It’s a tough line to draw and even tougher to assess.

Do we define homosexual ONLY as wanting sex with members of the same sex and finding the opposite sex repulsive? Do we make a scale of some sort and try to categorize orientation on that? [Your attraction to other men is a 7 on a 1-10 scale, and your repulsion to women is a 6. You are semi-bi-sexual not a homosexual.]

And what would we say of a person who finds the same sex attractive but deliberately avoids that and has sex with only members of the opposite sex? Do we condemn such a person? Do we applaud him/her? Do we avoid him/her?

It gets awfully complicated.

I didn’t think it was reduced only to that. But what do I know…..

But then again, what do I know – I am a heterosexual, male, white, anglo-saxon, ex-protestant – I am no longer allowed to have any criticizing opinions on homosexual, female, non-white, people of various religions.

LOL But ya know, it’s OK. As two HMWA-SxPs we can talk amongst ourselves.

But then again, what do I know – I am a heterosexual, male, white, anglo-saxon, ex-protestant – I am no longer allowed to have any criticizing opinions on homosexual, female, non-white, people of various religions.

Hetrosexuals are just as likely to contract diseases.

That statement requires a lot of caveats. Just as examples:
- Promiscuity must be taken into account.
- Gender makes a big difference. (Women get STDs about 10-15 times more easily than men when normal vaginal intercourse is used)
- Practices must be taken into account. (The 10-15 fold difference mentioned above vanishes if you compare among those who frequently use anal penetration.)
- When you talk of homosexuals, you must separate males and females. The disease incidence among male homosexuals is higher than among female homosexuals.

So you must go back to my statement “male homosexual behavior results in large increases of risk and incidence of a number of easily preventable illnesses and dysfunctions”. I failed to state what I was comparing to, so that’s my bad. The increased incidence would be seen upon comparison to female homosexuals, or monogamous heterosexuals.

sexually contractable diseases due to homosexuality would remain amongst the gay community, so its not like its botherig the straights.

Not entirely true. The bisexual community acts as a bridge between the two. Obviously the trouble here isn’t orientation. It’s promiscuity. Which is a high risk factor regardless of orientation.

As for gays becoming straights, there are people who are bisexual and they may end up preferring one sex over another, but gays who supposedly go straight are more liky to be doing so due to societal/family pressure, not because they have actually changed their sexual preference.

Perhaps. But if they have changed, then they have changed, regardless of why they sought change.

I havent come across any evidence that sexual preference is changeable.

There has only been one substantial study that I’m aware of. Spitxer, 2003. One of the sad facts about the issue is that the APA has assiduously avoided doing (or even allowing) any carefully conducted, well controlled, peer reviewed large study of the issue of change in sexual orientation. Many members of the APA feel that the whole issue is so politically and emotionally charged that rational discourse and research has become almost impossible. THAT is definitely not a balanced situation.

Im not sure how you concluded gays can change

Because there are actually a lot of people out there who were practicing homosexuals for years, who sought to change and are now practicing heterosexuals. Spitzer’s conclusion on such people was that they are a fairly small group numerically, but that they are real.

Since this thread is about balance, and by that I mean taking all factors of an issue into account, permit me to ask a couple questions and/or point out some things that you seem to be missing in your post.

When consenting adults engage in activities that are not dangerous and do not affect anyone else and are done in the privacy of their own homes, who are you to say it is wrong?

I’d generally agree with you here. Let me ask though, what do you do with the fact that male homosexual behavior results in large increases of risk and incidence of a number of easily preventable illnesses and dysfunctions? (I’m assuming that you know about these, but if not, I can list some for you.)

I don’t understand why xians have such a hard time accepting that gays are just born that way, they cannot change it.

I’m not sure what percentage have trouble accepting that people may be born with a tendency toward homosexuality. A lot of the Christians I’ve hung around with over the years can accept such an inborn trait/tendency.

The part about not being able to change though doesn’t ring true. There are just too many examples of people who have left being gay to become straight. Just as their are examples of people going the other way.

Psychologists are always saying that whatever issues people come to psychotherapists for, psychology can’t really help until and unless a person wants to change. So it would seem that gays or straights can change if they really want to. At least that would seem the conclusion to considering the balance of evidence.

By the way, since you’re a stickler for gods word, since the good lord did not say anything about lesbians, is that ok?

I don’t know what you’re Bible knowledge level is, but you missed Romans 1:26.

Your thoughts/reactions?

I was thinking about some of what you said in #10 above. Part of balance as I’ve always understood it, is finding the truth about something and sticking to that truth. There is nothing balanced or sensible in equivocating about something that is decidedly true.

Physical laws are an obvious example or this. If someone thinks they are invulnerable to bullets, we all recognize that their mind is unbalanced. If someone thinks they are a fire truck, we know their mind is unbalanced.

So there are times where balance means taking a stand.