Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Homosexuality and choice

2012-06-27T19:35:24Z

Jjoeshaw:

Hi, I found a link where the APA officially state that [[http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#cantherapychange homosexuality is not changeable]]. It's scary that even the largest group of psychologists in the world can be so wrong on this topic. Do you think it's part of a homosexual conspiracy? We should mention this conspiracy in the article. --[[User:Huffers|Huffers]] 10:32, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Why is it that if you ask almost any gay person, including myself, they will tell you that it is not a choice. Do you choose to be straight if you are? Can you force yourself to be gay? It is really a quite stupid question, considering that the one group that has any authority in the matter is consistently ignored. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 22:02 16 January 2008 (EST)

:I don't think you'll find any psychologist who says that children or adolescents "choose to be [[gay]]". But generally the decision to pursue or avoid a same-sex encounter is a choice. (The role of [[homosexual incest]] and [[homosexual rape]] also needs to be studied, because the element of choice is denied to the victim.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:25, 21 November 2008 (EST)

The two most outspoken men in America on this topic are psychologist [[Charles Socarides]] and therapist [[Richard Cohen]] (an ex-gay). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:08, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Socarides was not a psychologist. And he died a few years ago. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:52, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::He was a clinical professor of [[psychiatry]] at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Doesn't psychiatry include [[psychology]]?

One of the former presidents of APA is involved in organizations helping homosexuals leave homosexuality, and the University of Columbia published statistics recently that showed that if one twin is gay the chance the other one is gay is about 7%. So yes it is a choice. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 10:36, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

May I ask how your statistic is at all evidence for the idea that homosexuality is a choice? The leading medical organizations all agree that "conversion" programs (which are consistent with the idea that homosexuality is a choice) are ineffective and potentially harmful. These include (among others) the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, World Health Organization, and the Council on Child and Adolescent Health. The following is a quote from one of these organizations denouncing such programs "The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable." ~American Psychological Association 1998. Now, where is your scientific evidence that such programs are indeed effective? Please do not offer and example or two of people who have "successfully" changed because I can come up with equal if not greater numbers of failures. There is no firm basis for such belief as every credible medical and psychiatric organization directly contradicts the idea, as does the only community with direct experience with the topic. (I find it ironic that this website is perfectly willing to quote the AMA or WHO when they offer statistics of increased STD rates in the gay community, but not when it comes to the idea that homosexuality is a choice and can be altered). As a gay man, I can tell you that I in no way made the choice to be so. Even at the young age of eight, I began having same-sex attractions. I did not know what heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or any other form of sexuality even was. I did not even know what sex was, yet I still felt attractions to boys where others my age felt it for girls. Your ignorance on the topic is harmful for my community, and the society as a whole. It is people like you who cause the psychological problems among the homosexual community as well as trying to convince them that it is something that needs to be altered.
[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 14:07 23 April 2008 (EST)

:You apparently are assuming that the following two positions cover every aspect of the subject:
:#homosexuality is not changeable
:#[[homosexuality is a choice]]

:This looks like the [[fallacy]] of the "[[excluded middle]]". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:12, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:#

Treatment for alcoholism also has many failures that does not mean it is not worth it to go through the process still, any chance of leaving alcoholism/homosexuality is a sufficient amount-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 18:21, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

However, no credible medical/scientific organization denies an alcoholic's ability to quit drinking, most promote it. The same medical organizations that encourage treatment of alcoholism condemn attempts to "treat" homosexuality. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 20:20 23 April 2008 (EST)

Because of pressure for them to say otherwise, APA changed their view after a big controversy involving homosexuals being hurt by some means by cops happened npt because of research, if I was a teacher and I said homosexuality for example, was wrong I'd get fired-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:53, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's why in an encyclopedia we cannot rely on appeals to authority. Organizations are beset by politics. What we need is hard science, such as research into cure rates. Alcoholics tell us they were cured, by [[Twelve Steps]] or medicine or detox facilities. Homosexuals are beginning to say the same, but AA started in 1935; they've had 7 decades of experience and continued religious and political and legal support.

:Homosexuality is tied to [[moral relativism]], [[feminism]], [[communism]], etc. A well-funded campaign is lobbying for its legitimacy. This affects votes within organizations like the APA.

:I'm not debating here - merely listing facts that need to go into the article. You '''are''' here to help us write the article, aren't you? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:57, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Many prisoners choose homosexuality in prisons-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Kiss20 you have convinced yourself that an unhealthy beahvior is an acceptable behavior to such an extent you refuse to leave it, for example I used to mastrubate, until I till stopped being a slave to my body, and instead practiced self-discipline and thought myself not to do it-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

It was very hard but I took control instead of being a slave to me body, and I can imagine it is hard to get rid of one's homosexual thoughts but that does not mean it should not be done-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:45, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

First of all, I couldn't if I wanted to to. Second of all, I don't even want to. I have absolutely no problem with who I am. In fact, being gay has made me a stronger and better person. It has taught me how to deal with problems on my own, it has taught me to never be ashamed of who I am, never to let other people's definition of who I am superceed my own. If there was a way for me to "go straight" I wouldn't choose it. Why you ask? Because this is who I am, this is who I have found myself to be. I do not seek your or anyone else's approval, I do not need it. I have my own approval, that is all that I need. There is no way you can convince me otherwise, I am merely trying to bring some objectivism to this site. I personally don't care if you hate me, if you disapprove of my lifestyle, because I know that you have no right to judge me. I only work to build tolerance in that my community can finally be given all the rights that society has thusfar denied us. You can continue on hating us, I am not attempting to change your beliefs. I am merely working to ensure that one day people like me are considered equal under the law. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 23:32 23 April 2008 (EST)

I don't hate homosexuals, I disprove of their lifestyle, major difference-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 23:37, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Hate, disapprove, take your pick. My message is still the same.[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 23:56 23 April 2008 (EST)

:Along with the contradiction between their assertion that they don't need our approval but insist on our tolerance, there is another matter: whether [[free will]] and [[responsibility]] have any link to [[homosexuality]].

:The debate is between those saying homosexuality is okay and those saying it is bad. The simple religious reason that it is bad is because the Bible says so. There are also psychological and sociological evidence that the homosexual lifestyle is self-injurious, as well as harmful to society.

:The usual counter arguments are several:
:#That we are wrong in our interpretation of the Bible, that God wouldn't "make me gay" if it were bad, etc.
:#That none of the psychological problems homosexuals have are caused by their lifestyle but are merely the result of society's intolerance. (But the same problems occur to the same degree in "tolerant" communities and countries: San Francisco, Greenwich Village, Provincetown, Holland, etc.)

:Perhaps the biggest clash is between those arguing about choice. In regards to abortion, free will is exalted by liberals. They say both that the choice to get pregnant and the choice to abort the pregnancy must be respected. It is a conscious act of the free will, and whatever choice the woman (or girl) makes is okay. But in regards to homosexuality, inexplicably they deny that there is any element of choice. To have same-gender sex is a drive, a need, a compulsion too strong to resist; it bad for your health to try to eliminate it.

:Christians and psychologists who disagree with this advance different arguments, not always mutually supportive. Some Christians emphasize choice far above "environmental" factors, for example by dismissing upbringing. They recommend religious conversion and prayer: "I got saved, and Jesus took away all my sinful desires." Psychologists and sociologists who oppose homosexuality (a tiny and understandably fearful minority) recommend counseling and therapy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:21, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I don't want to be gay. I tried to change. Tried for a decade. I had relationships with women and ended up hurting their feelings because I wasn't sexually attracted to them - and they were beautiful, good looking, lovely people. But I couldn't do it. Eventually it got to the point where I began suffereing from depression. If I could make myself attracted to women, I would. Believe me. I wish I could have stayed with my girlfriends from before, I wish that somehow I could choose to be attracted to women, but I can't.
I don't like mainstream gay culture. And I don't like stereotypically gay men. But I've been attracted to men as long as I can remember and try as I might, it isn't changing. So, much as I dislike it myself, if I am going to find love in my life I have to accept that I am gay and I can't change it. Maybe, one day, when I'm comfortable with that, I can fall in love with someone. Imagine.
What would you all have me do? -- [[User:oclunaigh|oclunaigh]]
:You should stop cursing God, that might be a place to start. In your situation, you are called to live a life of abstinence. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:05, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
::::I disagree. A person who repents and becomes a Christian is born again and a new creature according the Bible.[http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0881.htm] Although there are people called to celibacy such as the Apostle Paul appears to have been (although he might have been married previously to his conversion), I know of cases where former homosexuals walk away from the homosexuality and live happily married lives. I suggest reading Conservapedia's [[ex-homosexuals]] and [[overcoming homosexuality]] articles and then examine the resource [[Resources on becoming a Christian|HERE]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:41, 13 November 2010 (EST)

== Factual error ==

There have been dozens, perhaps hundreds, of scientific studies regarding homosexuality, and the vast majority of these articles indicate it is genetic. So-called "ex-homosexuals" are, by and large, homosexuals who repress their true feelings and desires. [[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 15:02, 18 December 2011 (EST)
:This is conservapedia, they're never going to listen to factual information.

Talk:God

2012-06-27T19:28:43Z

Jjoeshaw:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:God/Archive 1|1]].



==Abrahamic religion==

At least to me, this page practically (there are some very minor reference to other religions) makes it seem like the concept of a deity does not exist outside of the [[Abrahamic religion]], which is obviously false, and writes almost solely from a Judeo-Christian perspective. Perhaps "according to [[Abrahamic religion]]...." should be added, then, to make it clearer that this is not the only concept of a deity? --[[User:JamesCartwright|JamesCartwright]] 16:00, 4 December 2010 (EDT)

==Suggested rewording==
"God is the sovereign creator and eternal ruler of all things and beings that exist, whether in the physical universe or in the spiritual realm (Heaven)."

"God is the sovereign creator and eternal ruler of all things and beings that exist, whether in the physical universe or in the spiritual realm, often times called Heaven."

[[User:DanK|DanK]] 00:00, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

== why (Redirected from Deity) to the page god ==

is it not more logical to send anyone looking for Deity to other gods page (who tells you nothing about the other gods but rather what the bible say about them) or for that matter a page about Deities not the god page if this is the trustworthy encyclopedia would you not try to be some level of open minded --[[User:Kyo|Kyo]] 23:49, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

== Spelling error ==
"Deity" is misspelled ("diety") in the "Terminology" section. --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 15:12, 5 September 2010 (EDT)

== Minor misspelling ==

Under the header "Terminology", the word "diety". I checked the reference link, and there aren't any misspellings there.

Please fix to "deity". Thanks. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 21:24, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

== Bias ==
Why do you claim trustworthiness yet try to pass your opinion off as fact? The article should start with "According to Christianity..." because then that wouldn't be biased at all

Talk:Homosexual Agenda

2012-06-27T19:11:48Z

Jjoeshaw:

Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Vic Eliason passage should be removed ==

I write this because I have met VE here in Wisconsin and believe he'd be uncomfortable with the logic of including this information in this particular article. The passage: "Vic Eliason of Crosstalk America rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies." Nobody believes that homosexuality is contagious, like a virus, and the probability is 0% that "all Americans" would turn homosexual. I doubt that any homosexual, including activist leaders, would think it would be possible at all or even desirable. There is as little temptation for a heterosexual to want homosexual sex as there is for homosexuals to want heterosexual sex. Also, the comment about the US being more vulnerable to attack because the country doesn't procreate also makes no sense, given that the likelihood of that happening for this reason is 0%. Three other potential problems. 1) The passage is completely undocumented. 2) The link for biographical information for VE is to Wikipedia. Couldn't someone here write an article about him for CP? He has been, after all, a leading figure in Christian radio for 40+ years. 3) Besides being unrelated to the topic of the article and having 0% possibility of describing a real situation, the passage detracts from the credibility of the article and CP. This passage should be removed.

== WOV's got a point ==

Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''

Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.

I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.

Seconded. If this is a homosexual agenda, then what homosexual wrote it? This is nothing but political game-playing: Identify a group as ''The Enemy'' and then brand them haters and abusers of family, children, and country. It makes dehumanising them so much easier. - Suricou

: I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.

: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!

: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with the comments of [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] and [[User:Splark|Splark]]. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific "agenda" is an all-too common one, but such agendas are more often touted by those who oppose than by those who support a group. That a Supreme Court Justice referred to it, or that it's in some leaflet somewhere, isn't substantive evidence that it exists.. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED

I will go on the record and say that yes, there is a homosexual agenda. As a homosexual myself, I'm pretty much in the middle of it. All we want is to be treated the same as any other tax-paying American. If my partner is injured, I would like to be able to have the same visitation and decision-making power as a husband/wife would. I would like to be able to transfer property when I die without having to jump through a million legal hoops. Many people claim that we want "special" rights. We really don't. We just want to be treated the same as everyone else.--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:01, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here.
-Gasmonkey

== Everything you post must be true and verifiable ==

This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment. There is no homosexual "agenda" -- no "they" who "wrote a book", no 10-point plan. It's the same kind of paranoid nonsense that's in the articles here on Joseph McCarthy and Alger Hiss (WP has far more accurate articles on both subjects, with the one on Hiss very clearly identifying areas of controversy), with conspiracy-theorist types quoting and sourcing one another. I propose this entire article for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 10:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. The "Homosexual agenda" is no more factual than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Delete, or recreate as an article about the popular (?) but false belief in this "agenda." [[User:Pkoad|Pkoad]] 00:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:It refers to the [[gay rights]] activism, which may be a [[grassroots]] movement but which has multiple goals which are easily identified. The Liberal POV that such goals are non-existent is a kind of denialism.

:It will be good for the article to discuss this denial, in conjunction with [[gay rights]] critics who oppose the points which the denialists says no one advances. (Not worded right, but I think you get the gist.) See you all tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::There's no more gay agenda other than there was a "black agenda" before ''Brown'' came down. The gay agenda is equal treatment. Oh no, quick, ma, shut the doors! Equality's a-comin'!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]

:::I'd say "keep it" so the world can really see how these strange nutkins think. But in the interest of humanity, decency, and honesty, it is a pack of paranoid, politico-religious agenda lies. Really, really strange nutjob lies. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:'''Keep:'''Let's assume for one moment that the homosexual agenda is complete hogwash and homosexual activists don't believe in it: Isn't the fact that Conservative Christians do believe in it enough to keep the article so that the "opinions" of Christians about homosexual activists be here. The fact that many talk about it is clear evidence that this is a valid article--[[User:Djcreativity|Djcreativity]] 15:47, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
::Shouldn't we present information that is factual, and not misleading, though? If the intention of the article was to present Christian responses to gay rights activism, it should be presented as such. Given that ''After the Ball'' was published twenty years ago, presenting it as an active force in the gay rights movement (rather than as a foundation of the movement as a whole) is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? If we were talking about the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam we could reference Malcom X and Louis Farrakhan, but to act as though their works were part of current politics and national discourse would be misguided at best, and flatly wrong, at worst. --[[User:Jfavor|Jfavor]] 00:40, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Opposing Christian Agenda ==

I can't work out what the point of the "Opposing Christian Agenda" section is. The sentences don't make sense, and the referenced page does not mention homosexuality or gay. I propose the section be deleted by someone with the privilege to edit the article. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think it's not nearly explicit enough. More than anything else except perhaps abortion, the homosexual subversion of Christian values is illustrative of the influence of Satan upon liberals and other leftists, and his influence through them on our society. Should I rework the section to include such? --[[User:Nathan|Nathan]] 22:20, 11 February 2009 (EST)

== Improvements ==

Shouldn't ''Gayness'' in part 1. of the agenda be ''Gaiety''?
The term ''[[homosexual protectors]]'' in part three surely merits its own article. Is this the same as ''[[Homosexualist]]s''? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Any attempt to trivialize or confuse the issue will be frowned upon here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

We should delete the cite at the bottom saying that homosexuality caused Nazism. That's a truly disturbing allegation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Especially considering that the Nazis actually murdered thousands of homosexuals during World War II.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yes they did, but it was because of Hitler. NOT homosexuality. And waaay more Jews were killed than homosexuals, giving Jews a larger spotlight. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] I'm liberal, but I don't edit pages-just [[User talk:Clorox|talk page]]s. don't worry. 23:25, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

'''
I believe langauge needs to be corrected in the the first bullet of the list of homosexual goals. It currently states "Censoring sections of the bible condemning homosexuality." The source cited is an article about an offensive tee shirt being censored not the bible its self. There needs to be eaither a new source about Homosexuals attempting to change the bible or the wording must be changed to "preventing materials that denounce homosexuality from being displayed publicly."

Reference number "8" rrefers back to the Conservapedia site. In order to maintain integrity it must refer to an ouside source if one is not provided the reference and quote should be deleted. Currently it is a logical fallacy and is not up to encyclopedic standards. Someone not dyslexic (i.e. somone who isn't me.) should get on that.

== Very Informative ==
'''

Excellent portrayal of the truth. This is a nice breather from the left-wing saturated wikipedia.com. If you agree with the article, you should check out the highly accurate article on homophobia. Everyone knows that the creation of homophobia is a foundation of the gay agenda.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia

Wikipedia is subject to open edits that don't reqier an account. Are you suggesting that the monitors of wikipedia aka "everyone who can type" has a liberal bias?

== Is this real? ==

This article seems like a parody. I can't believe that... oh yeah, I'm at conservapedia. I can believe anything. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

As well as the mysterious reference to a "leading book in the homosexual movement", it refers to a book claiming that the Nazi Party supported homosexuality. Clearly this has to be satirical. Either that, or someone has a serious case of paranoia - all the sources, as well as being of dubious credabililty, point towards independent events but the whole point of the page is to talk about a shadowy conspiricy - a 'Secret Society' of homosexuals trying to gayify the world. I suggest deleting the whole page - and if it reappears in a similar form, delete and protect. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

This HAS to be satire. I find it hard to believe that anyone would genuine try to pass this off as fact unless they are extremely delusional.[[User:Jjoeshaw|Jjoeshaw]] 15:11, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Agendas ==
So since there are so many references on this wiki to the "homosexual agenda" can we also cite the "Conservative Agenda" or "Republican Agenda" or "Christian Agenda"? {{unsigned|prof0705}}
:I don't see why not, as long as they sourced and reasonably recognizable as phrases in common use. In fact, here, I would expect an article on [[conservative agenda]] to be very good. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

This article violates the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion).
#It claims to quote Focus on the Family for the definition of The Homosexual Agenda without giving a specific reference, and FotF is only claimed to be quoting "a leading book in the homosexual movement" without even bothering to name the book or its author.
#The two bulleted points in "The Goals" (about 8-year-old boys and 12-to-14 year olds) are stating as fact the opinion of Craig Osten, a vice president at the Alliance Defense Fund.
#Several of the other references to that section are either citing journalist's or lawyer's opinions, not facts or any quote from the people who are alleged to hold the agenda under discussion.

I am prohibited from editing the page but I suggest that the Agenda is moved to the top, and the original source for it cited, rather than a vague second-hand reference. The judge's quote should then be indented as a block quote so it is more clearly identifiable as quoting the judge. The Goals and Opposing Christian Agenda should be cleaned up and cite proper sources not opinions, or be more clearly marked as only opinions of people who oppose the Homosexual Agenda. If Conservapedia could handle it, even a quote from someone who supports it would be good. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 06:06, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:[[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion) is superceded by [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''
:Note: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:ListUsers/sysop sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', which means if a sysop has decided it is so it is so. If you continue to argue you may get blocked.
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

What about Hot man on man/woman on woman action? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that homosexuals were pretty in favor of that.

== Is this really as big as people make it out to be? ==
While I personally do not like anyone being too open about their personal lives, especially concerning anything to do with sex, still when I hear about a "Homosexual Agenda" I can only think of another fear that other people once tried to infect people with: it was called "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion." I think some of you may understand my point... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I don't really understand why people even care if someone is homosexual or not. If you're not a homosexual yourself you're not gonna be involved with homosexuality so why even care? It doesn't affect you in that case. If someones is homosexual, then fine. Let them be. Has nothing to do with you. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Do you not care about God, JohnKite? Do you not care about His society? Do you not acre about moral erosion, disease, and the future of humanity? Do you not care about what is right and what is wrong? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 11:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)

==Please remove the reference to Scott Lively's propaganda book==
This is propaganda. It seems you don't allow neutrality here. [[User:GayMan|GayMan]] 21:51, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:I agree. Numbers 1-5 on there are kinda wrong, and number 6 tops it off as crap. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:11, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Hey, now... ==
I'm LGBT and I'm certainly not aware of any sort of "agenda" being discussed. Perhaps this is just a typical case of right-wing paranoia? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:07, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

You're not aware because you're not hive-minded. The agenda is memetic, therefore you're not all going to know about it. --[[User:Pious|Pious]] 18:21, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

==What the hell?==

The “homosexuality agenda" was created by Focus on the Family, which you say later in the article, ACTIVELY OPPOSES homosexuality. You wouldn’t let me post Jon Stewart quotes on the Bush page, so why is this kind of crap aloud here? [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 11:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

This is exactly the sort of thing that inspires violence against homosexuals. Be more neutral.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 12:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck pal, I've been saying that for months. And watch your language, they'll ban you for that here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 12:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

==Politics and science==

Dr. Ronald Bayer, writing in Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis said the APA decision was a political one, not a scientific one: "The result [of the APA removal of homosexuality from the DSM] was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times." [http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf]
==Liberal Deceit==
I suggest we change the category from Deceit to Liberal Deceit because liberals universally support the gay agenda. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 22:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
*Good idea! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:08, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
::Bad idea. It's not deceit. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:16, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Again I find myself disturbed by the language of absolutes that have infested this site. There are liberal and homosexual philosophies mentioned in this site that some liberals and homosexuals don't have simply because they don't know about them- and it's certainly not a stretch of the imagination to say these people are generally ignorant. Are children in Africa who die young damned simply because a missionary doesn't exist where they live and they couldn't have possibly heard the good news about Christ? I think not. I believe they get another chance to. --[[User:Pious|Pious]] 18:26, 24 June 2011 (CDT)

==Sources?==

Are there any sources besides those accusing the gay agenda? There's no evidence of any organized "agenda", and all of the goals and such are provided by those opposing it. Best case, this is an article about a pundit talking point, and worst case it's a conspiracy theory masked as an encyclopedia article. Shouldn't it at least mention that there has never been any evidence of even a mildly organized or centralized gay agenda? The fact that it's permanently locked further undermines CP credibility. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 12:32, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Specific suggestion:
:Focus on the Family quotes below from a leading book in the homosexual movement which outlines the points of the homosexual agenda:
There is no source cited here. The source is "The Overhauling of Straight America," an article which appeared in the November 1987 issue of a gay magazine called ''The Guide''. [[User:Shii|Shii]] 22:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: Thanks, I just added an online link to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 23 November 2007 (EST)

== Mottos? ==

The edit replacing "beliefs" with "mottos" was unjustified. There is a (baseless) belief system inherent in the homosexual agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:41, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== References: "small looks better" ==

Why? All the other articles I've seen have references at regular text size. What's particular about this article that it needs to have really tiny footnotes? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 17:24, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

==Homosexuality in Congress==

In a recent discussion with a friend of mine, we discussed what is here called the "homosexual agenda". In addition to the notion of whether "everyone has an agenda" (something I would consider adding to the Debate pool if anyone would like clarification of my terms/beliefs here, I brought up the notion of whether or not there exists a disproportionate number of homosexuals or, unfortunately, scandals regarding previously latent homosexual desires among otherwise Conservative men (Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, the Glenn Murphy scandal), and whether this constitutes the corrupting nature of power, or, as my friend (a somewhat eccentric, Ron Paul-supporter type) suggests, whether these men are "moles" (his term, not mine) representing a quote, "homo infiltration". To put it bluntly, imagine the Manchurian Candidate, but with sodomy.

I was wondering if anyone here (I imagine you have all put some effort into the research and sourcing for this article) had ever heard trustworthy sources, blogs, or essays dealing with such a belief. I obviously don't support the endorsement of wingnut theories, but if it is a more widespread belief among self-avowed Republicans and conservatives, then I think it bears mentioning. I wait to see if any such evidence exists. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 10:48, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

==Iran?==
This site considers Iran as an example for how to deal with homosexuals?? I hope this is a joke; otherwise, this is one of the sickest, most hateful websites I've ever seen. You claim to follow Jesus, and then condone executing homosexuals?? This must be an example of following the hard-ass God of the Old Testament.{{unsigned|User:Pete5383}}

:This site does not condone the murder of homosexuals by the state. It is a true statement on Iran and most Muslim countries are no different. So yes, they oppose the homosexual agenda but that doesn't correspond to the section which talks of political/cultural opposition. Instead, a foreign section needs created and the FACTS put in the proper place.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:37, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

==Merge from "pro-Gay"==

Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_Agenda&curid=69968&diff=877518&oldid=877453&rcid=1187531 merging this point] from the "[[pro-gay]]" article. I sure wish I had '''bothered to look''' for the diff before undoing your careful work. *sigh* --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:44, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

==Homophobes==

Westboro is probably the only authentically "[[homophobic]]" group in the USA. They used to have a "God hates fags" website. No one takes them seriously, on either side of the ideological battle lines. They are the poster boys for [[hate speech]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

==Charity==

:Cut from lede:

:* Liberals generally give much less than conservatives to charity, but charity work by gays in particular is virtually non-existent.

:This needs references, if true. But I don't believe it - or maybe I just don't understand it. Isn't [[Gay Men's Health Crisis]] a [[charity]]? (Or is it merely a [[non-profit organization]] '''without''' a charitable purpose? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:44, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

Just happened to see this, and so here is some data:

On average, weekly churchgoers donate 3.8% of their income to charity, compared to 0.8% for those who never go. Independent Sector (charitable clearing house): Atheists won't save Europe by Don Feder; http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27937

Religious citizens who make $49,000 gave away about 3.5 times as much money as secular citizens with the same income. They also volunteered twice as often, are 57 percent more likely to help homeless persons, and two-thirds more likely to give blood at their workplace. Arthur C. Brooks' Who Really Cares. http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/001/8.11.html

In 2006, Americans gave 1.66% of their aggregate income to charity, with donations totaling US$182 billion. This rate of giving is more than double that of Canadians, who gave 0.76% of aggregate income (CA$8.4 billion in total) to charity in 2006. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/Generosity_Index_2008.pdf

See [http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Statistical_Correlations.html here] for a table of many comparison btwn states, and [http://247wallst.com/2011/12/15/americas-most-and-least-charitable-states/2/ here] for recent stats on giving per state.

$8.8 billion worth of goods and services that churches are giving overseas to developing (“Third World”) countries. This figures out to be nearly 40 percent of the foreign aid provided by the United States to the same region. U.S. foreign aid to those same countries is $23.5 billion. Carol Adelman of the Hudson Institute, from Notre Dame University study. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=118566

Giving as a percentage of income was higher at the depth of the Great Depression in the 1930s (3.3 percent of per capita income in 1933) than after a half-century of unprecedented prosperity (2.5 percent in 2004) John Ronsvalle and Sylvia Ronsvalle, The State of Church Giving through 2004: Will We Will? 16th ed. (Champaign, Ill.: Empty Tomb, 2006). ^

The proportion of adults who tithe dropped by 62 percent in the past year. (2) Just 6 percent of born-again households tithed to their churches in 2002. (3) Tithing, when it occurs, is generally among Protestants: 5 percent of adults who attend Protestant churches tithed last year, compared to less than one-tenth of 1 percent among Catholics. (4) Among the groups most likely to tithe are people over 55, college graduates, Evangelicals, Republicans, conservatives, and residents of the South—but there was no segment among which at least 10 percent tithed. George Barna. News release by Barna Research Group, May 19, 2003. ^

Including religious, American households overall gave 3.5% of their income to charity, with approx. 33% going to to religious institutions. Utah was the state with the highest average per-capita charitable contributions, followed by Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Arkansas. Professor Arthur Brooks, 2005. http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/February/200502181639511CJsamohT5.593508e-02.html

A liberal researcher who was surprised at finding that showed conservatives being more giving, set out to do a more thorough analysis, only to confirm the findings: http://blog.geoiq.com/2009/01/07/dataset-of-the-day-who-is-more-generous-republicans-or-democrats/

Also, the top 10 most generous countries are:

1. United States
2. Ireland
3. Australia
4. New Zealand
5. United Kingdom
6. Netherlands
7. Canada
8. Sri Lanka
9. Thailand
10. Laos

The United States’ first place in the rankings marks a significant improvement from 2010, when it ranked fifth. Other countries making significant gains include Liberia, which went from 39 to 14, and Morocco, which leapt from 33 to 12. http://www.worldvision.org/news/new-report-ranks-most-generous-countries. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:27, 27 February 2012 (EST)

==Kirk and Madsen==
The WP page on Marshall Kirk [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Kirk#Health] has this but which i cannot find a source for:

"Marshall suffered from severe migraine headaches that were preceded by a strong desire to talk in a rapid monologue. He found that if he gave into these "babbling fits", the headache would be alleviated. He had other medical problems and suffered from bouts of depression that required electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) on three occasions. Because of the negative effects on his memory, he considered ECT to be the last alternative to avoid death. In part due to this medical history, his knowledge of pharmacology was usually greater than that of anyone who treated him. When he died, he was found alone in his apartment by two friends."

Also cannot find anything on Hunter Madsen (pen name "Erastes Pill")[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:54, 24 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:Homosexuality and the Bible

2012-06-27T19:08:48Z

Jjoeshaw:

Why don't you include material from groups like Dignity USA,Soulforce,and the MCC,this thing on homosexuality and the bible is completly one-sided.

:If you'd care to summarize the liberal POV on homosexuality, we can add that somewhere in this encyclopedia. I for one am particularly interested in how what arguments they make in opposition to the traditional or conservative Christian POV that homosexuality is sinful. Who are they to say it's not? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:20, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
:Who are you to say it is? --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:49, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Brief responses to primary homosexual arguments

The ONLY times the Bible explicitly addresses the issue of homosexual activity is that of prohibition and condemnation. While not much is given here, i would like to post a basic summary of more or less basic responses to primary pro-homosexual attempts to negate Biblical injunctions against their homo-eroticism.

The idea that Gn. 2:24 does not exclude sanctioned same sex marriage (and where there is "cleaving" there must be marriage) is not simply an argument from silence, and contrary to God's declaration of marriage in which every occurrence of "wife" is female, but is one that presumes that God cannot and does not make clear such a basic thing as marriage and sexual morality. Sanctioning marriage between same genders has the same amount of warrant is that of man with animals - which relations the homosexual hermeneutic used to negate in Lev. 18:22 must allow.

In Genesis 19 and Judges 19, "yada" (know, as in "to know them") is never (by my research) used to denote "knowing" anyone personally by means of force, but is sometimes used (as btwn humans to personally know) to denote gaining sexual knowledge (Gen 4:1,17, 25, 19:8; 24:16; 38:26; Num. 31:18, 35; Jud. 11:39; 19:25; 21:12; 1 Sam. 1:19; 1 Kg. 1:14; Mt. 1:25), and which fits in perfectly with the offer of virgins rather than the men.

In Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 the attempts to negate such injunctions based upon their being in the context of pervading Canaanite religion relies upon imposing a hermeneutic that negates the other prohibited moral practices in their particular company (adultery, incest, bestiality, etc.), which are just as universally applicable, but the negation of which the rest of Scripture disallows, as it abundantly confirms moral laws regarding sexual conduct etc. The homosexual argument here makes the error of supposing that a law given in one context cannot be universally applicable. But such reasoning "no other gods" (Ex. 20:3) can only apply to Egyptians ones or formal idols. However, all sins are the fruit of idolatry. When a practice is only applicable or wrong in a specific religious context God makes that manifest, as He does in regard to ritual washings (Heb. 9:10). The attempt on this page to make these injunctions simply to keep Israel from being assimilated the Canaanite culture (team colors) is invalid, as it not only ignores the aforementioned distinction between basic moral laws and ritual, but that the Bible treats their foundational sins as inherently wicked, for which cause God destroyed the Canaanites, not simply because they were different. (Lev 18:24, 27; Deu_20:18, Deu_23:18, Deu_25:16, Deu_27:15; 1Ki_14:24; 2Ki_16:3, 2Ki_21:2; 2Ch_36:14; Eze_16:50, Eze_22:11; Hos_9:10).

Another attempt is to make them only applicable to the Levites, but which the context denies (Lev. 18:2; 19:2; 20:2).

Another attempt requires a radical significance for the absence of more than two explicit prohibitions (Lv. 18:22; 20:13, and only one of the death penalty for it (20:13). This ought to be enough (what part of "no" don't you understand?), and which attempt ignores that fact the the more common a sin then the more it is likely to be mentioned (like idolatry), while not all the types of fornication are repeated elsewhere in the O.T. Meanwhile (in my research), not all the of the other specific sins of fornication in Leviticus 18 + 20 are condemned elsewhere in the Old Testament, though they are part of universal prohibitions, and the death penalty for at least one (Lv. 20:12) is only mentioned once, as is the penalty for perjury that caused a mans death (Dt. 19:15-21). In addition, the idea that the prohibitions against homosexual fornication simply refer to "ritual uncleanness" is as absurd as forcing the other injunctions against fornication, adultery, etc. into that category. And as far as the "shellfish hermeneutic," which equates dietary laws (Lev. 11) with purely moral ones, this ignores the clear classification made under the promised (Jer. 31:31-34) New Covenant instituted in Christ's blood (Lk. 22:20; Heb. 9:16), between typological laws (Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:14-16; Heb. 9:9, 10) which are not repeated under the New, while moral ones which are abundantly reiterated.

Attempts to relegate Rm. 1:18-27 (and it's Levitical basis) to only homo-eroticism that is part of idolatry again fails to recognize that ALL sin is a manifestation of idolatry, formal or informal. Either Jesus is Lord or the flesh is Lord at any given time. Paul is not simply condemning a specific cultural phenomenon, rather his foundational objection is that of the rejection of God the Creator, who by design and original inclinations made man and women uniquely compatible and complementary (Gn. 2:18-24), and to be joined with the same gender is to go against what He joined (Gn. 2:24). And when a practice is only wrong in a specific relational context then we can see God making that manifest, as He does in explicitly providing marriage for heterosexuals, while condemning all unmarried sexual relations. The text in Romans 1 also goes on to list other sins as further manifestations of degeneration, and which are likewise universally evil. Neither was the condemned homosexual eroticism forced, but consensual, and that it was driven by lust, as is typically evident today, does not allow for any practice of homosexual eroticism that is not, any more than it allows for "loving" heterosexual eroticism outside marriage, which is never provided by God for homosexuals.

As for the dual commands of Deuteronomy 23:17-18, these do pertain to Temple prostitution, and the use of the word "sodomite" makes that distinction, and like other culturally applied laws, these are based upon basic immutable law of Lev. 18:22 which are applicable to all times and cultures. In addition, specific prohibitions against one manner of homosexual activity need not negate those of a universal nature. When the State prosecutes priestly pedophilia, it is condemning all forms of such.

Another objection is to applying the word "sodomy" or "sodomite" to homosexuals, as it not an accurate word for such. However, in the Bible, as in real life, sometimes a word is not understood by it's exact meaning but according to it it's contextual employment, especially when used as a euphemism. As homosexuals like the word “gay,” they must comprehend this. A “grunt” need not be a vocal utterance but can denote an unskilled hard laborer, as such are known for such sounds. The Hebrew word translated "sodomy," (qâdêsh) basically describes a dedicated person, and is related to a word meaning “sanctify”(qâdash), but in all it's occurrences (except Job. 36:14 = unclean) it signifies a class of unholy person(s) dedicated to practicing homosexual acts as part of temple activity, as indicated first in Dt. 23:18 (the male version of a prostitute), and their having houses by the Temple in 2 Ki. 23:7. Further instances (1Ki. 14:24; 15:12; 22:46) testify to their sinful condition, and the translated word “sodomite” derives it's meaning from the practice of the people with whom it is associated. Likewise “the price of a dog” was not the price paid for the sale of a dog, but denotes the gains of the “kadesh,” a person who was called κίναιδος by the Greeks, and which class of people received their euphemistic name from the dog-like manner in which the male prostitute perversely debased himself. It later was applied by the Jews to all Gentiles, signifying their unclean state, and in Rev_22:15 it is spiritually applied to all the the defiled.

Then there is the "red letter" hermeneutic, that must negate any sin Jesus did not explicitly condemn, as if the same Holy Spirit did not inspire the rest of Scripture, though Jesus promised more would come by Him (Jn. 16:12, 13) and affirmed that which already did (Mt. 4:4; Jn. 10:35), both of which details the fornications (plural) that Jesus condemned and will send one to Hell (Mk. 7:21; Rev. 21:27).

As for attempts to find approved examples not simply of homosexual activity, but of marriage (as without that sanctifying provision which God abundantly and explicitly evidences for heterosexuals - and also would for homosexuals if indeed it was the healthy and wholesome thing they make it out to be - then it would be unholy fornication), such attempts require reading present western culture into an Oriental setting, as well as ignoring other aspects necessary for sound exegesis.

Beginning in 1 Sam,. 18, David and Jonathan's "bosom buddy" expressions of affection are in keeping with the strong emotional language of the culture, and of David elsewhere (read the Psalms), and are an example of platonic love between two fellow soldier whose loyalty to God and thus each other was trial tested, and the attempt to make them erotic fails in every attempt. Saul was known for keeping potentially good soldiers from going home (1 Sam. 14:52), the Hebrew word covenant never is used for marriage, and David became the kings son in law for the first time with Michal (1 Sam. 18:21-27: the word "one" is missing often in Scripture when the context makes it clear what it is).

Regarding Jonathan's stripping of his soldiers garments, ("girdle" means armor in other places and men did wear undergarments in those days, while the word “even” is used to denote a limited extent in such places as Num. 4:43) and giving them to David is not erotic, but was a ceremony of prophetic significance after the manner of the clear parallel in Numbers 20:26. Therein we read the command, "And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son: and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there." This ceremony symbolically signified the transference of the office of Aaron upon his son. In like manner, Jonathan's divestiture of his royal clothing (as the king's son) to give them to this poorly clad shepherd boy (clothes were indicative of royalty: cf. Esther 6:8) prophetically signified the transference of the future kingship from himself (as the normal heir) to David, which would shortly come to pass. None of this lends itself to the imaginative erotic encounters the liberal interpretation seeks.

As for the farewell (1 Samuel 20:41), "kissing" is very very rarely sexual in the Bible (and when it is, the context makes it very evident), nor was kissing looked upon as a sexual expression in the Middle East (wikipedia). As for "until David exceeded" (i will not tell you how they try to use that) relates to his David's weeping. But true to form, homosexual apologists cannot leave two close fire-tried comrades to sadly say good bye for good (and it was very sadly for good, and the only real friend the hunted David likely had) without forcing a meaning into a place where it does not belong.

Finally, as regards David's later poetic lament after Johnathan death (2 Sam. 1: 26), "pleasant" is used of Saul as well (v. 23), and as for “thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women,” David is not comparing his close buddy's love as being of a higher quality of sensual love, but is contrasting the marvelous brotherly love of Jonathan with the sexual “eros” love of women. Likewise we can say that unconditional, nonreciprocal love surpasses that of sexual love. But evidently many homosexual apologists lust to see what they seem to value the most when they force it in here.

David actually knew little of any manner of the love of women, as his wife, Saul's daughter Michal, was still with the man Saul had joined her with (1 Sam. 25:44) after David had to flee for his life (1Sam. 19:11-17). She would also soon be cursed due to her self righteous carnal reproof of him (2 Sam. 6:14-23), but Johnathan risked his life for David and the future of Israel more than once, and showed himself a singular true hearted sacrificial faithful friend and a Godly fellow soldier in helping David escape Saul's murderous will for him. David thus expresses deep grief at his loss with words of strong emotion which are common in Scripture. David would later woefully and tearfully lament “my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee (1 Sam. 18:33), while in the poetic Psalms David expresses how he “bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother" when speaking of his love even for an enemy (Ps. 35:14). But this is all pathos, not eros, and in the story of those two compatriots we have an example of “bosom buddies” who risked their lives in friendship and fidelity to what was right in God's sight, which affirms such platonic love and actually excludes eroticism. True love is manifested and realized in a far more comprehensive and deeper manner than simply sexually, and the latter does not even qualify as true love (thus a relationship must thrive without it before it can be part of it). Moreover the fact that they both were married testifies to their heterosexual nature, and it was not a Billy that David lusted after later, but a Bathsheba.

As for Ruth, if the word "cleave" is to mean sexually as they propose or assert, then she would be a whoremonger, as she was told to be "cleave" to both the menservants and maid servants. Before she got married! This would give a radically different definition to the term "virtuous women," but such is what homosexual hermeneutics require, and which forced interpretations militate against the Bible from actually being a moral authority

I need not get into even more desperate and complex attempts to squeeze married homo-erotic activity out of holy Scripture, suffice to say that the more one studies them then the more it becomes apparent as such apologists cannot get God to in any ways explicitly sanction the homo-erotic activity they crave then they must force oblique inferences into texts, which again and again fail to prove the radical erotic ethos that is contrary to the only statements God makes regarding men lying with men, which forbid and condemn it.

For more on this (if you really need it) i would recommend http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/homosexual_refuted.html (mine) and http://www.tektonics.org/TK-H.html (see Homosexuality) --Daniel1212 23:20, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Can I ask, where does the bible actually condemn homosexuality? It condemns homosexual intercourse, yes, but where does it condemn the attraction to the same sex? Do you not think God would have made people like that to see whether they resisted temptation and followed his word? [[User:Jjoeshaw|Jjoeshaw]] 15:08, 27 June 2012 (EDT)