new

1# Homosexuality is inborn

There's no proof that homosexuality is inborn. All of the studies often used to prove that homosexuality is inborn are fallacious. Why? Well, let’s begin with LeVay’s brain study. When looking at the methodology of the LeVay study, one of the key problems is that the study has never been reproduced. Another problem is that out of nineteen homosexual subjects used in the study, all had died of complications of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). AIDS has been shown to decrease testosterone levels, so it should be expected that those who suffered from that condition would have smaller INAH. Furthermore, in a scientific environment where controls and standards are a necessity, LeVay did not possess a complete medical history of the individuals included in his study. He therefore was forced to assume the sexual orientation of the non-AIDS victims as being heterosexual, when some may not have been. Also, there’s brain plasticity which is a fact acknowledged by most scientists. Given that we know today that the brain exhibits plasticity, one must ask if the act of living a homosexual lifestyle itself might be responsible for the difference LeVay noted? Another study often used by gay activists as a proof that homosexuals are ‘born’ that way is Bailey and Pillard’s Study. In this one there isn’t much to explain as the whole fallacy of the study can be proven with this one statement: If there was in fact a “gay gene” or “a gay combination per se” then all of the identical twins should have reported a homosexual orientation. This observation suggests that there is no genetic component but rather social component in homosexuality. In fact, more adoptive brothers shared homosexuality than non-twin biological brothers. If there was a genetic factor in homosexuality, this result would be counter to the expected trend. The other fallacious study we will be covering here is Dr. Alan Sanders’ study of x-male chromosome. Dr. Alan Sander’s study fails for this one reason: the results exhibited on the gay men were never compared to that of heterosexual males. Another thing as to why homosexuality cannot be inborn from an evolutionary standpoint is that: Being gay is a disadvantage as if gay people where everywhere this race would not produce offspring. Besides, there's no proof that homosexuality is caused by hormonal misbalances such as low testosterone, such claims are naught but mere hypothesis and thus, invalid. In fact, low testosterone has been associated with low sex drive and infertility so, there really isn't any ground for such hypothesis. So even if it did exist at one point it would be dissolved within a few generations. Things will evolve or die, since we are still here chances are it evolved away if it even existed. As you can see there's no study that even suggests that homosexuality is inborn.

2# Homosexuality is not harmful, it is just fine

Nowadays, there’s this myth that homosexuality is not harmful and an equal to heterosexual relationships; however, this couldn’t be further away from the truth. Homosexuality is a very harmful practice that results in many illnesses, it’s kind of like smoking a misbehavior that feels good but destroys your body. How can this be true? How can homosexuality be harmful when so many LGBT are such wonderful people? Well, let’s begin with how gays have shortened lifespan. Yes, homosexuals have shortens lifespan and this isn’t just my word as there are studies to back my claims. It isn't just the 1997 study that pointed to this grim truth, according to the article you attached, the 1997 study is fallacious because the lifespan of gays should have improved over time thus, so it shouldn’t be valid today. However, other recent studies have reported similar findings. Such studies include an study done by Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron of the Family Research Institute and who held a poster session and presented the study at March, 2007 Eastern Psychological Association convention in Philadelphia. The facts of the Cameron's studies were these: the lifespan of homosexuals is 20 years lower than that of straights. They found that in the Canadian database, a decline in homosexuality was evident by the fourth decade of life. Those who identified themselves as homosexual constituted a relatively stable fraction of adults only for those aged into their mid-40s (e.g., one of every 47-48 adults). Thereafter, their proportion dropped regularly, down to one of every 234 adults in old age (65+), resulting in an overall estimate of 1.4% of adults who âwere. In both the table and abstract done by the Cameron a precipitous decline in the homosexual population following middle age was noted. Taking a look at the statistics and studies regarding homosexuals, both old and new, it becomes evident what’s the real reason as to the reduction in homosexuals’ lifespan. Unlike what most pro-gay activist like to claims this reduced lifespans is not due to discrimination or stigmatization because these studies were conducted in countries were homosexuals are not persecuted, there's very little disapproval of homosexuality, and were homosexuals even enjoy special rights. The reason for this statistics is the nature of homosexual sex itself is harmful, and many of the harmful acts committed in such relationships are not committed by straights as often as by homosexuals. Like Diggs said the anus is not made for penetration and anal sex is extremely harmful for both homosexuals and straights. However, straights have the option to indulge in traditional sexual intercourse which is way safer than those homosexual practices. There's no such thing as safe homosexual sex for all the practices involved in their so called making 'love' ritual have been proven to be dangerous practices that often result in many illnesses. The use of a condom reduces the chances of HIV; however, it does not eliminate the risk especially during anal sex practiced mostly by homosexuals as 1 in 27 condoms will break during anogenital homosexual sex. Also, there’s no scientific evidence that condoms prevent the transmission of Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, and Herpes simplex virus. The prevention of the these three STDs has not been absolutely quantified, because no one is suggesting that a person known to have one of these treatable infections have regular intercourse with an unaffected partner. Though, health professionals assume the usage of condoms reduces the risks of getting these diseases; however, as to what extent condoms prevent these diseases are unknown. Back to anal sex, this kind of sex is extremely dangerous and harmful. The use of artificial lubricants doesn’t make this practice any safer, in one study involving nearly 900 men and women in Baltimore and Los Angeles, the researchers found that those who used lubricants were three times more likely to have rectal sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Even after controlling for gender, HIV status, city, condom use, and number of sex partners in the past month, the association between lubricant use before receptive rectal intercourse and rectal STIs remained strong. Another study that subjected popular over-the-counter and mail-order lubricants to rigorous laboratory tests discovered that many of the products were toxic to cells and rectal tissue. Thus, lubricants don’t really make anal sex safer if anything it makes anal sex more dangerous. Anal sexual intercourse as Mr.Diggs noted does increase fecal incontinence as shown in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2009–2010) done by Alayne D Markland and others which included 2,100 male participants. Anal sex is also known to increase anal cancer and it’s no surprise taking into account anal sex is done mostly by homosexuals that, gay and bisexual men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men. Other physical problems associated with anal sex are: hemorrhoids, anal fissures, anorectal trauma, retained foreign bodies. Oral sex practiced amongst heterosexuals and homosexuals but particularly among homosexuals is dangerous as well. Fisting is far more dangerous than anal intercourse; results of fisting can include infections, inflammation and enhanced susceptibility to STDs. Rimming a practice done by most homosexuals which increases the risk for Hepatitis A or B, gonorrhea, syphilis, and herpes/genital warts, though low, the risks are still there especially when most people perform unprotected oral sex. Another illness that is very prevalent among homosexual communities is Shigella, it can be transmitted through person-to-person contact, oral-anal sex, or sucking or licking of the anus (anilingus or "rimming"), may be especially risky.Many shigellosis outbreaks among MSM have been reported in the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, and Europe since 1999. Frottage, when done naked or simply if the infected skin of a partaker rubs against the uninfected skin of the partner, can result in STDs transmitted by skin-to-skin contact which include: Herpes, HPV, genital warts, mononucleosis, Molluscum Contagiosum, and syphilis. Also, another risk of frottage is clothing rubbing on a lesion as it can irritate it risking either a secondary infection or a disease spreading through self-inoculation. Tribadism includes the risks of frottage as well. There is almost no published research addressing the question of whether fingering is transmits STDs or not. However, common sense says it should be extremely low but still, fingering is not risk free from STDs. The usage of latex condoms does not completely eliminate the risks of STDs during mutual masturbation and other forms of sexual contacts as it is not 100% effective and there’s also the risk of developing latex allergies. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that while men with same-sex attraction make up only 2 percent of the total population, they accounted for 63% of all newly-diagnosed HIV/AIDS cases in 2010. Despite what gay activist would like to believe, HIV among msm seems to be increasing as in 2014, gay and bisexual men accounted for an estimated 83% of HIV diagnoses among males and 67% of all diagnoses (CDC). When into account that gays are about 1.6% or 2.3% (counting bisexuals) of the population, according to a recent survey done by the National Health Statistics Reports (2014), it can be concluded by using basic math that being gay drastically increases your chances of getting many illnesses. In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 82.9% of all male syphilis cases and 61.2% of all syphilis cases in the US. In your article it was claimed that over time Homosexual’s ailments would become less common but it seems the opposite is happening as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention(2014) noted that the number of cases of Chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis is increasing among men and particularly the msm populace. A study done by Damien Stark(2007) resulted in indicating that MSM were more likely to have multiple parasites in their stool compared to non-MSM (43.5% versus 8%; P < 0.001). In a sexual health survey of MSM in Vancouver, 18% of men had been diagnosed with genital warts, 62% were infected with a strain of HPV, and screening for anal cancer detected abnormalities in 64% of HIV-positive men and 34% of HIV-negative men (suggesting anal cancer may be present). What’s more, it seems most homosexuals infected with HIV are unaware of their infection! A CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection. Another study conducted by Marc Martí-Pastor,Patricia García de Olalla, and others (2015) concluded that an increase in cases of STIs was observed in 2015, most of which affected mainly msm. The Marc and Patricia’s study revealed that 66.8 % of the HIV cases were men who had sex with men (MSM), 45.5 % of the gonorrhea cases were MSM.74.2 % of the syphilis cases were MSM and 95.3 % of the LGV cases are MSM. Homosexuality increases the risk to HPV as shown by the statistics presented in the journal Cancer (2004): 60% of gay men without HIV, 90% of gay men with, have human papilloma virus infection in their anal canal. A study conducted n 2002 by Susanne L. Dibble and others concluded that lesbians are at a higher risk of developing ovarian cancer. HPV (human papillomavirus) is common in WSW as HPV can be transmitted through skin to skin contact. A study published by the Gay and Lesbian Association concluded that lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer. The lesbians that chose not to do the screenings do them for the same reasons straights chose not to. Since oral-genital sex is a frequent practice of women who have sex with women, genital herpes transmission with both HSV-1 and HSV-2 can occur. A National survey from 2001-2006, reported that 30% of women who reported having same-sex sexual contact in the past year, had positive blood tests for HSV-2. This finding is contrasted with women who report no same-sex sexual contact, among whom 24% had positive blood tests for HSV-2. Other diseases abundant in homosexuals include: Hepatites A, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, Proctitis, HSV, BV, HEP B, Giardia lamblia, Amebiasis, and mental disorders. The tendency of gay men to acquire many of these plethora of diseases, contrary to what most gay activists suggest, isn’t due to discrimination as public acceptance of gay/lesbian relations as morally acceptable grew slowly but steadily from 38% in 2002 to 56% in 2011 and is now holding at the majority level; the problems with the American LGBT community aren’t also due to lack of knowledge about ‘safe’ homosexual sex practices as since 2013 in The Real Education For Healthy Youth Act, an act that promotes homsosexual sex education by providing federal fund solely to programs that educate about ‘safe’ homosexual sex partners, has been in place. Also, there have been numerous LGBT education programs receiving federal funding before and many school districts teaching about safe homosexual sex education that date back prior the 2013. On the web there’s also a plethora of websites that cover safe gay sex available to homosexuals of any age, when you write the word ‘safe gay sex’ on Google you will get 36,100,000 results many of which cover on ‘safe’ gay sex practices with tips. So, it can be concluded that the many illnesses present on the homosexual community are more due to the harmful nature of the homosexual lifestyle and homosexuality per se rather than due to discrimination or lack of homosexual sex education. Homosexuality is asexual behavior, not a characteristic like a skin color, and when looking at all this statistics we can determine that homosexuality is a harmful sexual behavior such as smoking is a harmful behavior.

3# Children of gays parents do as well as those of straights

Children raised by homosexual parents don’t fare as well. Studies that indicate that children from homosexual households fare as well as those with heterosexual parents are fallacious. Such studies usually have relied on samples that are small and not representative of the population, and they frequently have been conducted by openly homosexual researchers who have an ideological bias on the question being studied. In addition, these studies usually make comparisons with children raised by divorced or single parents--rather than with children raised by their married, biological mother and father. They have also used selective recruiting instead of using random samples. And usually the reports are given by the parents instead of the kids themselves. Studies that prove kids under the care of same sex parents don’t fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents include: Regnerus(2012), Allen(2013), and Sullins(2015). Most of these studies have random samples with numbers that are representative of the children raised in same sex households.

4# Homosexuality cannot be changed

there's evidence that shows intervention to change ones' sexualities are actually pretty successful.Robert Spitzer conducted a study on 200 self-selected individuals (143 males, 57 females) in an effort to see if participants could change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual (2003, 32:403-417). He reported some minimal change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted at least five years (p. 403). Spitzer observed:

The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year (p. 403).
In summarizing his findings, Spitzer declared: “Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.” He thus concluded: “This study provides evidence that some gay men and lesbians are able to also change the core features of sexual orientation” (p. 415).
Six years earlier, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) released the results of a two-year study stating:
Before treatment, 68 percent of the respondents perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, with another 22 percent stating that they were more homosexual than heterosexual. After treatment, only 13 percent perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, while 33 percent described themselves as either exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual (see Nicolosi, 2000, 86:1071).

The study also reported:
Although 83 percent of respondents indicated that they entered therapy primarily because of homosexuality, 99 percent of those who participated in the survey said they now believe treatment to change homosexuality can be effective and valuable (p. 1071).

These data are consistent with the ongoing research project of Rob Goetze, who has identified 84 articles or books that contain some relevance to the possibility of sexual orientation change (2004). Of the data reported, 31 of the 84 studies showed a quantitative outcome of individuals able to change sexual orientation. These studies are not mere speculation as they have numbers to back up their results. These studies are more than enough proof that homosexuality can be changed.

#faggots #gay #homosexuality #homosexuals #lesbian #religion #statistics #yaoi #yuri #antigay #boyslove #homophobe #homophobia #lgbt #misconception #myths #science #study #truths #boys_love
Once again God is right and humans are wrong.

(=Trimmed for Relevant qoutes and verses=)

So How Did David Really “Love” Jonathan?

Is it possible David and Jonathan could express love toward each other, even swear an oath and enter into a covenant, without being homosexuals? Well, let’s begin by looking at the issue of the love they felt for each other. The David’s love for Jonathan is displayed in the Biblical text the very first time that Jonathan meets David (immediately following David’s defeat of Goliath and as he is presented to King Saul)

1 Samuel 18:1-3
Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. And Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.

Jonathan also makes a covenant with David:

1 Samuel 20:16-17
So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “May the LORD require it at the hands of David’s enemies.” And Jonathan made David vow again because of his love for him, because he loved him as he loved his own life.

And later, when Jonathan is killed, David laments his loss with these words:

2 Samuel 1:25-26
“How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan is slain on your high places. I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women.”

Two Hebrew words are used here to describe the emotion of love in these passages. The first is ‘ahab (aw-hab’) or ‘aheb (aw-habe’), and it can definitely be used to describe a sexual relationship between a man and a wife. The second word is ‘ahabah (a-hab-aw), and this two can be used to describe a similar marital love. But in the 247 times these words are used to describe love in the Old Testament, far less than 20% of the time are they actually used to describe the love between two sexual partners. Far more often, (over 4 to 1) the words are used to describe the love between friends or between God and his creation. Here are just a few examples:

*Series of Verses*

In these passages, it is obvious that the word used for love is not meant to connote a sexual relationship. Now it is clear with David and Jonathan there is no Biblical account of a sexual relationship. That is interesting in itself. If they were homosexual lovers, why is there no open description of this fact? Some (as we’ve seen above) would argue the social pressures forced the writer to hide the truth. But there are open discussions of homosexual activity in other places in the Bible, why not here? Part of the problem is in those other areas of the Bible where homosexual behavior is openly discusses, it is always in a negative sense (as something we shouldn’t do). If Samuel is cleverly hiding the homosexual behavior between David and Jonathan here, he is doing so as a prophet of God, knowing full well such behavior is offensive to God! Does that seems consistent with the canon of Old Testament scripture?

So how is it then, that David and Jonathan’s love was deeper than that of a man and woman? Well, these two men were certainly connected as brothers. In fact, they were brothers-in-arms during war. If any of you ever had the chance to talk to two friends who fought side by side in World War 2 (just watch “Band of Brothers”) you know the love between men in a situation like that is deeper in some ways than the love between a man and a woman. Is this not also a possible reading of the text here? And is this reading not more compatible with the other clear teaching of the Bible and the historic accepted traditional understanding to the relationship between David and Jonathan?"

So Why Did They Kiss?

"In this passage, Jonathan is sending David away because he knows his father (King Saul) is trying to kill David. Jonathan knows he may never see his dear friend again. So he kisses David. The Hebrew word used for this kiss is nashaq (naw-shak’) and it is used 35 times in the Old Testament. I in only 4 of these uses is the word used to describe a sexual or romantic kiss. Over and over again, the word is used to describe the cultural greeting of the time:

*Number of verses*

The kiss between David and Jonathan, when seen accurately in the majority context and used of the Hebrew word, does nothing to advance the notion they were homosexuals. Even today, we see men in the middles east continue to greet and interact with each other, utilizing a kiss to express their friendship or commitment to one another without a homosexual relationship."

So Why Did He Take His Clothes Off?

Another claim on the part of revisionists is Jonathan disrobed in front of David in some sort of sexual way or as some sort of sexual display or commitment:

*Series of quotes*

Reading from the context of the culture, 1 Samuel 18:3-5 actually describes a covenant of brotherhood between Jonathan and David, as Jonathan pays high tribute to the man who just killed Goliath and had earned the right to wear the armor. This hardly proves the two men were homosexual lovers.

But Does It Look Like a Marriage?

Those who interpret David and Jonathan’s relationship in a homoerotic sense also point to scripture to make the case Jonathan and David considered themselves to be married in some way. Look at this passage describing Saul’s reaction when he discovered that Jonathan was ultimately siding with David

1 Samuel 20:30-31
Then Saul’s anger burned against Jonathan and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? “For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Therefore now, send and bring him to me, for he must surely die.”

Advocates of a homosexual reading of this passage will sometimes point to the description of “nakedness” in this verse and claim it is referring to a sexual relationship. The inference here is that the context implies that Jonathan somehow chose David sexually (as a homosexual partner). This interpretation then goes on to claim Saul is upset because Jonathan could not be established as king unless and until he had a female partner with which to bear children who could become heirs to the throne.

But who is described as naked? It’s Jonathan’s mother! There is nothing in the passage describing a sexual relationship between the two men. In fact, this passage says nothing about any type of marriage. Saul is upset about one thing: Jonathan took David’s side against Saul. Jonathan and David were sworn to each other as brothers, and Saul was simply mad Jonathan would treat David more like family than his own father."

So Why Does He Say David Is A Son-In-Law Twice?

But there is another passage of Scripture sometimes used to make the case for a homosexual union between Jonathan and David. It is a curious passage seeming to indicate David had two opportunities to become Saul’s son-in-law. Let’s begin with a peak at the passage in question, presented in a partial way, as it is often presented by homosexual advocates:

1 Samuel 18:17,21
Then Saul said to David, “Here is my older daughter Merab; I will give her to you as a wife, only be a valiant man for me and fight the Lord’s battles.”— And Saul thought, “I will give her to him that she may become a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” Therefore Saul said to David, “For a second time you may be my son-in-law today.”

Those who hope to interpret a homosexual relationship here maintain Saul has offered David a second opportunity to be his son-in-law because the first opportunity for David was realized through Jonathan! They argue David’s union with Jonathan makes him Saul’s son-in-law, even before David’s marriage to Merab, Saul’s daughter. But before we can truly assess what would make David Saul’s son-in-law in the first place, we had better look at the issue of ‘betrothal’ in the ancient world. In Biblical times, the moment a woman was ‘betrothed’ to a man (pledged or promised to be married to him), she was considered married to him, even though she was not yet formally united to the man in a ceremony. For this reason, a woman who was betrothed to someone and slept with another man was considered to be an adulteress. That’s right, you could commit adultery even before you were officially married. If a woman wanted to break a betrothal, something similar to a divorce would have to occur.

Once we understand this historic truth, many other passages of scripture start to make sense. Take a look at this passage from Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

Clearly in this law written for Israel, an engaged girl is described as a wife, even before she is officially married. In addition to this, we are all familiar with this part of the nativity story:

Matthew 1:19-20
Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”

Joseph thinks about divorcing Mary for what he thinks she has done. How can he do this when they aren’t even married yet? Because, (once again) this engaged woman was considered married to her betrothed, even before the official ceremony. OK, now let’s take a look at the situation with David and Merab one more time. As it turns out, David had already been betrothed to Merab; this occurred the moment he defeated Goliath:

1 Samuel 18:17-21
Then Saul said to David, “Here is my older daughter Merab; I will give her to you as a wife, only be a valiant man for me and fight the Lord’s battles.” For Saul thought, “My hand shall not be against him, but let the hand of the Philistines be against him.” But David said to Saul, “Who am I, and what is my life or my father’s family in Israel, that I should be the king’s son-in-law?” So it came about at the time when Merab, Saul’s daughter, should have been given to David, that she was given to Adriel the Meholathite for a wife. Now Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved David. When they told Saul, the thing was agreeable to him. And Saul thought, “I will give her to him that she may become a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” Therefore Saul said to David, “For a second time you may be my son-in-law today.”

This is the key to the comment that Saul makes in verse 21. Although Saul had already betrothed his daughter to David as a result of his killing of Goliath, Saul conveniently ignored this betrothal when he instead promised Merab to Adriel the Meholathite. Look at what traditional commentaries have to say about this:

*Quote here*

Now Saul’s comment in verse 21 makes sense. Saul had betrothed Merab to David twice. Once when he defeated Goliath and once here in the passages that precede verse 21.

So Were They Homosexuals?
In order to believe David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers, you are going to have to ignore the plain reading of the scripture and the historic and traditional understanding of the text. In addition, you are going to have to believe Samuel, one of God’s prophets in the tradition of the Mosiac cultural law that condemns homosexuality in Leviticus, would then approve of this homosexual relationship enough to carefully cloak it in the text. Would not this prophet of God, in the strong tradition of Judaism and the law of Moses have an opinion on this?

Hopefully this very brief review of the texts under consideration will help you to understand the orthodox Christian perspective of David and Jonathan’s relationship. David and Jonathan were the deepest of friends. True brothers in both Cause and Faith. But they were nothing more.