Talk:Ex-homosexuals

Since this encyclopedia should be suitable for children, this article should have a clear warning.

We don't want our children to feel they cannot choose for a homosexual lifestyle when they believe they are true homosexuals. This page may confuse them and should be provided with a clear warning. Children should know being homosexual is just normal and they shouldn't want to become ex-homosexuals when there is no such desire. I'm already horrified by the media which spends such horrible attention to homosexuality and I was shocked when my husband pointed me out that this information is publicly available to children.

- a concerned mother.

No, you are not a concerned mother. A concerned mother would wish a happy, fulfilled and fruitful life for her child in accordance with God's Law, not an existence of perversion, sin and early death. Please don't pollute Conservapedia with your dissolute ravings. Bradlaugh 18:18, 2 January 2009 (EST)

How does homosexuality relate to religion, perversion or death? I believe your reaction is inappropriate and does pollute Conservapedia. Please sustain from replying and let the site moderators fulfill my request.

Please sustain from replying. My apologies. Could you possibly explain the meaning of that remarkable phrase? Bradlaugh 18:36, 2 January 2009 (EST)

You don't understand. If you don't live by a almost 2000 year old book written by sand people living in huts you don't deserve to live or are living wrong.--CindyB 18:42, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, you sound really learned! I guess the Word of God has nothing on your insights. Bradlaugh 18:48, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Considering we've learned so much in 2000 years the words of sand people have nothing on my insights.--CindyB 18:49, 2 January 2009 (EST)

And I refuse to believe any man with a brain no larger or smarter then my own knows what happens after we die or what happened before we came here.--CindyB 18:50, 2 January 2009 (EST)

It strikes me that those 'sand people in huts' were pretty smart. What have you learned? Bradlaugh 18:51, 2 January 2009 (EST)

I've learned all major advancements between 0 BC and 2009 A.D. I've learned why the sun rises in the morning and sets at night and I don't say because "God did it". I've learned how to heal wounds that would have been death sentences in their day. Ugh I really don't want to go through the 10000+ things I know better then the people in Palestine in the early ADs.--CindyB 18:55, 2 January 2009 (EST)

You've learned a few technical tricks that weren't known in the years of Our Lord. But you have forgotten the secrets of true happiness and eternal life. Not a good bargain on your part, I'd say, and if I were you I'd sue Professor Dawkins. Bradlaugh 18:58, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Never read Dawkins. Like I said before I was blocked (You'll be surprised how many open networks there are around my house) I don't accept what anyone else has to say about after we die. I prefer to make my own views on subjects like that. I have not forgotten the secrets of true happiness I have learned them. I'm very happy with myself, my family, and everything I've created without thinking "God did it". Honestly though I really don't hate anyone who believes in God. Thats fine good for you and them but I really don't like how people push it off onto other people or do things in it's name.--JameF 19:09, 2 January 2009 (EST)

This is a Christian Conservative encyclopedia. There are plenty of other outlets for your viewpoint. Bradlaugh 19:11, 2 January 2009 (EST)

True there are. But there are some of your editors such as conservative who have been trying to start a holy war against us. It's rather concerning and actions such as those demand reaction.--JameF 19:13, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Further more at one time I was in a religious school (where some actions were committed by the admins that forever poisoned my relationship with the Catholic Church) I did have to read and study the bible. I find many of the things on this site to be exact contradictions of what exactly Jesus said in the New Testament--JameF 19:17, 2 January 2009 (EST).

Conservative is our leading theorist and commentator on atheism, and is skilled in showing the rag-tag-and-bobtail shortcomings of that creed. Holy War? I think that he would like nothing so much as the chance to debate openly with you or your colleagues. As far as I am aware, no-one has yet been courageous enough to take up his gauntlet. Bradlaugh 19:19, 2 January 2009 (EST)

I doubt conservative has ever even met any atheist beside those 15 year old ones in High Schools. He's pushing for the atheism and homosexuality to be further up in search engines then he puts on his page how atheism is going to be destroyed on the internet in 2009. People have attempted to debate him but have just been blocked by other editors quickly.--JameF 19:24, 2 January 2009 (EST)

It would be blasphemous to clai that Conservapedia met all of Jesus' standards, Of course we do not. We try, and sometimes fail. But to condemn this entire project, and to condemn Christianity and Christians, on those grounds is ludicrous - indeed, nihilistic. All man can do is to seek to imitate God. Failure is inevitable, but it is the nature of the struggle waged - here and elsewhere - that is important. I'd end by protesting against your unfair and inaccurate characterisation of Conservative, a hugely respected senior figure here. I'd like to debate more, but it is 00.30 here and I need to sleep. Regards. Bradlaugh 19:30, 2 January 2009 (EST)

By that logic you can say that even though Atheist don't believe in God or follow all of Jesus' standards we cannot condemn all atheist. Ugh I hate nihilist with a passion so I'll ignore that. If conservative ever wished to have a fair open debate or disscussion with athetist or homosexuals I'm sure that it can be arranged on a nuetral wiki where nobody would be blocked over petty reasons.You seem the more rational of the group here. I'll prob stop by every so often just to tease you into a debate. Anyhow goodnight.--JameF 19:35, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Possible Vandalism? I don't want to step on the toes of those who have produced this page; but it looks to me like the section on "Ex-Homosexuals and Former Sexual Abuse" has been vandalized by someone pushing the "born gay" viewpoint.DavidDeering 12:05, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Removal of a scientifically inaccurate sentence

I've just modified the section which read "... which argues that there is no genetic determinism in regards to homosexuality (homosexuals are "not born that way")" to remove the section in brackets. So that the reasons for my edit aren't misunderstood, I'll explain them here. Basically, genetics are not the only factor in determining what immutable traits a person is born with. For example, in the 1950s and 1960s, many babies were born with birth defects such as missing limbs, due to their mother taking thalidomide while pregnant (before it was known that these birth defects would be caused). Genetically these babies were normal, yet no one would dispute that these babies were "born that way" (limbless). Hormonal abnormalities in the womb can also occur and cause various changes to the developing embryo. Therefore, as there is no scientific proof yet about what causes homosexuality, and various non-genetic factors can cause inborn traits, it cannot be said that because something isn't genetic, it isn't an inborn trait. That's simply unprovable speculation, thus I removed it. Hopefully there's no issue with this edit :) Marianne 13:10, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

I'd like to add here that a person's character (personality) is developed from genetics and environment. The younger a child is, the more likely environment will influence their character as they grow up. There's a lot that goes into the shaping of a person. Homosexuality could be a chemical imbalance in the brain; caused by influential environmental factors when growing up; genetic mutations caused by hormonal abnormalities in the womb (as exemplified by Marianne); or, in some but possibly not all cases, it may be a matter of choice. This is all speculation, of course, because I'm not an expert in anthropology, biology or homosexuality. My input is more or less a philosophical approach to a subject that isn't my strong-point. DerekE 20:40, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

Well just to clarify, hormonal abnormalities in the womb wouldn't cause genetic changes, but they can and do cause permanent changes - for example, physical sex is mostly determined by hormones in the womb, usually matching the embryo's chromosomes. It's not genetic, but it shapes how the embryo grows and develops, and what characteristics they have at birth. My basic point was just that there's quite a few non-genetic factors that can influence embryos and foetuses :) Marianne 15:43, 19 March 2010 (EDT)