Homosexuality: ethical methods of outreach?

[BigBadWlf]

LeVay, if I'm not mistaken.

And Blockland and Geffen and Bailey and Pillard and Blum and Byne and Parsons and Bearman and Bruckner and Bailey and Dunne and Martin And many many others doing independent twin studies and all coming to the same conclusions

If it was inborn, there would be a direct correlation and the study could be repeated with the same results.

You might want to familiarize yourself with the study of genetics and how genes work

 

[Zebra1552]

Is viewing racial equality as a sin racist?

Depends on the reasoning.

 

[Zebra1552]

And Blockland and Geffen and Bailey and Pillard and Blum and Byne and Parsons and Bearman and Bruckner and Bailey and Dunne and Martin And many many others doing independent twin studies and all coming to the same conclusions

Then cite them.

You might want to familiarize yourself with the study of genetics and how genes work

Do explain.

Oh, and by the way, the reason I and not Jawsmetroid is responding is because I AM Jaws. He's a sock of mine. Or am I a sock of his? Jaws came first... but whatever.

 

[Zebra1552]

There are thousands of legitimately published studies providing evidence that sexual orientation is inborn.

The e are however no studies showing that homosexuality is a choice or the result ofhwo one was raised, or the result of ones relationship with either parent, or childhood sexual trauma, or any other familial factor. If you know of such a legitimately published study then please reference it so we may all read it.

Your exaggeration isn't very impressive unless it's backed by evidence.


I beg to differ.

"Homosexuality: Biologically or Environmentally Constructed." 6 Nov. 2006 <http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Research/HNatureProposalsArticles/Homosexuality.biologicall.html>.
Jones, Stanton L., and Mark A. Yarhouse. Homosexuality: the Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity P, 2000.

Thompson, Chad W. Loving Homosexuals as Jesus Would. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos P, 2004.

 

[chingchang]

There are thousands of legitimately published studies providing evidence that sex
ual orientation is inborn.

Thousands? Really? On this planet?

The are however no studies showing that homosexuality is a choice or the result ofhwo one was raised, or the result of ones relationship with either parent, or childhood sexual trauma, or any other familial factor. If you know of such a legitimately published study then please reference it so we may all read it.

Homosexual behavior IS a choice just as heterosexual behavior is a choice. I think what you are talking about is orientation...not sexual behavior. Otherwise...how would you explain bisexuality? I do agree though...that many people that engage in homosexual behavior have had an attraction to the same sex since they were "old enough to remember"...meaning they were likely born with that orientation.

CC

 

[CShephard53]

Oh, and by the way, the reason I and not Jawsmetroid is responding is because I AM Jaws. He's a sock of mine. Or am I a sock of his? Jaws came first... but whatever.

You'll always be my sock, though with the training this one will be used less.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Do explain.

You do not seem to have a grasp of the basics of genetics. If you want to make claims about genetics you should at least have a basic understanding
\

having a specific gene or set of genes does not mean that said gene(s) are active. For example type 1 diabetes generally has a genetic origin (a faulty gene on chromosome 6 if memory serves) yet in identical twins there is only a 32% correspondence meaning that if one win has type 1 diabetes there is only a 32% chance that the other twin has type1 diabetes too. The various twin studies you are dismissing show a rather consistent 52% correspondence with homosexuality, a very significant correspondence and one of the highest correspondences known among identical twins. The highest correspondence is eye color which has a 98% correspondence.

 

[Zebra1552]

You do not seem to have a grasp of the basics of genetics. If you want to make claims about genetics you should at least have a basic understanding
\

having a specific gene or set of genes does not mean that said gene(s) are active. For example type 1 diabetes generally has a genetic origin (a faulty gene on chromosome 6 if memory serves) yet in identical twins there is only a 32% correspondence meaning that if one win has type 1 diabetes there is only a 32% chance that the other twin has type1 diabetes too. The various twin studies you are dismissing show a rather consistent 52% correspondence with homosexuality, a very significant correspondence and one of the highest correspondences known among identical twins. The highest correspondence is eye color which has a 98% correspondence.

Giving me something you've written doesn't do me any good unless you are an authority on the subject, and even if you were you're biased. That's not evidence, neither is citing a bunch of names. Or giving some list. Giving some list doesn't give me access to the material.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I beg to differ.

"Homosexuality: Biologically or Environmentally Constructed." 6 Nov. 2006 <http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Research/HNatureProposalsArticles/Homosexuality.biologicall.html>.
Jones, Stanton L., and Mark A. Yarhouse. Homosexuality: the Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity P, 2000.

Wow a non-peer reviewed vanity press published essay …who could doubt the factual basis of THAT?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Thousands? Really? On this planet?

Try looking
Studies cover not just twin studies but developmental studies, bone structure, inner ear structures hormonal variations, and variations in brain anatomy among other studies

 

[Zebra1552]

Wow a non-peer reviewed vanity press published essay …who could doubt the factual basis of THAT?

Evidence? I could claim the same for the slew of studies you gave me.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Evidence? I could claim the same for the slew of studies you gave me.

Which of the studies I presented was not published in a recognized scientific journal after passing peer review?

 

[brightmorningstar]

The best way to reach people with the gospel is to first build up personal relationships. Once that is established and one can share the gospel. Once someone has come to belief and faith, the Holy Spirit does the rest.
On the way provided a relationship has been established, questions can be dealt with as they occur, some will agree to differ and some will call us bigots. .. cant be helped
as long as we do it all in love.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Souljaboy,
I agree, I think its total denial to anything and everything with them, two opposing worldviews. I think the deception has spiritually been rampant and the church has been caught out; but thats not really a surprise, most of the Church operates under persecution anyway.
The problem for the church is to make sure it still has the gospel to be able to outreach, there is a counterfit and gay theology that is out to oust and destroy the truth. The biggest disbelief and opposition to the gospel coms from within the church.

 

[Zebra1552]

Which of the studies I presented was not published in a recognized scientific journal after passing peer review?

I'm telling you that the sources I cited are legit, and all you've done is claimed that they are not. I can do that too, and until you provide evidence for your claim, neither one of us is getting anywhere. You also didn't even bother to give anything other than a list of things. No links, no indication of what they might be about, just a list.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I'm telling you that the sources I cited are legit, and all you've done is claimed that they are not. I can do that too, and until you provide evidence for your claim, neither one of us is getting anywhere. You also didn't even bother to give anything other than a list of things. No links, no indication of what they might be about, just a list.

So you are now saying that you cannot claim any of the studies I presented were not published in a recognized scientific journal after passing peer review.

http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Research/HNatureProposalsArticles/Homosexuality.biologicall.html

you do realize this was not a published study at all don’t you?It is a “research topic submitted by Thompson and Devine” for a class, specifically ‘Nature of Human Nature’ course.” At Miami university in Oxford Ohio, a community college.

 

[MajorMonogram]

Giving me something you've written doesn't do me any good unless you are an authority on the subject, and even if you were you're biased. That's not evidence, neither is citing a bunch of names. Or giving some list. Giving some list doesn't give me access to the material.

Again verification of what are pretty well known facts isn’t that tough. Or maybe you just want to throw mud at facts by implying that they are not.

Fact 1: Genetic origin of type I diabetes and twin correspondence
American Diabetes Association
Hyttinen V. (2003)
Todd E. (2007)

Fact 2: Twin studies showing 52% correspondence with homosexuality
Bailey and Pillard (1991)
Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000)
Hershberger, Scott L. (2001)
Bearman, P. S. & Bruckner, H. (2002)
Långström, Niklas (2008)

Fact 3: twin eye color
Laszlo Z. (1997)
Zhu G. (2004)
Posthuma D. (2006)

 

[brightmorningstar]

Except that there is no consensus of scientific proof for homosexual genetics.

 

[Zebra1552]

So you are now saying that you cannot claim any of the studies I presented were not published in a recognized scientific journal after passing peer review.

I could easily claim that. And then we're at war with nothing but claims in our arsenal. You really want to go there?

you do realize this was not a published study at all don’t you?

It is a “research topic submitted by Thompson and Devine” for a class, specifically ‘Nature of Human Nature’ course.” At Miami university in Oxford Ohio, a community college.

I don't really care. You haven't provided any reason for me to buy what you've said about genetics, or why your studies are legit. Why should I?

 

[Zebra1552]

Again verification of what are pretty well known facts isn’t that tough. Or maybe you just want to throw mud at facts by implying that they are not.

Fact 1: Genetic origin of type I diabetes and twin correspondence
American Diabetes Association
Hyttinen V. (2003)
Todd E. (2007)

Fact 2: Twin studies showing 52% correspondence with homosexuality
Bailey and Pillard (1991)
Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000)
Hershberger, Scott L. (2001)
Bearman, P. S. & Bruckner, H. (2002)
Långström, Niklas (2008)

Fact 3: twin eye color
Laszlo Z. (1997)
Zhu G. (2004)
Posthuma D. (2006)

Your first and third 'facts' are irrelevant to homosexuality. Your second 'fact' is backed once again by a list that has no verification. Provide verification, and debunk the criticism those studies have received. They're not exactly new.