if my post lead some to believe that. The Jews are Gods chosen people, and He seems to go to great lengths to protect them and to call them home to His side. To the naysayers God is not too concerned about protecting people in their mortal lives as their souls are whats important, as that is what will join Him (providing they are Christ loving Christians) after they have passed from this mortal world. All of our sins wether they be thinking bad thoughts about another person or going on a murdering rampage are considered one and the same in Gods eyes. a sin is a sin is a sin. But no matter what the sin, if you ask for forgiviness, and you have acknowledged in your life that Jesus Christ has died on the Cross in order to bear the guilt and shame of yours and everyone elses sin, you are forgiven by God. That does not mean you suffer escape persecution in this life but that you are allowing God to use you in a way He deems fit. A lot of Christians I know feel a burning need to share this message with believers and unbelievers alike. There is a simple reason for that... if you die and have not devoted your life or at least accepted the gift of Jesus' sacrifice you will be damned for all eternity to hell.

Remember John 3:16-18 (NIV)

For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condem the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

The Bible also talks about the end of the world in Revelations. And that we will all be judged. Not about what we have done in our lives like what hollywood likes. But on whether or not we are known to Jesus. That is it. I believe that the end is near but like the Bible says live each day as if it could happen today, live each day as if it could happen in a thousand years. People have been trying to predict the tribulation since the Bible first came out. And every prediction has and will be false because not even the angels know the day and hour. It would be rather long winded to get into more here on my post but to all that are interested let me know or read Revelation Unveiled by Tim LaHaye. Most WalMarts should have it.

PS it amazing how much this thread has taken off since I took a 16 hr nap.

jim

 

[Erkle]

Ok but will you elaborate later?

-Rance-

Rance let me try to elaborate on what I think Wedge is trying to say. When we die (whenever that will be) we will be judged before God. It will not matter if you are a good person, a bad person, a murderer, pedofile, politician, or anyways I'm sure you get my point. We will all be judged. When someone accepts the Lord Jesus into their life their names are written into the Book of Life or another name is Book of the Lamb. The Lamb is symbolically Jesus Christ. We can only go to God and be part of His family through His Son. If we are not in that Book than Jesus does not know us therefore we are not part of Gods family and thus have no place in His Kingdom. Now let me say that we are not judged on sins either. We will have to answer for our sins, but if we are believers and followers of Jesus than our sins have been forgiven. If not there is no excuse, we will not even be able to argue our case. There is no second chance. The denomination that one belongs to does not matter, as long as Jesus Christ is seen as the only way to God.

I hope that helps. Wedge I apologize if I misunderstood what you where saying, I went from your last post more than the one previous to it.

Jim

 

[Bandit LOAF]

-- On the contrary mi amigo; in a world of ever-changing values and ideas of right & wrong, religion presents one of the few constants (aside from death & taxes, natch) that people can rely on to guide them through life. I speak here of religion in general, and the great monotheistic ones in particular (i.e., not JUST Christianity). The purpose was never to "roll w/ the punches" in the first place; to do so would make a mockery out of said religion. That's not to say that they can't adapt to changing times; in fact, they SHOULD do so. BUT, only within the confines of whatever their "eternal truths" are set out to be. If they "adapt" so much as to abandon those principles, then they are worthless as a belief system. That's exactly what's happening with this recent move by the Episcopals: It will serve to trash their credibility as a truly Christian denomination... I have little doubt that, if this decision isn't somehow reversed, the Anglicans worldwide, and the truly faithful Episcopals here in the US, will have to split from them, else cast them out of their fellowship.

Religion should serve to help people, either as on the individual or societal levels. If it is not doing this, what is the point of believing in it? How can you reconcile the fact that what you're willing to support hurting people on a grand scale simply because the 2,986th translation of a fable vaugely implies that you might be 'morally' allowed to do so?

Any group that will suggest that I inflict suffering simply to avoid admitting it's no longer valid isn't fulfilling its purpose.

 

[Dark Ficus]

Well I know for a fact that in the early christian times, there was no new testement. So how did they justify their beliefs because, they had to justify them to believe them.

How did they justify their beliefs regarding homosexuality? Leviticus 18.

Religion should serve to help people, either as on the individual or societal levels.

Spoken like a true atheist. If God detests homosexual behavior (as is indicated in the Bible), are we not helping people if we are suggesting that they do not behave in such a manner?

I do not care whether one prefers to sleep with the same gender, the opposite gender, or their grandparents. However, one cannot serve in a leadership position in the church if they are going to engage in these actions. It is clear in the Bible that these are not approrpriate ways for a follower of God to behave. How can I serve God if I am not willing to give up my sin?

I can hear the sermons now -- "Follow God, only inasmuch as it is convenient for you to do so. I love God, but I love my self more. God won't care, though. Do as I say, not as I do."

Regarding genetic predisposition to homosexuality --

First of all, it has not been scientifically shown that there is a gene which causes one to become homosexual. Those of you who feel this way are mistaken. Back in 1998, a team of scientists claimed to have identified a gene which causes one to be sexually attracted to the same gender. This news was sensationalized by mainstream media, but was later proven to be severely flawed due to misrepresentation of data and personal bias. The media did not cover the fact that the scientists were incorrect. Think about it -- how can we supposedly know which gene leads to homosexual tendencies when we cannot identify the genes which cause hair/eye/skin coloration? It makes no sense.

Additionally, a bit of common sense can come into play here. A man and a man cannot produce offspring with one another. A woman and a woman cannot produce offspring with one another. If homosexuality is supposedly a genetic predisposition, then it should have been bred out of our species centuries, even millenia ago.

My point of contention here is not that it is or is not a choice to be attracted to the same gender, my point is that homosexuality is definitely NOT genetic. Those who believe that it is immoral behavior are NOT comparable to those who believe in supremacy of one particular skin coloration over another (interestingly enough, the term "racist" or "race" to describe humanity is a prejudiced word -- we are all one race - homo sapien). One definitely is genetic, while the other certainly is not.

 

[Needaham45]

It is clear in the Bible that these are not approrpriate ways for a follower of God to behave. How can I serve God if I am not willing to give up my sin?

And there haven't been preists and Bishops who haven't sinned? That would make them God - we all sin. The Pope's probably sinned, and so has your own priest, everyone's priest. Just because your a member of clegry doesn't mean you're exempt from sinning.

First of all, it has not been scientifically shown that there is a gene which causes one to become homosexual. Those of you who feel this way are mistaken. Back in 1998, a team of scientists claimed to have identified a gene which causes one to be sexually attracted to the same gender. This news was sensationalized by mainstream media, but was later proven to be severely flawed due to misrepresentation of data and personal bias. The media did not cover the fact that the scientists were incorrect. Think about it -- how can we supposedly know which gene leads to homosexual tendencies when we cannot identify the genes which cause hair/eye/skin coloration? It makes no sense.

We do know what gene cause hair/eye/skin coloration - or I should say genes. There's several genes contributing to each of those, not just one. It is quite plauseable they did find a homosexuality gene.

Additionally, a bit of common sense can come into play here. A man and a man cannot produce offspring with one another. A woman and a woman cannot produce offspring with one another. If homosexuality is supposedly a genetic predisposition, then it should have been bred out of our species centuries, even millenia ago.

That doesn't mean a mutation can't pop up. There's tons of genetic diseases that kill you befor you even mature (watch the movie "Lorenzo's Oil" - based on a true story - really good movie). But they still keep popping up, not because of heritage, but because of mutations. Mutations occur all the time - they're not uncommon. We all have several 1,000 at least. However, most are in the part of the DNA that isn't expressed, or don't cause any change in terms of the amino acid the triplet codes for (there are many doubles - mothernature's way of protecting us from mutations). Anyway, the point is, a mutation could still cause the gene to occur.

You also have that issue of that study I mentioned before on animal species to deal with:

10% - homosexual
80% - varying degrees of bisexual
10% - heterosexual

Theory for reason numbers aren't true in humans - Society's pressures.

Homosexuality and bisxuality occur regularly in animals. The evidence seems to suggest it is genetic or in some way predetermined.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Spoken like a true atheist. If God detests homosexual behavior (as is indicated in the Bible), are we not helping people if we are suggesting that they do not behave in such a manner?

Well, my apologies for suggesting anything as radical as not hurting people. (For those keeping score at home, I'm *not* an atheist... but I'm also no Preacher.)

I don't really have a specific problem with the church choosing their employees based solely on wang hole/non-wang hole preference... I do have a problem with the fact that society in general looks to the church (as it should) and then decides things like that gay couples can't be married. The church should be setting a better example with the power it wields.

Think about it -- how can we supposedly know which gene leads to homosexual tendencies when we cannot identify the genes which cause hair/eye/skin coloration? It makes no sense.

Wha? There's at least two very wrong statements here.

1 - The genetic basis for hair/eye/skin coloration was well confirmed long before anyone realized we could play around with genes on a microscopic level -- they're all very easy things to study on simply a phenotypic/hereditary level.

2 - Genes that code for all of these things *have* been partially-to-completely identified. All three cases are polygenic traits, and the major affectors have all been identified. (Eye color, for instance, is determined by two separate genes on chromosome 15 and a third on chromosome 19...).

(And again, for those keeping score at home, COL11A2 is the source of all my problems. )

 

[vindicator]

As hard a life as I've lived you think I choose to be gay with all the negitive things that brings no thanks people. I think people that claim it's choice ought to see how "easy" life it is before they make judgements of what people choose

I don't choose to be gay,

I choose to be happy and live a life I feel happy in, if you ask any of those converted homosexuals how many are truly happy? and how many truly made the change because they thought they were wrong? but you'll say Rance it's wrong, well maybe but if it's so wrong why didn't god give me feelings for women most of the people that claim they've changed get married and usually have sex like once every six months doesn't seem to me they enjoy their new life very much.

But Rance who cares if you like it, it's god's commandment
I don't think god put us here on this earth to praise and worship him and live terrible sad lives unhappy.

I believe he wants us to worship him while being happy and reaching out to others. I am gay, I have never felt the "guilt of sin as I have for every other sin I have ever commited there is always guilt that goes with it, why not for this?

The church has made us out as some kind of subculture unworthy to share how we feel, I just hate to think that you can be blind to the fact that we don't choose because if we did we wouldn't choose this life of being hated feared and killed that's for damn sure!


sorry for ranting

-Rance-

 

[Dammerung]

-- Yeah, well, ain't no more parents gonna be doing THAT anymore, now, are there (except for the really dumb ones)?...
-- You need to learn a bit more about God then, bub. Every Supreme Being that I've ever read about (Christian/Jewish/Muslim, to start with) have their "prejudices", to use your paradigm. For starters, NONE of them are pleased when we humans worship OTHER gods than them. Moreover, they all have no small problem with the idea of their worshippers lying, murdering, raping, stealing, etc. ... Finally, as has been pointed out earlier here, we humans ourselves have no shortage of justifiable "prejudices" against, say, the very things I mentioned in the previous sentence. That's why societies have LAWS, dude: To let the criminally-minded know that we are "bigoted" against their deeds and lifestyles, and that if they continue on, they WILL eventually get caught and have to pay the piper for what they've done. Sheesh.

Riiiiiiiiiiight. You apparently didn't read what I said. I should first note, that you, a lousy mortal, in my opinion has no idea whether or not a "god" (Or "Goddess", as Christianity is very male-centered, I'm an Agnostic incase you couldn't tell), and By Predjudice I didn't mean having a distaste for disorder. I meant hating a certain ethnicity or minority(Gays, for example). A Being THAT ADVANCED would most likely not stoop down low to hate, or even dislike. On the Issue of Worshipping other gods/goddesses/dieties/stinky rats in heaven(If you didn't get that, you don't watch enough South Park), that they'd acknowledge that you are in fact as stupid mortal who doesn't know better From what I've read about Christianity, it's based around malevolence(Pardon the Spelling), violence, adultry, and mass-murder than "God's Love". And I should note, incase you(or anyone else) didn't know already(In your above post it seemed like you did not), that the God that is worshipped in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism(Again, pardon the spelling) is the same deity.

 

[Preacher]

...Religion should serve to help people, either as on the individual or societal levels. If it is not doing this, what is the point of believing in it?
...How can you reconcile the fact that what you're willing to support hurting people on a grand scale simply because the 2,986th translation of a fable vaugely implies that you might be 'morally' allowed to do so?...Any group that will suggest that I inflict suffering simply to avoid admitting it's no longer valid isn't fulfilling its purpose.
...I do have a problem with the fact that society in general looks to the church (as it should) and then decides things like that gay couples can't be married.

-- Um, no. The very purpose of religion (at least of the Christian faith) is to serve God, and decidedly NOT "people" (esp. ourSELVES). The idea is, in serving God wholeheartedly, we end UP serving mankind, as God loves us all (John 3:16). The problem in human's understanding of the concept is that what WE think to be "good" for mankind is quite a bit different than what God KNOWS to be good for us. The prophet Isaiah quoted God as saying:
""For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.
As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it
without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
(ISA 55:8-11)
The "word" spoken of by Isaiah here is the Bible. That's why the Bible was given to us in the first place: So that mankind would have a blueprint as to what God wants/expects of us in serving Him.
It's like this: When we are children, we don't know squat, and as we grow we learn more and more, but until we get up to being adults ourselves, it is our parents who "know best", and they try their best to guide us into what is good for us. Same concept: God is the ultimate Parent, and what seems best to us all too often is *not* actually so (Proverbs 14:12).
-- Um, what exactly are you talking about with that whole "hurting people on a grand scale" passage?...
-- Huh?...The church didn't "then decide" gays couldn't be married. It was that way from the very beginning: God was there outlawing such conduct even as the nation of Israel was being formed (Exodus et al), which was thousands of years before there even WAS a church...

And there haven't been preists and Bishops who haven't sinned? That would make them God - we all sin. The Pope's probably sinned, and so has your own priest, everyone's priest. Just because your a member of clegry doesn't mean you're exempt from sinning.

Good point.
To answer yer question, though, *sure* there have been, and are, clergy that sin (as indeed all humanity does). But if their sins are grevious enough (esp. sexual hijinks of whatever kind) and should come to light, they should be drummed out of office, and - if applicable, as with the pervert priests scandal - sent directly to jail. If they had any integrity at all, they would confess their sins, repent of them, and VOLUNTARILY leave office, for the sake of the integrity of the church and the Lord they supposedly serve. It's the only honorable thing to do. Their failure to do so only proves their unfitness for office in the 1st place.

Preach, ...According to your definition (and what you seem to be arguing), the Catholic Church is a breeding ground for cover-ups, which no one could ever deny even before the media started covering pedophilia. The only way you could say that it was a breeding ground for pedophilia ...On the grand scale, that's not what's happening...

Poor Reagan. I really feel sorry for the old man. Almost everyone loved him while he was President and now that he's lost it everyone bashes him. It really is sad.

-- Well, OK, how 'bout this, then: The RCC - at least until recently, and hopefully nevermore hereafter - has become a haven for pedophiles. Does that phraseology/terminology sit better with you?...
-- No, there are plenty of us who "bashed" him perfectly well when he was still in office. His Alzheimer's didn't change this much, if at all.

-- I don't know if one can theorize how an environment might factor into homosexuality... An upbringing is an extremely complex arrangement of variables, and it's pretty hard to theorize as to what might factor into something like that.

...The notion of a completely straight man is unrealistic;...Put enough heterosexual males together for a long enough period of time with no female companionship (see French foreign legion), and you will find that straight men can be a little more flexible than expected.

If we imagine that people can be 90% hetero and 10% homo or 60% hetero and 40% homo etc., it's not hard to see how homosexuals could persist in society despite not breeding. They are simply sitting slightly outside the normal range of a continuously variable characteristic."

-- Not that hard to theorize at all, actually: Studies have shown that there is a high correlation between certain types of upbringing and the likelihood that a person will turn out gay. Specifically, an upbringing where the father is either absent, or (if he is present in the family at all) is cold, distant, and unloving toward the child, and the mother is overly controlling and protective towards the child. This is mainly in the case of males, but it may also hold for the female children of such a household as well.
-- Your theory is seriously flawed, guy. To put things in perspective, it brings things into focus to remember that your example spoke of the French, fer cryin' out loud. 'Nuff said...
-- Well, I don't know about you, dude, but I'm 100% hetero, which pretty much blows your theory out of the water. I love the smooth curve of bountiful breasts, the way a woman smells, the wonderfully mysterious terrain of her, um, "womanhood", the way they laugh, the sweet sound of their voice as they speak and sing, or say/moan my name, the rich thickness of her hair running thru my fingers, the smooth softness of their skin, the dangerous curves of the feminine hips, butt, and thighs, the way it feels - from beginning to end - to "be" with them; damn, the whole PACKAGE!!!.
As the late comic Sam Kinison said: "..how can a guy look at another guy's hairy a@@, and call that love, huh? How does that work?...
I have no desire (no, not even a 0.5% desire...) to find out the answer to his question. Uggghhhh!!!

::shudders::