What is Digg?502 Comments
- johnn11238, on 10/11/2007, -36/+191I agree. Totally misleading title. "Ministering" to people who want to give up homosexual sex is not the same as trying to "cure" them of their "gayness". That being said, I am a flag-waving radical when it comes to gay rights (many of my dearest friends including the godfather of my son, are gay) and support equal rights, including marriage, for all gay, bi, and TG folks. Using the word "cure" makes it sound like he takes this on as a medical issue, which he does not. If we want to be respected for our stance on equal rights and taken seriously, let's all avoid shrill, inacurate and misleading headlines, shall we?
BTW
@chad: you are a true bigot and should be buried alive. YOU are the diseased one. Your disease is hatred and a perverted drive to stick your nose into peoples bedrooms. Shame on you. - faithhealer, on 10/11/2007, -21/+132The title is not misleading because the article states that:
"[Holsinger and his wife] founded Hope Springs Community Church..." which, among other things, "... ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian. 'We see that as an issue not of orientation but of lifestyle,' [Holsinger] said. 'We have people who seek to walk out of that lifestyle.' On this point, the church would differ with many gays and lesbians, who consider their sexuality a matter of identity, not a lifestyle choice." - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -20/+112"Homosexuality is a disease/disorder/whatever you want to call it."
No it isn't.
My simple assertion carries the same weight as yours. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -15/+104Chad, how many men did you sleep with before you decided you preferred sleeping with women?
- Yoshi39, on 10/11/2007, -25/+104@Chad
Homosexuality is no more a disorder or disease then a preference for blonds (or brunettes or any other hair color) is because what it all boils down to is a difference in what people are attracted to. - Itazura, on 10/11/2007, -10/+81It was like Bush woke up one day a few years ago and thought "How bad can I ***** up America before someone stops me?". The anwser? Still unknown.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+68@chad & yoshi, choice is not the issue here. Being gay is not at all a matter of choice. Being gay and choosing to _act_ straight is a choice, but one which generally makes people unhappy. Ministering to those people who are gay but don't want to be is not a cure, but only because it treats a symptom of a state of being, not the root cause (i.e., being gay). However, if you asked these "ministers" their honest opinion, I believe they think they're curing people.
The question to ask yourself is: did you choose to be straight? If so, when did you decide? Do you remember even deciding? Did you choose to be attracted to your partner (hopefully, you have one). If so, when did you decide? - g30ff, on 10/11/2007, -5/+59I know you weren't trying to put down gay people with your statement that "they just happened to get an unlucky combination of genes" but I think most gay people would disagree with that statement. In fact, given that the guys have little need to deal with women, I might almost call them lucky (sorry lesbians, if its any consolation at least we're in the same boat). I should also point out that there are several (non-mutually exclusive) biological accounts concerning the aetiology of homosexuality, some of which have little to with genes. Furthermore, most of the researchers that study the biological bases of homosexuality don't consider it an exclusively biological phenomenon, so there is still some room for environment and 'choice' (if you believe in that kind of thing) to influence sexual orientation. Even if orientation were 100% 'choice' I see little reason why others shouldn't respect their choices.
- jonathantneal, on 10/11/2007, -13/+57Chad ... way to group 'the choice between males and females' with 'stabbing people on a given day' ... I can't imagine why you're being dugg down /sarcasm (was the end tag even necessary?)
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+45@ghostfish
Not necessarily... There could be some unforseen benefit, evolutionarily speaking. For example, someone who is gay won't have children of their own, but then they can use their resources to help the children of their siblings, thus propagating their genetic material indirectly. Or it could be a situation such as sickle-cell anemia, wherein having the recessive gene helps prevent malaria, and it's only a problem if you get two copies of that gene. Not saying that either of those explanations are correct, but they are possible. Evolution is so much more complex than people assume. It's not just about "good" genes and "bad" genes, because that can change depending on circumstances. Something that is a detriminent in one situation can actually be beneficial in another. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -9/+45@ghostfish:
Don't use evolution as an argument when you don't understand basic genetics. Disease requires a physical or physiological abnormality. Disorder is a dysfunction in physical or physiological function. Homosexuality was once called a disorder but it is a disorder only because of the social stigma and pressures against that behavior. It is a societal 'disorder' in Alabama but not in San Francisco so it is relative.
Ever heard of recessive traits? Mutation? Current hypothesis seems to point to increase survival of males with with some homosexual traits when it comes to communal societies. Research is ongoing. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -5/+40@BrainInAJar, it's an interesting point you raise. But the question goes to discrimination. To be a protected class, a group must be defined by something stronger than just a personal, individual choice. A city can pass a law against riding loud motorcycles en masse, partly because that act is a choice. If people were born with motorcycles attached to their butts, it would be far less of a choice, and the city would be discriminating by passing such a law.
- pgoetz, on 10/11/2007, -5/+40@ChadUSofA
You're being dugg down not because you expressed an opinion, but rather because your opinion indicates that you are a profoundly ignorant moron -- understand the difference? - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+36Since every Bush appointee does the exact opposite of his job description in the most ironic way possible, this guy absolutely must be gay -- and not only that, must engage in unsafe sex on a regular basis. It's a universal constant in opposite land.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -14/+48He gave false reasons. Homosexuality doesn't make one unable to reproduce. Many homosexuals have children.
- BrainInAJar, on 10/11/2007, -5/+38I never actually got this argument...
homosexuality may or may not be biological but either way is irrelevant because we (claim to) live in a society whereby people are allowed to organize their lives however they like given that they don't get in other peoples' way of self-determination. So if two consenting adults want to be together / get married / etc. it's really their own prerogative to do so & it's the government's job to just get out of the way & let people.
To reduce it to being a matter of biology that they just can't change is to ideologically short-change everyone on our rights to self determination in whichever avenue we choose (given the aforementioned constraints on restricting others' rights) - Charron, on 10/11/2007, -0/+32@eatmorespam
Sure, just date me. Seems every guy I date turns gay. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+33No. It might be broken by religion, except for this thing called the 1st amendment, which prohibits the government from discriminating against our choices in religion. That's why that clause was written. Other protections, such as for race and sexual orientation, are or should be covered by the 14th and other amendments.
As for your nuisance claim, wheelchairs could be considered a nuisance by those on the bus waiting for the wheelchair to enter or exit. However, people in wheelchairs are guaranteed access. That would not be the case if using wheelchairs was an optional activity, a personal preference.
The point of using the motorcycle analogy is that even if a community finds some "way of being" offensive to their sensibilities, that way must be somehow tolerated or accommodated if it is beyond mere choice, because the only other option is for the person who thus "offends" their sensibilities to leave or otherwise not exist. However, when it is a choice and not an innate state of being, the State can and does regulate individual behavior on a regular basis. - eatmorespam, on 10/11/2007, -2/+32No matter how hard I try, I'm not able to turn myself gay. Can I be cured?
- Bhima, on 10/11/2007, -0/+30It always amazes me how obsessed American politics is with sex.
I read more often about sex in conjunction with politics than with advertising. - Panna, on 10/11/2007, -3/+31"In a Darwinian sense (since most Diggers are such big fans of Darwin and evolution) this makes homosexuals as un-fit as is possible since they have 0% chance to reproduce and pass on their genes."
What about priests who take an oath of celibacy? By your logic, priests have a "disease/disorder/whatever you want to call it" by choosing not to have offspring. - thedarkrabbit, on 10/11/2007, -4/+32..."My name is Butters, I'm 8 years old, I'm blood-type 0, and I'm bi-curious. And even that's okay. Because if I'm bi-curious and I'm somehow made from God, then I figure, God must be a little bi-curious himself."
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+28@throad:
"The claim of a genetic basis for homosexuality has already been debunked."
Please cite the scientific papers.
"Just think about it."
Thinking about something does not make it fact.
"How can genetics explain ALL same-sex activity? How can it equally explain homosexual men, bisexual men, homosexual women, and bisexual women? Aren't all of those groups different? How can genetics explain the bi-curious, gay-for-pay, and effeminate or butch? Aren't all of those groups different? In the 1970s, people would have group orgies and experiment with same-sex activity. Were all of them born that way? There is no more a genetic basis for same-sex activity than there is a single type of same-sex act."
Good point. Homosexual behavior may be a partly learned behavior but homosexuality seems to be congenital if not genetically linked.
"In other words, there is no such thing as a "gay gene" because there is no such thing as "gays." Or, to put it another way, there are as many types of gay as there are "gay" people. Can anyone even accurately define the term?"
Good point. There is no 'gay gene', it is believed to be multifactorial or inborn changes from maternal hormonal factors. Homosexuality is the preference of same sex partners over the opposite sex. Bi-sexuals may be gay who enjoy the opposite sex or they may be straight who enjoy the same sex.
"While SOME gays may have a congenital abnormality that causes their behavior, it is clearly not the case that all participants in same-sex activity have either the same abnormality or any biological abnormality at all."
It is likely MOST have a predisposition to this behavior while some are a learned behavior. Research is ongoing.
"It's a fundamentally unscientific and illogical claim, which is trumpeted for purely political reasons."
I agree.
"In addition to not being able to reproduce, homosexuals face difficulties integrating into society; which is to say becoming mature, happy, and successful adults. (Leftists claim that this is because society is disordered--and has been for thousands of years--and must be cured. I don't know about you, but I'd rather cure homosexuality than humanity. Just from a practical standpoint, it seems a bit more manageable task.)"
That is retarded statement. Using your logic you would rather cure a 'race' than cure society from racism. "It seems a bit more manageable task." - Mastertoast, on 10/11/2007, -2/+28@ghostfish
I am a big fan of Darwin as it happens to be, but homosexuality is not a disease anymore then being African American is being a disease, there is a difference in some part of the brain/body/genetic order of things that affects preference of sex. True they would not be considered the fittest and that particular line would die out if we were to follow the survival of the fittest in modern day society, but we don't and so they live, but it does not just happen in families with previous homosexual family members it happens in many different families, you could be the most fundamentalist Christian family believing gays people go to hell, but it wouldn't matter a gay person could still be born in that family. Disease is hardly the word to describe a mere difference in preference.
[edit] Sorry, didn't realize so many people commented on it before me. - GoneSouth, on 10/11/2007, -2/+27Religion is a greater threat to society than homosexuality.
- Yoshi39, on 10/11/2007, -6/+31"Homosexuality is a disease/disorder/whatever you want to call it. It you don't have sex with the opposite sex you won't ever have any offspring. In a Darwinian sense (since most Diggers are such big fans of Darwin and evolution) this makes homosexuals as un-fit as is possible since they have 0% chance to reproduce and pass on their genes."
You are wrong on so many points that I'll only explain a few of your fallacy's here. First of all you assume that homosexuality is due to a biological factor which is nothing but an urban myth (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/724179/posts ). Second homosexuality is rampant in nature where it is primarily used to create social bonds within a group which help to increase the likely hod of the groups survival, in nature however animals are seldom exclusively homosexual (as you said it would prevent their gens from being spread) so whether homosexuality (as opposed to bi-sexuality) is a human "invention" or not can be discussed but either way what difference does it really make because flying for humans (as well as a bunch of other things we do) sure as hell isn't natural yet I'm willing to bet that you don't mind flying.
PS If homosexuals are sure to die out shouldn't you be promoting homosexuality as that would ensure a ***** free future for your grand kids ;) - Threnody, on 10/11/2007, -3/+27I think he's saying that'd be the only way to truly "cure" someone of being gay. As a gay man, I'm inclined to agree. NO CURE PLEASE!
- pbaehr, on 10/11/2007, -6/+29Unbelievable. Did I just read an intelligent, well thought out argument on Digg? Kudos to you orientis and EntropyMan. Kudos.
- bluechips23, on 10/11/2007, -5/+27Can't believe he got elected TWICE. What the ***** people who voted for him were thinking?
- Kmack928, on 10/11/2007, -6/+27they were thinking "Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus " and a symphony of crickets chirping.
- omnithought, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23Unfortunately there's still no cure for stupidity like this.
- krakdaddy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19Requires Senate confirmation...unless of course an "emergency" strikes and Bush picks up his big stick to weild ultimate power!
eek... - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+22>>>Chad, how many men did you sleep with before you decided you preferred sleeping with women?
None, I do not have a homosexuality disorder."
----------
No one does, Chad. Homosexuality is not a "disorder." But if you never had to make a choice about sleeping with men, obviously that means that homosexuality is not a matter of choice. If it were a choice, you would have needed to make that choice. - calbff, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21"homosexuality may or may not be biological but either way is irrelevant because we (claim to) live in a society whereby people are allowed to organize their lives however they like given that they don't get in other peoples' way of self-determination"
That's a brilliant point and it doesn't get stated often enough. I had never thought of it that way, and it's a perfect argument. - omnithought, on 10/11/2007, -5/+24@ Kmack928
Actually, every time Bush opens his mouth, I do think "Jesus!". - Dipsomaniac, on 10/11/2007, -3/+22@ChadUSofA (#6986511)
No, you're being dugg down for being ignorant. NOBODY has ever shown that sexuality is a choice, and to support discrimination based on that is no more than bigotry, pure and simple. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -5/+23"It you don't have sex with the opposite sex you won't ever have any offspring. In a Darwinian sense (since most Diggers are such big fans of Darwin and evolution) this makes homosexuals as un-fit as is possible since they have 0% chance to reproduce and pass on their genes."
That's just dumb reasoning. As stated above, there could be many reasons that homosexuality benefits a society without requiring gay individuals to reproduce, not the least of which is adoption of orphaned offspring. But the more important point is that homosexuality may not be genetic at all and it could still be innate. There may be developmental influences in the womb that promote homosexuality, which would not be genetic at all, but still be not within a person's control. The most likely answer is that it's a complex interplay of many factors, which are worth understanding, but not as part of some "cure." - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20You know Chad, just to be sure, I went back and re-read your posts. I hadn't previously dugg you down, rather I just chose to ignore what you had said. I thought to myself, "You know, maybe people are being unfair, maybe I should give you a chance." I mean, I don't believe it's right to simply judge someone for having an opinion, even if that opinion differs from your own, if they have their reasons.
Well, on my second read-through, I have determined that, yes, you do deserve to be dugg down. You come off as hateful, bigoted, and judgmental of others for no other reason than based on their sexual preferences. You make no arguments on as to why these people should be compared to murderers, you just do it. If you have a problem, that's okay, but you better damn well justify yourself before marginalizing an entire group of people like that. I don't care if you're talking about Adolf-*****-Hitler, you can't just deny someone the right to be treated like a decent human being solely on the basis that you feel like it. Incidently, feel free to despise Hitler as much as you want, because the scumbag killed millions of people, so there's good reason to, but you have to take that into account before you judge someone like that.
In other words, make an argument for as to why you feel that homosexuality is a disease, or a problem, and I'll be more than willing to listen. Maybe I'll disagree, but I'll respect your opinion and your right to have an opinion. As it is, all I can see is that you're trying to demean a lot of people with no real justification. - orientis, on 10/11/2007, -9/+26EntropyMan - Your argument is immediately broken by religion. Religion is a choice. Religion is protected. Also your analogy doesn't work because a large group of very loud motorcycles could be considered both a public nuisance and noise pollution.
- lavoie0ca, on 10/11/2007, -6/+23lol yeah buddy a website with kentucky in the name is gonna have a fair and unspun story about homosexuals or bush?
- netdawg, on 10/11/2007, -5/+21@Chad
You, I'm sorry to say, are an bigoted idiot and THAT'S the reason your comments are being dugg down. In my opinion you should be neutered to ensure that you don't pass on any of your genes. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16@ghostfish: Prenatal Hormones and Sexual Orientation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16Sounds like a bad plan. Who will be left to cut our hair and decorate our houses?
- orientis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16Could you explain your comment? I don't know whether I want to digg you down or up.
- CBTF, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17ChadUSofA, you don't even know what you're talking about. Declaring homosexuality is a step in the right direction? No, it's a step backwards. It used to be listed as such, but was de-listed for the obvious reason that it is not a mental health issue. Please educated yourself before spreading pure *****. Thanks.
- ceralor, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16Everyone keeps saying "Unfortunately" as if I should dislike that I'm gay. And some other religious nuts keep telling me that it's why I get depressed whenever I do. But they all ignore the fact that I have a caring partner to help me out of depression, turning their noses up and saying it's not 'truly' happy.
- Dipsomaniac, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14@throadhummel (#6986893)
There has NOT been a 'debunking' of an genetic basis to homosexuality. What there is, is that there may be MORE than simply genetics making the determination - environment is indicated as partly at-cause. But the fact that if one twin is gay the other is gay at a much higher rate than the general population DOES point to a genetic involvement. As for the whole 'gay gene' thing - nobody has seriously proposed that being gay is the product of only one gene, so to claim that and then try to debunk it is nothing more than the strawman fallacy in action. - nixonrichard, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Or it could be a reference to the episode of South Park where kids keep committing suicide at an institution designed to cure them of homosexuality.
- chrisc262, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14anyone who is offended by something someone else does in private needs to get a ***** life
worry about yourself
oh, and to the government, leave us all the fuk alone already!! - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+18Reminds me of this
http://manga.clone-army.org/t42r.php?page=147&lang= -
Show 51 - 100 of 491 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is