Author Topic: Gays and psychology  (Read 2960 times)

TeeRaySix9Teen

  • Guest
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #50 on: July 06, 2005, 03:38:39 AM »
most people seem to be gay when there is no dad in the family...


where would u get that from?? That only makes sense if the reason theres no dad...is because theres two moms....

my theory is they look for love in a man (father son love), and confuse it for homo-sexuality...


and the comment you made about prison gays... what about the ones that go in strait, then come out gay ?

fuck that man, if i went to prison i would supress my urges, there is no way i would fuck a man, or let another man fuck me.

1) where do u live man? Im just curious. Only reason is, that single parent households are VERY common in the US, and where i am in Cali. I mean, VERY common. And more so in the innercities. There isnt some overwhelming amount of gay males comin out of the innercities only u know? lol. Gay people come from everywhere. Shit i grew up without a dad like a lotta muhafuckas i know. And i dont know one gay dood. Not one. Well, theres some muthafuckas i suspect...lol but they had two parents! ha. Nah, but i dont see the connection really. Like i said, if that were the case...half of the rappers out there that yall love so much, that rap about havin no pops in the house growin up...would be gay. lol
 

rafsta

  • Guest
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #51 on: July 06, 2005, 09:38:56 AM »
most people seem to be gay when there is no dad in the family...


where would u get that from?? That only makes sense if the reason theres no dad...is because theres two moms....

my theory is they look for love in a man (father son love), and confuse it for homo-sexuality...


and the comment you made about prison gays... what about the ones that go in strait, then come out gay ?

fuck that man, if i went to prison i would supress my urges, there is no way i would fuck a man, or let another man fuck me.

1) where do u live man? Im just curious. Only reason is, that single parent households are VERY common in the US, and where i am in Cali. I mean, VERY common. And more so in the innercities. There isnt some overwhelming amount of gay males comin out of the innercities only u know? lol. Gay people come from everywhere. Shit i grew up without a dad like a lotta muhafuckas i know. And i dont know one gay dood. Not one. Well, theres some muthafuckas i suspect...lol but they had two parents! ha. Nah, but i dont see the connection really. Like i said, if that were the case...half of the rappers out there that yall love so much, that rap about havin no pops in the house growin up...would be gay. lol

i didnt say youre gay if you dont have a dad... i just think some people could get confused if they didnt have a father figure around... the rappers that we all know their father figures were in the streets, the pimps, playas, hustlaz and gangstaz...
 

hempside

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 885
  • Karma: -277
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #52 on: December 22, 2005, 12:52:45 PM »
I got in an argument with some girl the other day about whether homosexuality is psychological or something you're born with. The bitch wanted to defend her brother and was really pressing that it is something that you are born with. I'm for the argument that yes, some people are born homosexual, but the majority of homosexuals arrived at their preference through psychological development. I checked it out further and it seems gay people are really opposed to psychology and insist it is something you are born with. I brought up the example of men in prison who turn submissive or rape. The girl wasn't hearing it though. Are gay people just so ashamed of their own mental development that led them to be homo that they deny it? I'm wondering if there's anyone who's got an intelligent perspective or knows a gay person who agrees with the mental development theory.
Muthafucka you should know!...you gay BAnanas.
heyheyhey smoke weed everyday.
 

hempside

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 885
  • Karma: -277
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #53 on: December 22, 2005, 12:55:59 PM »
No one's born gay if you ask me. It's either by choice, or someone got molested and it affected them and turned them gay. As a matter of fact, I don't think we're born gay or straight.
And you should really know.come on mayne!! you SUK-A-DIC.
heyheyhey smoke weed everyday.
 

J Bananas

  • Guest
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #54 on: December 22, 2005, 01:45:17 PM »
wow... digging up several month old threads to exploit a link between me and homosexuality. if that's not  :camp: it's creepy at very least.
 

[sepehr]

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1750
  • Karma: 151
  • I'm Gully
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #55 on: December 22, 2005, 07:01:48 PM »
That was pretty homo of you chump side
 

Sikotic™

  • Moderator
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28701
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • Karma: 3136
  • PussyCunt
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #56 on: December 22, 2005, 07:16:10 PM »
So you were doing some soul searching and came upon this thread didn't ya, baby? Judging by our rendezvous last week, you already made your decision.

 

Indie Visual

  • Lil Geezy
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
  • Karma: -3
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #57 on: December 23, 2005, 12:16:23 PM »
im always confused about the same thing.  i mean if you are born gay, then wouldnt there be gay animals?  i searched and it says they exist, but i doubt it, i have never seen like two male cats fucking or some shit.  see what im saying, if people could be born gay, and people are mammals, so could animals...i feel that gay people are people that are trying to rebel or some shit.  im not knockin em at all tho thats there lifestyle, just dont say you born with it, say u became it.

There ARE gay animals.

From the Seattle Times--

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002340835_gaycritter19m.html

From National Geographic--

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
 

J Bananas

  • Guest
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #58 on: December 23, 2005, 01:44:51 PM »
^^^
There aren't exclusively gay animals. animals fuck for pleasure reguardless of gender, humans are the only species that have members that choose to only sleep with their kind. which makes me think it's a lifestyle choice and not natural orientation.
 

Sikotic™

  • Moderator
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28701
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • Karma: 3136
  • PussyCunt
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #59 on: December 23, 2005, 02:16:07 PM »
Anyone who says it's natural orientation hasn't studied the human anatomy. The penis is not made to go into the anus, it's just not a natural, healthy habit. Ask any physician.
 

Indie Visual

  • Lil Geezy
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
  • Karma: -3
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #60 on: December 24, 2005, 02:23:23 PM »
^^^
There aren't exclusively gay animals. animals fuck for pleasure reguardless of gender, humans are the only species that have members that choose to only sleep with their kind. which makes me think it's a lifestyle choice and not natural orientation.

Humans DO fuck each other regardless of gender -- think about prison.  It happenes a lot with sex-starved heterosexual people without access to the opposite sex.  That is a lifestyle choice.  Animals and humans fucking exclusively within their own gender their entire lives seems more like a natural orientation.
 

J Bananas

  • Guest
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #61 on: December 24, 2005, 04:46:39 PM »
^^^What I'm saying is that we are all programmed to fuck indiscriminately, it's society that has made us decide between gay or straight. if we were more open, i don't think there would be such a thing as gay or straight, we would jst be like animals. being gay exclusively is a lifestyle choice thta is not natural.
 

eNgIeS

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1830
  • Karma: 5
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #62 on: December 27, 2005, 04:54:06 AM »
Umm some ppl are so immature about homosexuality...what anyone does in there bed room should be no one elses business it doesnt hurt anyone they conscenting adults

I've read somewhere that in gay men they have found that alot of them have female chemicals in there brain, in my believes environment could confuse someone into thinking there gay or not (such as child sex abuse victims) but for the most part its a retardation, its something that just happens to some ppl...i feel sorry for them for all the discrimination they get against em for soemthing they didnt choose, it reminds me almost of racism some of the hate they get from some ppl
 

Cheese

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2183
  • Karma: 755
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #63 on: December 27, 2005, 06:30:20 AM »
Some men got a tendency to act feminem (because of their personality traits) and if the environment supports this behaviour, men can develop homosexuality. Same as for all disorders. And dont hate me for calling it a disorder, cause it's no normal behaviour
 

nibs

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1191
  • Karma: 1
  • aco forever
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #64 on: December 27, 2005, 09:20:04 AM »
honestly, what's the big deal?  both sides of the argument.  the homosexual advocates want gayness to be something predetermined, because that validates it.  anti-gays want to undermine gayness by saying it's a choice, and a poor one at that.

i believe some people are born with a propensity for gayness.  i also believe that some people are born with criminal tendencies, narcissistic tendencies, violent tendencies...etc.  it's up to the nurturing to either mask these traits or foster them.  i don't think you ever lose them, so a person with some sort of gay predisposition could be raised straight, live a straight life for the majority of their life, and then get turned gay by some major life event.  the same trauma can happen to two people (rape/molestation), but only one of them turns gay.  why?  i submit that only one of them had a predisposition towards it, and the other did not.

but again, like violence; like criminality; like deception; these predispositions manifest themselves as behavior.  and society has deemed things like criminality, deception and violence as bad.  so the real argument is simply whether or not society is willing to accept gayness as ok and encourage people to exploring those dispositions; or if society is going to shun gayness and force people to work to control those urges.

personally, i don't care what people do, but i don't want gayness flaunted infront of me.  i prefer not to watch gay television, gay comedy...etc.  if i had children that exhibited homosexual tendencies, i certainly would not encourage them.  people can live their lives however they see fit, but i don't have to condone it.  and noone (other than maybe my kids if i have any) needs me to validate their behavior.

i think one issue is how people view themselves and spirituality.  if you have people that believe in things like karma and reincarnation, the notion that people are already bringing a certain disposition with them into this world is easier to accept.  modern christianity tends to shun that sort of notion, and as a result you have people believing that life starts completely at conception with a clean slate.  well if you are starting with a clean slate you get stuck trying to explain sexuality and have to blame it on a gene or nurturing.  if you believe that people have lived past lives that can subtly influence their current lives, it becomes a little easier to accept the notion that sexuality and criminality and violence are traits that people have inbred within themselves over time, possibly over several lifetimes.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2005, 09:23:46 AM by nibs »
"a four letter word is going out to every single enemy" - kam
 

Now_Im_Not_Banned

  • Guest
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #65 on: December 28, 2005, 01:07:09 PM »
I got in an argument with some girl the other day about whether homosexuality is psychological or something you're born with. The bitch wanted to defend her brother and was really pressing that it is something that you are born with. I'm for the argument that yes, some people are born homosexual, but the majority of homosexuals arrived at their preference through psychological development. I checked it out further and it seems gay people are really opposed to psychology and insist it is something you are born with. I brought up the example of men in prison who turn submissive or rape. The girl wasn't hearing it though. Are gay people just so ashamed of their own mental development that led them to be homo that they deny it? I'm wondering if there's anyone who's got an intelligent perspective or knows a gay person who agrees with the mental development theory.


Honestly, I had the same exact argument with my girl...She seems to buy into the gays version of "we're born with it", while I explained to her that it's the enviroment you're raised in and what you go through growing up that makes you who you are...Imagine being born in ancient Greece where everyone was raised bisexual and it was the normal way of life...If those people weren't exposed to bisexuality from a young age and were brought up believing that being straight was the normal way of life, then best believe 90% of those who were bi and were raised bi would have been straight...Why do you think half the time when you hear of gay people they talk about how they were molested as children?...It triggers something in the brain, I think we're all born the same (eyes, ears, nose, brain, heart, etc.) and whatever our brain is fed is what makes us who we are...Some people will never understand though.
 

nibs

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1191
  • Karma: 1
  • aco forever
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #66 on: December 28, 2005, 01:52:08 PM »
Honestly, I had the same exact argument with my girl...She seems to buy into the gays version of "we're born with it", while I explained to her that it's the enviroment you're raised in and what you go through growing up that makes you who you are...

so are you saying that had your parents and environment raised you gay, possibly a couple guys molesting you or something...you'd have been explaining to your boyfriend how "you were turned gay by the environment" ??? (instead of the current situation).

the bottom line is, are you comfortable saying that it is only by luck and chance that you aren't gay right now?
"a four letter word is going out to every single enemy" - kam
 

Now_Im_Not_Banned

  • Guest
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #67 on: December 28, 2005, 05:41:38 PM »
Yea, if someone is raised by gays and only knows of homosexuality as the only way their whole life, chances are they'd be a homo...It only makes sense, it'd be the only thing they know and in their brain would be considered a normality. To not be gay they'd be rebelling in their mind, which is only done by few...Get it?
 

Indie Visual

  • Lil Geezy
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
  • Karma: -3
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #68 on: December 31, 2005, 03:07:59 PM »
Some men got a tendency to act feminem (because of their personality traits) and if the environment supports this behaviour, men can develop homosexuality. Same as for all disorders. And dont hate me for calling it a disorder, cause it's no normal behaviour

This is where you're wrong.  Homosexuality is not "normal" in modern American or European societies.  It is "normal" in OTHER societies:

FROM WIKIPEDIA:

HOMOSEXUALITY IN AFRICA:
Though frequently denied or ignored by European explorers, homosexual expression in native Africa was widespread and common, and took a variety of forms. Representative examples:  Anthropologists Murray and Roscoe report that women in Lesotho traditionally have engaged in socially sanctioned and celebrated "long term, loving and erotic relationships" named motsoalle.  E. E. Evans-Pritchard reported that male Azande warriors (in the northern Congo) routinely married male youths who functioned as temporary wives. The practice had died out in the early 20th century but was recounted to him by the elders.  An academic paper by Stephen O. Murray examines the history of descriptions of "Homosexuality in traditional Sub-Saharan Africa".

HOMOSEXUALITY IN NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURE:
Sac and Fox nation ceremonial dance to celebrate the two-spirit person. George Catlin (1796-1872); Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DCIn North American Native society, the most common form of same-sex sexuality seems to centre around the figure of the two-spirit individual. Such persons seem to have been recognised by the majority of tribes, each of which had its particular term for the role. Typically the two-spirit individual was recognised early in life, was given a choice by the parents to follow the path, and if the child accepted the role then it was raised in the appropriate manner, learning the customs of the gender it had chosen. Two-spirit individuals were commonly shamans and were revered as having powers beyond those of ordinary shamans. Their sexual life would be with the ordinary tribe members of the opposite gender. Male two-spirit people were prized as wives because of their greater strength and ability to work. See Two-spirit

IN EASTERN ASIA
In Asia same-sex love has been a central feature of everyday life since the dawn of history. Early Western travellers were taken aback by its widespread acceptance and open display.  Homosexual relations in China, known as the pleasures of the bitten peach, the cut sleeve, or the southern custom, have been recorded since approximately 600 BCE. These euphemistic terms were used to describe behaviours, but not identities. The relationships were marked by differences in age and social position. However, the instances of same-sex affection and sexual interactions described in the Hong Lou Meng (Dream of the Red Chamber, or Story of the Stone) seem as familiar to observers in the present as do equivalent stories of romances between heterosexuals during the same period.  Homosexuality in Japan, variously known as shudo or nanshoku, terms influenced by Chinese literature, has been documented for over one thousand years and was an integral part of Buddhist monastic life and the samurai tradition. This same-sex love culture gave rise to strong traditions of painting and literature documenting and celebrating such relationships.  Similarly, in Thailand, Kathoey or ladyboys have been a feature of Thai society for many centuries, and Thai kings had male as well as female lovers. Kathoey are men who dress as women. They are generally accepted by society. The teachings of Buddhism, dominant in Thai society was accepting of a third gender designation.


SOURCE (for more information): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Africa

*And a note to everyone - homosexuality can apply to females, too, ya know.
 

Cheese

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2183
  • Karma: 755
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #69 on: January 01, 2006, 07:59:34 AM »
Some men got a tendency to act feminem (because of their personality traits) and if the environment supports this behaviour, men can develop homosexuality. Same as for all disorders. And dont hate me for calling it a disorder, cause it's no normal behaviour

This is where you're wrong.  Homosexuality is not "normal" in modern American or European societies.  It is "normal" in OTHER societies:

FROM WIKIPEDIA:

HOMOSEXUALITY IN AFRICA:
Though frequently denied or ignored by European explorers, homosexual expression in native Africa was widespread and common, and took a variety of forms. Representative examples:  Anthropologists Murray and Roscoe report that women in Lesotho traditionally have engaged in socially sanctioned and celebrated "long term, loving and erotic relationships" named motsoalle.  E. E. Evans-Pritchard reported that male Azande warriors (in the northern Congo) routinely married male youths who functioned as temporary wives. The practice had died out in the early 20th century but was recounted to him by the elders.  An academic paper by Stephen O. Murray examines the history of descriptions of "Homosexuality in traditional Sub-Saharan Africa".

HOMOSEXUALITY IN NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURE:
Sac and Fox nation ceremonial dance to celebrate the two-spirit person. George Catlin (1796-1872); Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DCIn North American Native society, the most common form of same-sex sexuality seems to centre around the figure of the two-spirit individual. Such persons seem to have been recognised by the majority of tribes, each of which had its particular term for the role. Typically the two-spirit individual was recognised early in life, was given a choice by the parents to follow the path, and if the child accepted the role then it was raised in the appropriate manner, learning the customs of the gender it had chosen. Two-spirit individuals were commonly shamans and were revered as having powers beyond those of ordinary shamans. Their sexual life would be with the ordinary tribe members of the opposite gender. Male two-spirit people were prized as wives because of their greater strength and ability to work. See Two-spirit

IN EASTERN ASIA
In Asia same-sex love has been a central feature of everyday life since the dawn of history. Early Western travellers were taken aback by its widespread acceptance and open display.  Homosexual relations in China, known as the pleasures of the bitten peach, the cut sleeve, or the southern custom, have been recorded since approximately 600 BCE. These euphemistic terms were used to describe behaviours, but not identities. The relationships were marked by differences in age and social position. However, the instances of same-sex affection and sexual interactions described in the Hong Lou Meng (Dream of the Red Chamber, or Story of the Stone) seem as familiar to observers in the present as do equivalent stories of romances between heterosexuals during the same period.  Homosexuality in Japan, variously known as shudo or nanshoku, terms influenced by Chinese literature, has been documented for over one thousand years and was an integral part of Buddhist monastic life and the samurai tradition. This same-sex love culture gave rise to strong traditions of painting and literature documenting and celebrating such relationships.  Similarly, in Thailand, Kathoey or ladyboys have been a feature of Thai society for many centuries, and Thai kings had male as well as female lovers. Kathoey are men who dress as women. They are generally accepted by society. The teachings of Buddhism, dominant in Thai society was accepting of a third gender designation.


SOURCE (for more information): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Africa

*And a note to everyone - homosexuality can apply to females, too, ya know.

I'm talking about "normal" as in "normal in some cultures". I'm talking about normal behaviour as a whole. You ever seen two male animals fuck? Gays won't produce any offspring, that goes against all nature.
 

Indie Visual

  • Lil Geezy
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
  • Karma: -3
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #70 on: January 01, 2006, 12:39:12 PM »
I'm talking about "normal" as in "normal in some cultures". I'm talking about normal behaviour as a whole. You ever seen two male animals fuck? Gays won't produce any offspring, that goes against all nature.

First off, there is no such thing as "normal."  Second, YES gay animals fuck.  Go to National Geographic.com they have multiple articles on the subject.  Also if you watch the Discovery Channel, every now and then they'll find gay animals in the wild.  I remember seeing two female lions trying to have sex on there, and as a 2-year old child who didn't know what homosexuality was, I was well, quite confused lol.  Thirdly, just because gays cannot produce offspring does not make homosexuality unnatural.  Erectile disfunction is natural.  People born with deformities to their genitalia are natural.  Homosexuality is natural.  It could easily be a mutation in evolution, preventing homosexuality from being passed on to children.  IF there is a homosexuality gene, it would be passed on through gays having sex with the opposite sex.  Wouldn't it be funny if the religious "right" of America, in their "converting gays" to straights, was actually helping this "gene" pass on to their children?  Ha!
« Last Edit: January 01, 2006, 04:08:43 PM by Indie Visual »
 

.:Hercy Buggz:.

  • The Soul Brotha
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7239
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Karma: 284
  • Time For Sumthin New
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #71 on: January 04, 2006, 07:15:28 PM »
Being Gay is a Devil thing , read the Bible!
 

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11289
  • Karma: -679
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #72 on: January 04, 2006, 07:32:02 PM »
Being Gay is a Devil thing , read the Bible!

Quote
Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged
Cause I don't care where I belong no more
What we share or not I will ignore
And I won't waste my time fitting in
Cause I don't think contrast is a sin
No, it's not a sin
 

Z the laidback Virus

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1881
  • Karma: 50
  • I'm as laidback as possible without being high
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #73 on: January 05, 2006, 05:10:48 PM »
Being Gay is a Devil thing , read the Bible!

Well, how unfortunate for you the Inquisition no longer exists.

Anyways, homosexuality is in all likelihood a combination of nature and nurture,as various posters have allready stated. And perhaps the nature part isn't merely divided between 'could turn gay' and 'won't turn gay' but offers many gradatations inbetween that dictate how likely you are to turn gay. I assume the flamboyant fags had a greater likelihood of turning gay then the non-flamboyant ones.

I am straight myself but like Trauma, I am not a very macho type of man. I was never a sports fan, I don't like fighting,I'm not aggressive or even very active and I am not a very muscled guy. Yet, one can catch me saying very male things,I only lust for women and I don't understand their way of thinking very much. The way I was raised involved me learning what homosexuality was at a young age and my parents have never condemned gay people and said they would accept me as gay, if I turned out to be one. Nevertheless, my father encouraged me very much to like (and of course,lust for) the female body.

Should I have been raised by a homosexual father that encouraged me to like male bodies however, I might have turned gay.

 

Z knows about ALL your inner conflicts..
 

Indie Visual

  • Lil Geezy
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
  • Karma: -3
Re: Gays and psychology
« Reply #74 on: January 08, 2006, 11:41:37 AM »
Being Gay is a Devil thing , read the Bible!

Actaully, YOU ARE FLAT OUT WRONG.

I'd suggest you read Daniel A. Helminiak's "What The Bible Really Says About Homosexuality."  Here's a very good review from amazon.com of it that provides the basic knowledge of the book:

As Father Helminiak points out, the Bible has no concept of homosexuality, which is a modern concept and word. What one can study is what the Bible says about what we would class as some forms of homosexual behavior. But the biblical authors lacked the concept, and so could not classify anything as homosexual. Therefore, there can be no general condemnation of homosexual behavior (our concept) in the Bible, like it or not. That's the fact.
There are only a few texts in the Bible that clearly refer to homosexual behavior, and a few others, which may do so. However, to mention something, even in the Bible, is not always to condemn it. The contrary assumption is simply the fallacy of special pleading.

Most of the points Dr. Helminiak makes are nothing new to anyone who has seriously looked into the subject.

The Sodom story in Gen. 19:1-29 is really about the abuse of strangers, who according to the mores of the area should be offered food and shelter. It is well known that no text in the Bible interprets the sin of Sodom as homosexual behavior, but a whole host of other things. Helminiak makes the very apt point that it is really those who give a hard time to the strangers and outsiders in our time (which would include homosexuals in great part) are the ones really guilty of the sin of Sodom.

Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are parts of the Holiness Code, a body of (ritual) uncleanness laws. The Holiness Code explicitly tries to keep the Israelites different from the pagans whose practices were considered impure, and probably involves a religious aversion to mixing of kinds (as sewing two kinds of seeds in a field or using to kinds of thread to make a cloth). The term translated as "abomination" in the King James Version is simply a term for uncleanness. Easily provable.

Helminiak makes a good case that the only thing that would have really counted as sexual intercourse for the ancient Hebrews was penile penetration in either vaginal or anal sex. This would explain why the ancient Jews had little concern for lesbianism or many other sexual activities.

In Romans 1:24-27, we find that Paul does not actually say that the sexual activity referred to is wrong, simply that it is a consequence and even punishment for idolatry. Paul was at that point addressing the Jewish Christians in Rome. Helminiak plausibly maintains that Paul maintains there are two sorts of consequences of idolatrous worship. There are impure, socially disapproved activities, as in 1:25-27, and there are other things which really are wrong, as in the listing in 1:28-32.

The sin lists in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and 1 Tim. 1:9-10 may not even refer to homosexuality at all. "Malakos" simply means soft, and in times past was regarded as referring to the self-indulgent or even those who masturbate. "Arsenokoites" occurs in the Bible these two texts only, and no one really knows for sure what it means.

There seem to be some positive accounts of homosexual relationships in the Bible, although the Bible could not categorize them in that way. It seems quite likely that David and Jonathan had a love relationship, as can be gleaned from 1 Sam 18:1-4, 1 Sam. 20:16-17. Saul himself may have had a sexual relationship with David, if an alternate reading of the vowelless Hebrew text in 1 Sam 16:21 is correct. His outburst in 20:30-31 may indicate he is jealous of Jonathan's relationship with David. David's lament for both in 2 Sam. 1:19-27 is very revealing, especially that the love of Jonathan was better than the love of a woman.

There have been more speculative interpretations of the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, and also between Daniel and the chief eunuch in Nebuchadnezzar's court, but the evidence is scant.

However, it is quite likely that Jesus encountered a man in homosexual relationship. The Centurion who pleaded for a cure for his very dear servant in Matt. 8:5-13 and Lk. 7:1-10 may well been in love with him. It was common for a Roman slave owner to use slaves for sexual purposes, and soldiers often took along a male sexual partner. Matthew and Luke do not relate that Jesus reacted to any of this, but simply commended the Centurion's faith and told him his dear youth was healed.

Among the spurious texts, the old King James Version mentions "sodomites," a clear mistranslation, in Dt. 23:17; I Kgs 14:24, 15:12, 22:47; and 2 Kgs 23:7; although the same term in Gen 38:21 clearly means some kind of prostitute. The usual translations are cult prostitute, temple prostitute, or sacred prostitute.

How one evaluates something depends on the standards used. This is a work of popularization, depending in great part of research done by others, and it's a remarkably good one. It introduces one into biblical interpretation, placing a text in its historical context, determining the meaning of the actual words, and shows how such methods of study apply to the biblical texts that mention some sort of homosexual behavior. Dr. Helminiak also briefly summarizes some of the research into changing Christian attitudes toward homosexual behavior over the centuries and provides some references.

Helminiak does not cover all the scholarly interpretations of the texts, but then neither does any other book I am aware of. Sometimes, I prefer other interpretations, but I cannot exclude his. John Boswell and Robin Scroggs are well worth reading, as well. But he raises most of the major questions and provides intelligent answers. Also, it's a very clear read. It fully merits a 5 star rating.