Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There is not 100% consensus that disease and illness is caused by living creatures so small they cannot be seen with the human eye.Except that there is no consensus of scientific proof for homosexual genetics.
The point is you could not claim this honestlyI could easily claim that. And then we're at war with nothing but claims in our arsenal. You really want to go there?
So you dont care what you are presenting as legitimately published scientific studies are in fact legitimately published scientific studiesI 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?
The first and third facts are there because they serve as context in my original post about genetics.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.
No, it's not on me. The original point of this thread is to determine how we can best reach homosexuals, and this has nothing to do with that. It's off topic. It's on you to show why any of your cited lists are relevant to that topic and why your cited lists accurately describe what you say they do.The first and third facts are there because they serve as context in my original post about genetics.
A study published in 2008 isnt new?
Again if you wish to claim that homosexuality is not inborn then it is on you to provide legitimately published scientific studies (I know you dont care about such things but everyone else does) showing the origin of homosexuality to be something other than inborn.
No, because that's not the topic of this thread.The point is you could not claim this honestly
So you dont care what you are presenting as legitimately published scientific studies are in fact legitimately published scientific studies
I didnt bring up the topic. It started in post # 10 to which I responded to false statements that were made.No, it's not on me. The original point of this thread is to determine how we can best reach homosexuals, and this has nothing to do with that. It's off topic. It's on you to show why any of your cited lists are relevant to that topic and why your cited lists accurately describe what you say they do.
It is interesting that you demand verification for facts you dont like but do not feel any responsibility for supporting your own claims with legitimately published scientific informationNo, because that's not the topic of this thread.
I didnt bring up the topic. It started in post # 10 to which I responded to false statements that were made.
You have happily participated in this side branch of the topic but now that you seemed ot have reached a point where you cannot respond you wish to stop talking about how sexual orientation is inborn and somehow push some onus of blame onto me for derailing a topic I did not.
It becomes relevant as the origin of sexual orientation is not a choice but something inborn. In which case one has to question the purpose and goals of outreach
Why should I provide information when you have not?It is interesting that you demand verification for facts you dont like but do not feel any responsibility for supporting your own claims with legitimately published scientific information
I think examining the motives and goals of outreach to be of great importance. Nothing exists in complete isolation.This thread is about how to reach out to them, not whether or not we should. Either keep to that issue, or please go discuss it in another thread.
Sorry but documentation has been provided.Why should I provide information when you have not?
Sounds like you are saying you cannot support your assertions but you dont want to admit that so you are trying to redirect and get out of supporting your claim.No, it's not on me. The original point of this thread is to determine how we can best reach homosexuals, and this has nothing to do with that. It's off topic. It's on you to show why any of your cited lists are relevant to that topic and why your cited lists accurately describe what you say they do.
No, because that's not the topic of this thread.
The question of should this be done should be examined. If you are so concerned about such an examination why dont you start a new thread on just that subject?This thread is about how to reach out to them, not whether or not we should. Either keep to that issue, or please go discuss it in another thread.
Your dislike of the information does not mean such information was not providedWhy should I provide information when you have not?
Because it's not the topic of the thread.I think examining the motives and goals of outreach to be of great importance. Nothing exists in complete isolation.
I have to wonder why you dont want such motivations discussed
I have documented my claims, and the only documentation they provided is a list.Sorry but documentation has been provided.
If you are unwilling to document your claims you should not demand that others document their claims
Walking in on a discussion and then pretending to know what's going on isn't usually smiled upon. Stick to the issue, please.Sounds like you are saying you cannot support your assertions but you dont want to admit that so you are trying to redirect and get out of supporting your claim.
I'm saying it's not the topic of the thread. You realize I'm the OP, right?The question of should this be done should be examined. If you are so concerned about such an examination why dont you start a new thread on just that subject?
It has nothing to do with me disliking a big list, it has to do with you ignoring other data and simply dismissing it with said list, not to mention that the topic involving said lists are off topic.Your dislike of the information does not mean such information was not provided
Who decides that? Who decides whether they are correct or legitimate. With studies by people of the same qualifications that are contrary to each other, who decides?So you don’t care what you are presenting as legitimately published scientific studies are in fact legitimately published scientific studies…
After pages of going on about this topic why have you suddenly decided no one should be talking about this? You were invited to start this specific topic in a new thread. Did I not see this new thread?Because it's not the topic of the thread.
If memory serves you claimed to be presenting a real scientific study that turned out to be a research paper topic proposal from an community college in Ohio.I have documented my claims, and the only documentation they provided is a list.
Well… if one comes from a known and respected scientific journal that is staffed and edited by experts in the field, and the other is a vanity press publication (for example) or put out on the web disguised as a factual paper by someone who has a long history of presenting false information (again for example) then I think it is obvious which should be considered legitimate.To BigBadWlf,
Who decides that? Who decides whether they are correct or legitimate. With studies by people of the same qualifications that are contrary to each other, who decides?
Didn’t someone point out that there is not complete consensus that illness are caused by bacteria and viruses?The point is there is no consensus of scientific agreement that there is any proof of homosexuality being inborn
But it has been asked that evidence that homosexuality is from some other non-inborn reason be provided. So why hasn’t any been provided?so you have no more right to claim it and demand others prove it, than we have to ask the same question of you.
Being gay isn’t a diseaseAs there have been many genes identified which cause disease,
Why would anyone expect such a thing.one might have expected a sexual attraction gene to have been discovered by now, that it hasnt isnt a good indication that its inborn.
I know many homosexuals and bisexuals who have been renewed and are still happy to be homosexuals and bisexualsBut the thread is about how Christians outreach to homosexuals. The gospel changes hearts and minds so once someone has accpeted Jesus Christ as Lord they can have their hearts and minds renewed.
why?My view is it is very difficult now to get the gospel across whilst the issue is so prominent.
That God loves them just the way they areLove homosexuals and pray for them that their eyes will be opened to the truth.
And I don't care to discuss it! It's that simple! Am I not allowed to change my mind on something?After pages of going on about this topic why have you suddenly decided no one should be talking about this? You were invited to start this specific topic in a new thread. Did I not see this new thread?
Then you need to go back and read it again, because that was one of the sources I gave out of 3, and 'they' simply dismissed the rest.If memory serves you claimed to be presenting a real scientific study that turned out to be a research paper topic proposal from an community college in Ohio.
And when confronted about it you announced that you didnt care if what you present is actually what you represent it to be
Why should I do homework to back their claims for them? For anyone?they provided names of real studies and their authors and when they were published. More than enough information to look up any of the studies.
I'm not attacking you. I'm telling you that walking into a discussion between two people is just as rude as walking into one in real life. Take that information and do with it what you will.I may be new here but I have to believe that the flaming you are engaging in is frowned upon
Then stop discussing it. But do not curtail the conversation of others just because the evidence and the discussion went places you did not want it toAnd I don't care to discuss it! It's that simple! Am I not allowed to change my mind on something?
You mean the one published by a right wing Christian publisher?Then you need to go back and read it again, because that was one of the sources I gave out of 3, and 'they' simply dismissed the rest.
That is called referencing. One is not expected to provide total copies of evidentiary studies, just sufficient information that those interested can find the study for themselves.Why should I do homework to back their claims for them? For anyone?
I'm not attacking you. I'm telling you that walking into a discussion between two people is just as rude as walking into one in real life. Take that information and do with it what you will.
I started this thread with a specific purpose in mind. Whether or not homosexuality is inborn has nothing to do with that purpose. Do not derail my thread.Then stop discussing it. But do not curtail the conversation of others just because the evidence and the discussion went places you did not want it to
I did not start this thread to debate the semantics of sources.You mean the one published by a right wing Christian publisher?
That is called referencing. One is not expected to provide total copies of evidentiary studies, just sufficient information that those interested can find the study for themselves.
I didn't say he has no idea what's going on, and I didn't accuse him of being dishonest. Do not misrepresent what I post.You stated that the Major just walked in on a discussion and has no idea what is going on in the discussion and that he was dishonest enough to pretend to have information pertinent to a public conversation. If that isnt a personal attack what is?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?