Question for Christians

John832 said:

It was implied in the purpose of the study. If a person can choose to change their orientation through reparative therapy than the condition must, at least in part, contain choice.

Click to expand...

At no time did Spitzer make any such claim. Further the evidence he gathered indicates that sexual orientation is not a choice in that despite the claims of organizations that promote the possibility of change there does not exist any significant number of individuals where it can be shown an actual change in sexual orientation took place.

I wouldn't disagree that it is a poor study for the defense but that wasn't rather my point. You seem to deny any research even exists that you don't deem reputable.

Click to expand...

Two questions:



First: why should I or anyone for that matter accept the claims of unrepeatable studies?



Second: where are the reputable studies showing that sexual orientation is a choice?

I would think you would gladly acknowledge that studies are done and are either not supportive of your position or unethically carried out.

Click to expand...

And if someone were to present a reputable study (reputable meaning peer reviewed and published in a legitimate social science publication) that showed, suggested or implied that sexual orientation was the result of a choice, the result of family structure, the result of one’s relationship with either parent, the result of childhood sexual trauma or any other psychological, sociological or familial factor I would be more than happy to do so. however no one has offered any such study.

Doesn't make much difference to me since, as I pointed out previously, I do believe there is a biological component (although this does not preclude a social component).

Click to expand...

then please provide supporting evidnece for this social component.

then please provide supporting evidnece for this social component.

Click to expand...

hey let's not let evidence get in the way of baseless opinions

he says sarcastically

Volos said:

Two questions:
First: why should I or anyone for that matter accept the claims of unrepeatable studies?

Second: where are the reputable studies showing that sexual orientation is a choice?

Click to expand...

First: I never asked you to accept the claims of unrepeatable studies. You inferred that is what I was asking you by my simple rely of a study in existence. The very fact that there is a discussion of a Spitzer study proves its existence which is what you were saying didn't exist.

Second: I am not claiming that there are any.

I think I understand how this works now. Rather than ask you to support the basis of your claim, in the future, I must accept your assertions (including the non-existence of studies that do exist) without question. If you will notice, I never made a claim with which to support. You, on the other hand, did.

And if someone were to present a reputable study (reputable meaning peer reviewed and published in a legitimate social science publication) that showed, suggested or implied that sexual orientation was the result of a choice, the result of family structure, the result of one’s relationship with either parent, the result of childhood sexual trauma or any other psychological, sociological or familial factor I would be more than happy to do so. however no one has offered any such study.

Click to expand...

My suggestion was that you acknowledge the existence of poor studies in the aid of defending your point (rather than deny that any exist). I never asked or implied that you should accept a non-repeatable study or non reputable study. Feel free to dismiss my suggestion as you clearly think it doesn't warrant your time.

You assume I was offereing the study in contest to your postion (which I wasn't)... I was offering you what you asked for. You didn't ask for a repeated, reputable study. You said no study is in existence and this one study is quite well known by those who support the choice only position (which I do not).

then please provide supporting evidnece for this social component.

Click to expand...

I never claimed to have any (nor did I claim that a social component must exist). My statement was that just because there is a biological component does not preclude the possiblity that there is a social component (which is quite precisely what you are trying to suggest). Can you prove that no social component can or does exist?

I believe there is a biological component to alcoholism but I also believe that a person will respond differently to the biological component based on their socialization.

I was simply browsing this thread and really don't have an opposing position to defend. If I happen across some supporting evidence for the social component I will certainly chime back in. In the meantime, if you can't accept that biological components do not have to be at odds with social components (it is not an either or) feel free to dismiss. I have no doubt you will.

robot23 said:

hey let's not let evidence get in the way of baseless opinions

he says sarcastically

Click to expand...

What was the baseless opinon I suggested that needs evidence to support? One must make a claim to have something to support (which I did not). By inference, I have to assume you can prove that biological evidence does preclude any possiblity of a social component.

Perhaps this is possible, I am hardly an expert on this topic. I have yet to personally see such a proof (although I will not categorically claim that no such study can be in existence).

630111 said:

No one is born gay. Many studies have been done, but there is no proof that it is anything but a behavior. Research it yourself.

Click to expand...

I have done, my degree is in Chriminology and Sociology but Psychology is a related field and I have done several years of it. Now its a few years since I did much with attraction studies, but your claim that there is no proof that homosexuality is anything but a behaviour is very misleading. Let me explain why; Psychology, like all social sciences deals in evidence and not in proof. Actually the natural sciences work that way as well - there is a saying in the scientific community “Proof is for maths, the rest of us deal in evidence”.

Now, the evidence is not conclusive, I grant you, in fact the topic is still debated. However, there is certainly a very strong argument that attraction is more nature than nurture oriented, and despite what you claim there is a lot of evidence to support said argument.

Interestingly, evidence to support the “sexuality is nature” side of the debate has also been provided by geneticists and biologists and their studies with fruit flies. They have determined that a proportion of fruit flies are homosexual from birth. Other biology studies show that homosexuality occurs in all animal phyla, I only mentioned the fruit flies one as a specific since Dr. Asher, who is doing a study on exactly that using fruit flies at a local university an acquaintance of mine, so her work sticks out in my mind.

Ghost

630111 said:

You meant that to be funny, right?


Find any study that says that homosexuality is genetic and you will find that it has either been refuted or remains a theory or hypothesis. Your examples below are good examples of the last two.


Did you actually read these before you posted them?

Click to expand...

I read the abstracts. It lists choice of homosexuality as being a theory. No less, no more. I thought I'd just cite a few studies for everyone to look into before discrediting the contrary viewpoint.

There are no studies proving that it is a choice. There are no studies proving that it isn't. Both are theories.

We can debate nature vs. nurture until the end of time...in the end we'll probably discover that it's a little bit of both.

I'm curious what psychological effects being Christian has on a homosexual...I'll look up some studies and post the info I get.

John832 said:

First: I never asked you to accept the claims of unrepeatable studies. You inferred that is what I was asking you by my simple rely of a study in existence. The very fact that there is a discussion of a Spitzer study proves its existence which is what you were saying didn't exist.

Click to expand...

Then why are you complaining about the fact that I “seem to deny any research even exists that you don't deem reputable”?

I think I understand how this works now. Rather than ask you to support the basis of your claim, in the future, I must accept your assertions (including the non-existence of studies that do exist) without question. If you will notice, I never made a claim with which to support. You, on the other hand, did.

Click to expand...

when all else fails...make a personal attack

There are also “studies” which provide evidence for such things as a flat world, the existence of curses as the cause of disease and a world wide flood as an explanation of the fossil record being ordered they way they are(apparently dinosaurs are in lower layers because they are more streamlined and as such sunk faster.) because bad studies exist showing these things should thinking people everywhere accept the existence of the strange things they claim?



If you wish to play that game I am more than willing to go along:

In post number 60 you made the following claims:

“It was implied in the purpose of the study.” Referring to the Spitzer study and your assertion that Spitzer supports the claim that sexual orientation is a choice. Your assertion is unsupported



“If a person can choose to change their orientation through reparative therapy than the condition must, at least in part, contain choice.” Your claim is unsupported first in the lack of evidence of anyone changing even in the Spitzer study and second in the assertion that this in any way shows sexual orientation is in some forma a choice.

My suggestion was that you acknowledge the existence of poor studies in the aid of defending your point (rather than deny that any exist). I never asked or implied that you should accept a non-repeatable study or non reputable study. Feel free to dismiss my suggestion as you clearly think it doesn't warrant your time.

Click to expand...

Again one must ask why I or any other thinking person must accept the validity of poorly designed studies?



Does real evidence exist showing that sexual orientation is a choice? No. Pretending bad and falsified studies are evidence does not make them evidence.

I never claimed to have any (nor did I claim that a social component must exist). My statement was that just because there is a biological component does not preclude the possiblity that there is a social component (which is quite precisely what you are trying to suggest). Can you prove that no social component can or does exist?

Click to expand...

Neither can I show evidence that invisible unicorns reside on the planet Pluto. This inability to prove a negative does not mean that I or anyone else should believe that they do exist. One might note that after more than a century of making claims about the social causes of sexual orientation to date not one legitimate study linking homosexuality to any familial, social or interpersonal factor exists.

I believe there is a biological component to alcoholism but I also believe that a person will respond differently to the biological component based on their socialization.

Click to expand...

Homosexuality is not comparable to alcoholism for a variety of reasons. One may be homosexual without ever having sex, yet one cannot be an alcoholic without first consuming alcohol. Further there does exist a genetic predisposition to alcoholism (actually the genetic component is in the receptors of the pleasure centers of the brain) but one need not have these genetic traits to be an alcoholic and one may have this genetic predisposition, may consume alcohol and yet still not be an alcoholic.

I was simply browsing this thread and really don't have an opposing position to defend. If I happen across some supporting evidence for the social component I will certainly chime back in. In the meantime, if you can't accept that biological components do not have to be at odds with social components (it is not an either or) feel free to dismiss. I have no doubt you will.

Click to expand...

Thank you for this second personal attack.

If someone would present a legitimate study linking sexual orientation to any social, psychological or familial then I would certainly accept such evidence. However no one has.

Looks like I have a lot of reading to do. Here is a list of articles for anyone that wants to read along.

• Jones, S. L., & Yarhouse, M. A. (2000). Homosexuality: The use of scientific research in the church's moral debate. Downers Grove, IL, US: InterVarsity Press. Retrieved December 30, 2004, from PsycINFO (1840-Current) database.

• Jones, S. L., & Yarhouse, M. A. (2000). The use, misuse, and abuse of science in the ecclesiastical homosexuality debates. In D. L. (. Balch (Ed.), Homosexuality, science, and the "plain sense" of scripture; homosexuality, science, and the "plain sense" of scripture. (pp. 73-120). Grand Rapids, MI, US: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Retrieved December 30, 2004, from PsycINFO (1840-Current) database.

• Laythe, B., Finkel, D., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2001). Predicting prejudice from religious fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism: A multiple-regression approach. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40(1), 1-10. Retrieved December 30, 2004, from PsycINFO (1840-Current) database.

• Lundblad, R. T. (2002). Social, religious, and personal contributors to prejudice. (Doctoral dissertation, //www.il.proquest.com/umi/]). Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 63 (1), 589. (UMI Dissertation Order Number AAI3039000; Print) Retrieved December 30, 2004, from PsycINFO (1840-Current) database.

• Morrow, D. F. (2003). Cast into the wilderness: The impact of institutionalized religion on lesbians. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7(4), 109-123. Retrieved December 30, 2004, from PsycINFO (1840-Current) database.

• Plugge-Foust, C., & Strickland, G. (2000). Homophobia, irrationality, and christian ideology: Does a relationship exist? Journal of Sex Education & Therapy, 25(4), 240-244. Retrieved December 30, 2004, from PsycINFO (1840-Current) database.

• Sperry, L. T. (2004). The use and misuse of science and psychology in the moral debates about homosexuality. PsycCRITIQUES, Retrieved December 30, 2004, from PsycINFO (1840-Current) database.

• Van Loon, M. (2004). The impact of fundamentalist christian teaching on gay men. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 64(11), 5806. Retrieved December 30, 2004, from PsycINFO (1840-Current) database.

• Wood, M. E. (2000). How we got this way: The sciences of homosexuality and the christian right. Journal of homosexuality, 38(3), 19-40. Retrieved December 30, 2004, from PsycINFO (1840-Current) database.

Alright everybody, last post of massive citations... for now.

These are all articles related to the Spitzer thinger -- commentary and such. If you would like a pdf of the full original article by Spitzer, PM me a request. I can also retrieve pdf copies of all articles I cited in bold text.

Volos said:

You of course realize that less than 0.00001% of all termites reproduce. I guess that means that termites, ants, bees and many other creatures are being sorted out evolution wise.





PS. You might want to actually learn about evolution before making claims like this.

Click to expand...

This is like comparing broccoli to apples.

Black=me, red=website

There exists a caste system in the termite colonies. There are nymphs, mature workers, soldiers, winged reproductive adults and they are classified as subterranean. The colonies are ruled by a king and queen (the reproductive). These communities of termites can become very large and contain some members that are not able to reproduce. These termites have reproductive organs but they are sterile as their organs are not fully developed. [are homosexuals sterile? No! Homosexuals simply deny their species method of reproduction, do you know any animal who refuses to reproduce? If homosexuals were born sterile, this would be totally different, infact, they would no longer be homosexuals because they would have no sexual desires] These insects will provide the food, build and repair nests and care for the young among various other duties.

The kings and queens are the only sexually mature and active members of the community. The queen is in the only one usually that is fertile.

Emphasis mine
Source: http://dede.essortment.com/termitequeenki_rnpu.htm

Another analogy. If 10% of all termites were born queens, would you not consider that odd?



.

robot23 said:

are you an expert on what is natural and what is not?

Click to expand...

Are you?

not all people reproduce

Click to expand...

Yes, they are eunuchs. They are non-sexual. And they are an even smaller minority of the genetic population than homosexuals.

so do they suck off sexually reproducing organisms?

Click to expand...

They do not suck because they do not have the ability to reproduce. Homosexuals suck because they can reproduce, but refuse to. Similar to lazy people who can work put choose welfare instead.

what exactly are they sucking off?

Click to expand...

The human species?

and if it is genetic, evolution will sort it out how?

Click to expand...

Survival of the fittest.

your statement not make any sense and you seem to have a limited scope of what genetics, evolution, and sexuality is

Click to expand...

I "seem" to have? How could you know what I know about any three of those things through two short posts on a forum?



.

This whole issue boils down to whether gay marriage is ok or not, cause there should be no sexual fornication or permiscuity between couples. This goes for hetero and homosexuals.

The purpose for marriage is to/for
1. Worship God
2. For it to be an outlet for sexual temptation (1 corinithians 7:1),
3. Reproduce aka multiple the earth with christian believers.

The first two are still debatable, but the third is not.

With this said, and with it better for a man not to marry, according to 1 cor 7:1, it would make sense to me that gays just remain chaste and unmarried.

Antoninus Verus said:

Why do many Christians believe that being gay or lesbian is a CHOICE, and that they can just choose not to be if they wanted to?

Click to expand...

Honestly, sometimes I feel as if it must be that they're so perfect in their own sinlessness that they have nothing to do all day but worry about the sins of others.

That aside, the real answer is, they don't. Most Christians find the question of whether it is a choice to have homosexual feelings to be irrelevant. The point for them is that all /behavior/ is a choice, regardless of whether we were born with the impulse to it. Christians believe we were all born with loads of impulses we shouldn't act upon. This is the thinking behind the concept of sin itself, and only very radical Christian churches think homosexual behavior is somehow a worse, or even fundamentally different, sin from adultery. Many do seem to think it is a much more dangerous one, but perhaps that is because there are very few movements towards the social acceptance of adultery, or because homosexuality is more alien to them, outside of their ability to imagine in themselves.

We don't choose to have emotions, but we do choose how we act upon on them in the world, based on what we believe is appropriate. We don't choose to be hungry, but we do control what, how and when we eat: this is true regardless of one's opinion on where we should go to lunch.

Those who believe homosexuality is not wrong aren't generally under the impression that human beings can't control their sexual impulses. They just think people have the right to decide which ones to enact as long as all parties involved are consenting. Likewise, those who think it is a sin generally realize that gay people can't help having their feelings in the first place, and just disagree that it is morally correct to enact them.

Subordinationist said:

not all people reproduce....Yes, they are eunuchs. They are non-sexual. And they are an even smaller minority of the genetic population than homosexuals.

Click to expand...

There are millions of sexually active men and women who are infertile, and I'm sure most of them would be offended - amused, at best - at your suggestion that they are all non-sexual eunuchs.

bill16652 said:

because all we do is a choice. what about celibate priests or young people saving themselves for marriage.. the devil only tempts he doesnt make you do it. we all make choices.

Click to expand...

You did not make a "choice" to be heterosexual if that is what you are. No one taught you to be attracted to the opposite sex. This is in your genes.

Good point...is heterosexuality a choice? Can it be changed?

Subordinationist said:

do you know any animal who refuses to reproduce?

Click to expand...

The panda

I think there is a definite genetic component. When I was a child, I had no concept of homosexuality. Didn't know any gay people, had never heard of them discussed. No family problems, no abuse in my past. But I can remember kissing other girls when I was very young, which was a bit confusing and embarrassing (to both parties). I didn't understand these impulses and had nothing to call them. Later, I thought guys were attractive too, but to a lesser extent.
So how would homosexuality arise in circumstances where the people involved have no environmental reasons to "turn them gay?"
Also, I agree that if one knows that are sinning and does it anyway, it is difficult to lay claim to Christianity. My problem thus far is that I cannot make myself believe homosexuality is a sin, yet at the same time I'm afraid of choosing to disobey God. It's rather irritating to me.