Woman Claims to be a 'Former Lesbian'

adrian_indy

WARNING, LONG THREAD, BUT GOING AWAY FOR WEEKEND AND HAD LOTS TO SAY

So I finally got around to watching that clip. I personally think that lady was a quack, but I'll try and tackle all of the issues and the ones that are being debated in the thread.

Homosexual lifesytle, preference, orientation....these are basically all fancy words for an urge to have sex and//or romantic relationship with the same sex. It is apparent that because of some peoples strong religious beliefs, that their homosexuality is causing them great internal strife so they are seeking to reconcile their sexuality with their faith through a "transformation". Not to linger on religion, but since the religious believe in miracles, they attribute their change in behaviour as having a supernatural source, but there is a much more common sense answer.

Homosexual urges are just like hetero ones, it's and attraction to a group of people. So, is it possible to supress homosexual tendencies and maintain a straight life style? Sure it is. I don't know if the urge would ever go away, but if you are a guy reading this and are in or have ever been in a long term relationship, you know very well that you have the urge to sleep with other women. Do you? No, because of our societies, much like religions, rules about sexual behavior. As a matter of fact, a lesbian could probably get married to a man and have a normal sex life. Now of course, her husband wouldn't be her ideal sexual partner, but most people reading this will have to admit that they have had sex with at least one person that wasn't their ideal sexual partner as well. As a matter of fact, I have a few in my history that a warthog would kick out of bed. Besides, sexual compatablitiy is only one piece of intimacy in a relationship, and some couples are stronger in some areas than others.

Now, as far homosexuality being a choice vs. genetic. Here on some of my personal theories on the subject. Homophobia is a real problem, just as racism is and was, just like blind nationalism is and was. What often happens is that when a group of people is in some way oppressed/treated unfairly, eventually the complex issue, not matter what it is, will divide the mass majority of opinions into two divded camps, a black and white scenario that is easier for people to wrap their heads around. In this case, we have the view, most often derived from religion, that homosexuality is a sin, therefore a choice. In an attempt to counteract with a progressive stance, the other side jumps up and says that homosexuals were born that way, it's genetic, therefore it's evolution or a god made them that way. I think both stances are both wrong, and I think they are both right in certain cases.

But to understand where these views of homosexual behaviour come from, you have to view the source why homosexuality was considered taboo or a sin in the first place. Homosexuality was not considered wrong or harmful by most large ancient empires of the ancient meditteranean (sp) or middle east. As I have stated in other posts, it was widely accepted in Rome, Greece, Egypt and others. Homosexual behavior didn't become taboo until much later.

I have talked with a couple of friends who are clergy, like my friend who is a chaplain and I have come to these conclusions. The Hebrews, as many others who find homosexual behavior wrong, at the time of the forming of core values of their faith, were either in a constant state of warfare or slavery, perpetrated by large civiilizations like Rome. Romans were very decadent and orgies were common place. These nations/empires had no constitution, and low borns, especially slaves have no rights. When a slave, whether a man or a woman has no rights......neither do their children, which led to an abuse that had no name back then.....pedophila. There was no concept of the modern teenager back then. If you were old enough to have sex and/or breed....you could, with in other age group. So in essence, I think biblical passages about being gay is more about protecting young, low born men from the sexual advances of their slave owners.

Secondly, homosexuality seems to be more taboo in parts of the world where there harsher climates/more need for breeding. Middle Easteners and Norther Europeans lived in two extremes of weather, and it was a reality that more children meant more servivablity due to more farm hands, hunters and warriors. Even if a person had homosexual urges back then, there was no free time or luxury to pursue it due to a harsh life. Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians, on the other hand, lived in fertile climates and had access to mass agriculture which meant many citizens actually had free time, luxury, and less incentive to pump out a dozen children.

All of that being said, and realizing where homophobia might originate, we have to look at the over-simplification that gay is genetic. Yes, we can see that in many cases, homosexuals are born with other tendencies that others do not have. But looking at those ancient empires and including ours, we tend to see that when sexuality is not opressed and people are free to experiment, regardless of race or thenicity, homosexuality becomes a fact of life. While we will never know the exact percentages of homosexuals/ bi-sexuals back then, it was a fact of life. The problem now becomes the inablity of the "it's genetic" crowd to concede any ground on the matter for fear of the other sides immdiate reprisal. The "It's a choice" crowd can never concede either because of the taboo and american macho attitude. Way to scary to the american alpha-male to admit that while surfing porn on the net, he accidently saw two men having sex and had an erectile response.

So now we have two divided camps trying to apply a a score of human sexual behavior of either 0 or 10 and disregarding the numbers 1 through 9 for convience and talking points.

EvanKeel

RE: biblical passages, this is a fairly interesting discussion on it.

http://livelonger.hubpages.com/hub/leviticus-homosexuality

As I believe the author is Jewish, I don't think covers much regarding any NT passages. Mostly what we hear are OT arguments against homosexuality anyway.

Essentially it's really about preventing male prostitution, along with a hinky translation for "abomination".