The reason for homosexuality

[BigBadWlf]

Sure, just look at the other thread that I posted.

here's the article if you want to look at it straight from this post

this article does NOT present any evidence that scientists have falsified information.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Is this for real? A 55 year old “study,” which OBTW you have never seen, that has been thoroughly trashed by recent research.

What we got here is a failure to communicate. Some men you can't reach, that is they just don't listen when you talk reasonable so you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it, well he gets it, and I don't like it any better than you men.​

Here is proof beyond any doubt or argument, now or ever, that homosexuality, whatever it may or may not be, it is NOT genetic. End of story!

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers​

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual​

22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual​

11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual​

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991​

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html​

Better research, however, was based on twins who were recruited for other reasons, and only subsequently asked about their sexual orientation. These are known as "registry" studies, and they similarly gave a concordance rate between identical twins of less than 50%. There have been two major published registry studies (4,5), one based on the Minnesota Registry, the other on the Australian Registry. The larger of the two registry studies is the Australian one, done by Bailey, Martin and others at the University of Queensland. Using the 14,000+ Australian twin collection, they found that if one twin was homosexual, 38% of the time his identical brother was too. For lesbianism the concordance was 30%. Whether 30% or 50% concordance (snowball samples), all the studies agree it is clearly not 100%.​

The critical factor is that if one identical twin is homosexual, only sometimes is the co-twin homosexual. There is no argument about this in the scientific community.​

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html​

The distribution of sexual orientation among cotwins of the monozygotic probands appeared to be bimodal. In other words, most subjects classified themselves as heterosexual or homosexual, with very few giving evidence of significant bisexuality. This finding is in agreement with other recent studies (e.g. Buhrich et al. 1991).​

According to their data, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities of homosexuality were calculated using these results under a wide range of assumptions of the population base rate and ascertainment bias. Under all conditions considered, heritabilities were substantial (h2 was between .31 and .74 in all cases). However, "the rate of homosexuality among nontwin biological siblings, as reported by probands, 9.2% (13/142), was significantly lower than would be predicted by a simple genetic hypothesis and other published reports."​

http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/studies.html#sotmtsoh​

Bailey-Pillard​

In December of 1991, Michael Bailey of Northwestern University joined Richard Pillard of the Boston University School of Medicine in publishing a study of homosexuality in twins. Their conclusion is that sexual orientation is something one is born with.​

Bailey and Pillard surveyed homosexual men about their brothers, and they found some statistics that were rather unexpected. Of the homosexuals who had identical twin brothers, 52 percent of those twins were also homosexual. 22 percent of those who had fraternal twins said that their twin was gay, and only eleven percent of those who had adopted siblings said that their adopted brothers were also homosexual.​

Bailey and Pillard attributed the differences in these percentages to the difference in the amount of genetic material shared. Since identical twins have the same genetic code, they are far more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins. In the same way, it is obvious that fraternal twins have more in common genetically than do their adopted siblings.​

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homosex1.html​

Can you provide rebuttals to research that his not posted by or supported by known hate groups or political organizations?

Can you provide any research published in peer reviewed journals providing evidence that homosexuality is a choice? Or the result of how one was raised or ANY environmental factor?

 

[david_x]

dare you to come over and annoy my 25 pound Maine Coon cat. Normally, she's docile, friendly and extremely outgoing -- but if you irritate her, you'll see a) emotion and b) quite calculated, non-instinctual behavior. (Hint: don't take your shoes off if you've made her mad.)

It feels thretened it reacts, that is an instinct.

 

[Der Alte]

Can you provide rebuttals to research that his not posted by or supported by known hate groups or political organizations?

This does not make any sense to me. None of the links I quoted/posted are "known hate groups or political organizations." Can you provide research, that proves that homosexuality is in-born, that is not posted by or supported by practicing homosexuals?

Can you provide any research published in peer reviewed journals providing evidence that homosexuality is a choice? Or the result of how one was raised or ANY environmental factor?

That was not my point. I was rebutting a 55 year old "study." I think Bailey and Pillard (1991), qualifies as "research published in peer reviewed journals." They proved beyond any question, now or ever, that homosexuality is NOT genetic. What does that leave? Since monozygotic (MZ), i.e. identical, twins are genetically the same, if homosexuality was genetic, virtually 100% of MZ twins would be homosexual, NOT 52% or less, according to other studies., listed above.

 

[Brieuse]

This does not make any sense to me. None of the links I quoted/posted are "known hate groups or political organizations." Can you provide research, that proves that homosexuality is in-born, that is not posted by or supported by practicing homosexuals?



That was not my point. I was rebutting a 55 year old "study." I think Bailey and Pillard (1991), qualifies as "research published in peer reviewed journals." They proved beyond any question, now or ever, that homosexuality is NOT genetic. What does that leave? Since monozygotic (MZ), i.e. identical, twins are genetically the same, if homosexuality was genetic, virtually 100% of MZ twins would be homosexual, NOT 52% or less, according to other studies., listed above.

I'm pretty sure it's not genetic. I could be wrong of course.
It's most likely hormone influences in the mother's womb.

Ellis and Ames, 1987
Fernande-Guasti , 2000
Phoenix et al 1959
Goy et al 1988
Wilson 1983
Brown et al 2002

 

[Der Alte]

I'm pretty sure it's not genetic. I could be wrong of course.
It's most likely hormone influences in the mother's womb.

Ellis and Ames, 1987
Fernande-Guasti , 2000
Phoenix et al 1959
Goy et al 1988
Wilson 1983
Brown et al 2002

"pretty sure," "I could be wrong," "most likely" Nothing at all like positive evidence.

 

[BigBadWlf]

This does not make any sense to me. None of the links I quoted/posted are "known hate groups or political organizations." Can you provide research, that proves that homosexuality is in-born, that is not posted by or supported by practicing homosexuals?

What do you think NARTH is?

That was not my point. I was rebutting a 55 year old "study." I think Bailey and Pillard (1991), qualifies as "research published in peer reviewed journals." They proved beyond any question, now or ever, that homosexuality is NOT genetic. What does that leave? Since monozygotic (MZ), i.e. identical, twins are genetically the same, if homosexuality was genetic, virtually 100% of MZ twins would be homosexual, NOT 52% or less, according to other studies., listed above.

A genetic study of male sexual orientation by J. M. Bailey and R. C. Pillard concluded: "childhood gender nonconformity does not appear to be an indicator of genetic loading for homosexuality" which is nothing like what you are claiming they say.[/quote]
Worse for your claim both Bailey and Pillard have enegaged in numerous other studies where they find evidence that sexual orientation is in fact in-born

J. M. Bailey, R. C. Pillard Human sexual orientation has a heritable component. Human Biology1998 Apr;70(2):347-65
“Family, twin, and adoptee studies indicate that homosexuality and thus heterosexuality run in families.”


J. M. Bailey, R. C. Pillard et al A Family History Study of Male Sexual Orientation Using Three Independent Samples. J of Behavioral Genetics. V29 number 2, 1999.
“Available evidence suggests that male homosexuality is both familial and somewhat heritable and that some cases may be caused by an X-linked gene. However, most studies have recruited subjects in a relatively unsystematic manner, typically via advertisements, and hence suffer from the potential methodological flaw of ascertainment bias due to volunteer self-selection. In the present study we assessed the familiality of male homosexuality using two carefully ascertained samples and attempted to replicate findings consistent with X-linkage in three samples.”

J. M. Bailey, R. C. Pillard, M. C. Neale and Y. Agyei Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women. Archives of Gen Psychology Vol. 50 No. 3, March 1993
“Heritabilities were significant”



J. M. Bailey, Bell A.P. Familiality of female and male homosexuality Behavioral Genetics V. 23, No. 4, 1993.
“We examined data from a large cohort of homosexual and heterosexual females and males concerning their siblings' sexual orientations. As in previous studies, both male and female homosexuality were familial.


K. M. Kirk , J. M. Bailey, M. P. Dunne and N. G. Martin Measurement Models for Sexual Orientation in a Community Twin Sample. Behavioral Genetics V. 30, NO.4, 2000.
“Analysis… providing stronger evidence for the existence of additive genetic influences on this phenotype than in a previous analysis (Bailey et al., 2000).”

 

[david_x]

This would all be great news, were it true. Unfortinatly all that will happen, if homosexuallity looses it's stigma, it will still be around generations from now when the "trait" dissapears.

Another thing is that it is not race specific, theoretically it would only pertain to one race. (Like blue eyes and blond hair in nordic peoples, who have actually mutated to be immune to aids)

 

[ReformedChapin]

this article does NOT present any evidence that scientists have falsified information.

YES it does and you haven't presented the full studies for yours. All it has it conclusions that can be easily falisified as shown in the article.

 

[Brieuse]

"pretty sure," "I could be wrong," "most likely" Nothing at all like positive evidence.

Look up the research. There are no ambiguous statements. Clear and precise.

 

[gwdboi]

This would all be great news, were it true. Unfortinatly all that will happen, if homosexuallity looses it's stigma, it will still be around generations from now when the "trait" dissapears.

Another thing is that it is not race specific, theoretically it would only pertain to one race. (Like blue eyes and blond hair in nordic peoples, who have actually mutated to be immune to aids)

Not really, since sexual orientation is more than likely a polygenic trait, it is natural for it to exist in all cultures. Think of it like this, we all have feet (we all have a sexual orientation), some feet are large, some are small despite ethnicity (some are GLBT some are heterosexual)

 

[BigBadWlf]

YES it does and you haven't presented the full studies for yours. All it has it conclusions that can be easily falisified as shown in the article.

please site for all of us exactly where in the article you reference http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf exactly what evidence scientists have falsified.

 

[UnitedInChrist]

Even heterosexuals sometimes have to deal with unnatural desire.

It is simple to turn away from it, realizing that it is wroung.

If for any reason you don't understand why you have these desires, please ask the Lord and He can show you why.

Sorry, typically things are NOT simple to turn away from just because they are wrong. And when that "wrong" is part of your soul, when it's part of the blood that runs through your veins, then that gets harder yet. Then you turn to God. God is there to pick you up. Pat you on the back...and say "you're doing just fine my child".

Desires are not something you change. You react to desires by either turning your back or accepting depending on what that desire is. I desire to play the piano, but I can't. I can practice til I'm a feable old man, and I still will not play the piano. The Lord had his reasons for making me a homosexual, just like he hadhis reasons to have a child born with one arm, a child born with Down Syndrome, a woman to have a miscarriage, a child to be heterosexual, etc... Is it "normal" to have one arm? To a one armed person it is. To use with two arms...probably not. Do people cast them out saying "they are not normal". Then why when sexuality is discussed does it come into "normal" or not. Man was made for women you keep hearing. Yes, I agree. If they didn't procreate, the species would be over. Only makes sense. Does that mean EVERY man was created for women? What about those that chose never to marry? Those that marry and chose not to have children? Is this "normal" and why do homosexuals fall out of that scenario.

I will say this over and over and over again. What people SAY is VERY DIFFERENT than what they believe. MANY on here talk out against homosexuals b/c the Bible "tells" them so. What the Bible says about sexuality, REGARDLESS of sex act, is all based on PROCREATION, GROWING CHRISTIANITY, and on the flip side, when used as lewd, reckless, and within prostitution and idol worshipping. The scriptures that are always quoted are pulled completely out of context and left to stand on their own as if it is a statement. This is not correct. When you then bring to these people the issues of married heterosexuals that chose NOT to procreate, or the heterosexuals that can NOT have children, or those that chose to never marry, like Christ, then they are sorta lost as to how to respond. Since sex, according to fundies, is exclusive to procreating (as the bible says), then what about a happily married couple not producing but having sex? SINS OF THE FLESH will be shouted from the roof tops. What about people never to be married. SINS OF THE FLESH if you have sex @ 45 years of age miss or mr. Does anyone care to touch on the multiple wives Abraham had? or that girls were married off @ 14 and dead by the time they were 30? I think not.

But, at the end of the day, even with all of this...HOMOSEXUALITY IS FORBIDDEN b/c the Bible says so. No, what's happening here is people USE THE BIBLE to support their unaccepting of a group of people. It has happened since the beginning of time. It was used to support slavery, it was used to support keeping women out of the church, it was used as the basis of the Christian Inquisition. None of what we as Christians should be proud of, but ALL that we must accept as part of our past. The bible is THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of years old, and the church only changed their stands on slavery and women's issues in our own time. Why on earth would anyone think any differently when it comes to homosexuality? Because they have an "agenda"? Was the civil rights movement an "agenda"? Was the women's rights movement an "agenda"? No. Christianity is for ALL that want to embrace it and NO ONE should be denied based on ANY reason b/c they are different than those that "know the truth". Keep in mind people, those that tell you "I know the truth" are a human being just like you. Their belief doesn't make them any more right than you. Unless they saw the resurrected Christ, and rose with him, and are physically with him daily, then we are ALL in this together with our FAITH...and that is in believing and what is true in our heart.

 

[Der Alte]

Not really, since sexual orientation is more than likely a polygenic trait, it is natural for it to exist in all cultures. Think of it like this, we all have feet (we all have a sexual orientation), some feet are large, some are small despite ethnicity (some are GLBT some are heterosexual)

You know something these qualified scientists do not know? If homosexuality was genetic these studies would show that very, very close to 100% of monozygotic, i.e. identical twins, are homosexual instead of somewhere between, 52% and 38%.

Perhaps you need to share your extensive polygenetic research with the scientific community.

What we got here is a failure to communicate. Some men you can't reach, that is they just don't listen when you talk reasonable so you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it, well he gets it, and I don't like it any better than you men.​

Here is proof beyond any doubt or argument, now or ever, that homosexuality, whatever it may or may not be, it is NOT genetic. End of story!

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

Better research, however, was based on twins who were recruited for other reasons, and only subsequently asked about their sexual orientation. These are known as "registry" studies, and they similarly gave a concordance rate between identical twins of less than 50%. There have been two major published registry studies (4,5), one based on the Minnesota Registry, the other on the Australian Registry. The larger of the two registry studies is the Australian one, done by Bailey, Martin and others at the University of Queensland. Using the 14,000+ Australian twin collection, they found that if one twin was homosexual, 38% of the time his identical brother was too. For lesbianism the concordance was 30%. Whether 30% or 50% concordance (snowball samples), all the studies agree it is clearly not 100%.

The critical factor is that if one identical twin is homosexual, only sometimes is the co-twin homosexual. There is no argument about this in the scientific community.

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html

The distribution of sexual orientation among cotwins of the monozygotic probands appeared to be bimodal. In other words, most subjects classified themselves as heterosexual or homosexual, with very few giving evidence of significant bisexuality. This finding is in agreement with other recent studies (e.g. Buhrich et al. 1991).
According to their data, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities of homosexuality were calculated using these results under a wide range of assumptions of the population base rate and ascertainment bias. Under all conditions considered, heritabilities were substantial (h2 was between .31 and .74 in all cases). However, "the rate of homosexuality among nontwin biological siblings, as reported by probands, 9.2% (13/142), was significantly lower than would be predicted by a simple genetic hypothesis and other published reports."

http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/studies.html#sotmtsoh

Bailey-Pillard

In December of 1991, Michael Bailey of Northwestern University joined Richard Pillard of the Boston University School of Medicine in publishing a study of homosexuality in twins. Their conclusion is that sexual orientation is something one is born with.

Bailey and Pillard surveyed homosexual men about their brothers, and they found some statistics that were rather unexpected. Of the homosexuals who had identical twin brothers, 52 percent of those twins were also homosexual. 22 percent of those who had fraternal twins said that their twin was gay, and only eleven percent of those who had adopted siblings said that their adopted brothers were also homosexual.

Bailey and Pillard attributed the differences in these percentages to the difference in the amount of genetic material shared. Since identical twins have the same genetic code, they are far more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins. In the same way, it is obvious that fraternal twins have more in common genetically than do their adopted siblings.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homosex1.html
​

 

[ReformedChapin]

please site for all of us exactly where in the article you reference http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf exactly what evidence scientists have falsified.

n 1993, Columbia University psychiatry professors Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons
examined the most prominent “gay gene” studies on brain structure and on identical twins, and
published the results in the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Archives of General Psychiatry. They found numerous
methodological flaws in all of the studies, and concluded that:​

8 Robert L. Spitzer, “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?”, [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Archives of Sexual[/FONT]​

Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003: 403-417.​

9 See, for instance, Charles Socarides, [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]A Freedom Too Far: A Psychoanalyst Answers 1,000 Questions About Causes and Cure[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]and the Impact of the Gay Rights Movement on American Society [/FONT](Phoenix, Arizona: Adam Margrave Books, 1996), pp. 115-
155, particularly pp. 151-152.​

10 Laura Sessions Stepp, “Partway Gay? For Some Teen Girls, Sexual Preference Is a Shifting Concept,” [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]The Washington Post[/FONT],
January 4, 2004, p. D-1.​

11 Ibid.​

12 Lisa M. Diamond, “Was it a phase? Young women’s relinquishment of lesbian/bisexual identities over a 5-year period,”​

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Journal of Personality & Social Psychology [/FONT](in press as of 2004).​

3 25SR-004​

There is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory. … [T]he appeal of
current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction​

with the present status
[/FONT]

Purposefully using BAD data clearly shows they are falsafing their experiments.​

 

[david_x]

Not really, since sexual orientation is more than likely a polygenic trait, it is natural for it to exist in all cultures. Think of it like this, we all have feet (we all have a sexual orientation), some feet are large, some are small despite ethnicity (some are GLBT some are heterosexual)

Than you misunderstand polygenetic traits. African-american's have brown eyes. Nordic people have blue eyes. Across results in an in-between, a light brown i believe. Since, theoretically, homosexual people would have been killed or not passed on their traits because they despised sex with women. The entire population is straight and the "homosexual" alleles disperse into obscurity. Even if it were true less than 1% of the population would be gay.

 

[Der Alte]

Sorry, typically things are NOT simple to turn away from just because they are wrong. And when that "wrong" is part of your soul, when it's part of the blood that runs through your veins, then that gets harder yet. Then you turn to God. God is there to pick you up. Pat you on the back...and say "you're doing just fine my child".

There are far too many errors, contradictions, and logical fallacies in this post to even try to address them all. So I will only address a few.

“God is there to pick you up. Pat you on the back...and say "you're doing just fine my child".” This statement is only partly correct. God does not just say “you're doing just fine my child,” he also says, “Go and sin no more.”

John 8:3 The experts in the law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught committing adultery. They made her stand in front of them 8:4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. 8:5 In the law Moses commanded us to stone to death such women. What then do you say?” 8:6 (Now they were asking this in an attempt to trap him, so that they could bring charges against him.) Jesus bent down and wrote on the ground with his finger. 8:7 When they persisted in asking him, he stood up straight and replied, “Whoever among you is guiltless may be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8:8 Then he bent over again and wrote on the ground.8:9 Now when they heard this, they began to drift away one at a time, starting with the older ones, until Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 8:10 Jesus stood up straight and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 8:11 She replied, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you either. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”​

I will say this over and over and over again. What people SAY is VERY DIFFERENT than what they believe. MANY on here talk out against homosexuals b/c the Bible "tells" them so. What the Bible says about sexuality, REGARDLESS of sex act, is all based on PROCREATION, GROWING CHRISTIANITY, and on the flip side, when used as lewd, reckless, and within prostitution and idol worshipping. The scriptures that are always quoted are pulled completely out of context and left to stand on their own as if it is a statement. This is not correct.

There is vile, deadly poison fomented by unlearned, uninformed operators of Gay/homosexual websites, all across the net. As you have done, that poison is copy/pasted here, and elsewhere, as if it were the truth. Like you, many people, do not even bother to try to verify what they copy from such websites. The prevalent attitude seems to be, “If it supports homosexuality and it is posted somewhere, anywhere, by anyone, then it must be true.”

Your post contains some of that poison. You say that homosexuality is only condemned if it is “lewd, reckless, and within prostitution and idol worshipping” and then claim, “The scriptures that are always quoted are pulled completely out of context”

Which scriptures are you talking about and how are they “out of context?” Do you even know? If as you claim homosexual copulation is only condemned when it is in a cultic worship context then, somewhere, sometime the ancient Jews would have made that distinction. They NEVER did! If your claim is correct then somewhere, sometime the early church should have made that distinction they NEVER did!

Talmud -- Sanhedrin 54a

MISHNAH. HE WHO COMMITS SODOMY WITH A MALE OR A BEAST, AND A WOMAN THAT COMMITS BESTIALITY ARE STONED. . . . Our Rabbis taught: If a man lieth also with mankind, as the lyings of a woman,29 both of them have committed on abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,]. . .

Sanhedrin 54b

This teaches the punishment: whence do we derive the formal prohibition? — From the verse, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.1 From this we learn the formal prohibition for him who lies [with a male]: whence do we know a formal prohibition for the person who permits himself thus to be abused? — Scripture saith: There shall be no sodomite of the sons of Israel:2 and it is further said, . . .

Now, he who [actively] commits pederasty, and also [passively] permits himself to be thus abused — R. Abbahu said: On R. Ishmael's view, he is liable to two penalties, one [for the injunction] derived from thou shalt not lie with mankind, and the other for [violating the prohibition,] There shall not be a Sodomite of the sons of Israel. . . .

for there shall be no Sodomite applies to sodomy with mankind.13 . . .

He who submits both to pederasty and to bestiality — R. Abbahu said: On R. Akiba's view, he incurs two penalties; one for thou shalt not lie [with mankind], and the other for thou shalt not lie [with any beast]. But on R. Ishmael's view, he incurs only one punishment, both offences being derived from the single verse, There shall be no Sodomite.19 . . .

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Jewish Encyclopedia - Dog

The shamelessness of the dog in regard to sexual life gave rise to the name ("dog") for the class of priests in the service of Astarte who practised sodomy ("kedeshim," called also by the Greeks &#954;&#965;&#957;&#945;&#943;&#948;&#959;&#953;, Deut. xxiii. 19 [A. V. 18]; compare ib. 18 [17] and Rev. xxii. 15; see Driver ad loc.), though as the regular name of priests attached to the temple of Ashtoret at Larnaca has been found on the monuments (see "C. I. S." i., No. 86).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=415&letter=D

Jewish Encyclopedia - Chastity

(e) The unnatural crimes against chastity, sodomy and pederasty, prevalent in heathendom, were strictly prohibited (Lev. xviii. 22, 23; xx. 13, 15, 16; Deut. xxvii. 21).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=386&letter=C

Jewish Encyclopedia - DIDACHE -

Dependence upon Jewish Custom.

A manual of instruction for proselytes, adopted from the Synagogue by early Christianity, and transformed by alteration and amplification into a Church manual.

2: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex. xx. 14). (This includes: "Thou shalt not commit sodomy nor fornication.") "Thou shalt not steal" (Ex. xx. 15). . . . "Thou shalt not use witchcraft nor practise sorcery" (Ex. xxii. 18; Lev. xix. 26).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=341&letter=D

Jewish Encyclopedia - Crime

On the analogy of this Biblical case the Rabbis decide several others (see Burglary). In three cases the person on the point of committing a crime may be killed: where he pursues a neighbor in order to kill him; where he pursues a male to commit sodomy; and where he seeks to ravish a betrothed damsel; for Deut. xxii. 27 indicates the duty of all that hear her cry to help her.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=301&letter=L​

This ruling by the Jewish leaders completely destroys the "homosexual copulation is only condemned in a cultic worship context" argument. The death penalty is imposed when a man pursues his neighbor for the purpose of committing sodomy. And it does not specify in or out of the cultic worship situation. If it is in the cultic worship context, or not, or both, it incurs the death penalty.

Jewish Encyclopedia - The 613 Commandments,: 3347-53.

Adultery, sodomy, etc. Lev. Xviii. 7, 14, 20, 22, 23.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=689&letter=C​

 

[Der Alte]

The early church interpreted [size=+1]&#945;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#954;&#959;&#953;&#964;&#951;&#962;[/size]/arsenokoités variously as, “”sodomy,” “filth of sodomy,” lawless lust, “lust,” “impurity,” “works of the flesh,” “carnal,” “lawless intercourse,” “shameless,” “burning with insane love for boys,” “licentiousness,” “co-habitors with males,” “lusters after mankind”, etc.

Quoted from; Ignatius, 30-107 AD; Polycarp 65 - 155 AD; Irenaeus, 120-202 AD; Theophilus, 115 - 181 AD; Clement of Alexandria, 153 - 217 AD; Tertullian, 145-220 AD; Cyprian, 200-258 AD; and Origen, 185-254 AD.

Note the dates, of these writings, extend from ca. 50 AD through 258 AD, more than 250 years.

Epistle Of Ignatius [Disciple of John] To The Ephesians [A.D. 30-107.]

But as to the practice of magic, or the impure love of boys, or murder, it is superfluous to write to you, since such vices are forbidden to be committed even by the Gentiles. I do not issue commands on these points as if I were an apostle; but, as your fellow-servant, I put you in mind of them.

Epistle of Polycarp [Disciple of John] to the Philippians Chapter V.-The Duties of Deacons, Youths, and Virgins. [65 - 155 AD]

In like manner, let the young men also be blameless in all things, being especially careful to preserve purity, and keeping themselves in, as with a bridle, from every kind of evil. For it is well that they should be cut off from the lusts that are in the world, since "every lust warreth against the spirit; " and "neither fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9] " nor those who do things inconsistent and unbecoming.

Irenaeus [Disciple of Polycarp]Against Heresies Book V [120-202 AD]

As, therefore, he who has gone forward to the better things, and has brought forth the fruit of the Spirit, is saved altogether because of the communion of the Spirit; so also he who has continued in the aforesaid works of the flesh, being truly reckoned as carnal, because he did not receive the Spirit of God, shall not have power to inherit the kingdom of heaven. As, again, "the same apostle testifies, saying to the Corinthians, Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err," he says: "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor revilers, nor rapacious persons, shall inherit the kingdom of God [1 Cor 6:9]. And these ye indeed have been; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified, but ye have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." He shows in the clearest manner through what things it is that man goes to destruction, if he has continued to live after the flesh; and then, on the other hand, [he points out] through what things he is saved.

Since, therefore, in that passage [1 Cor 6:9] he recounts those works of the flesh which are without the Spirit, which bring death [upon their doers], he exclaimed at the end of his Epistle, in accordance with what he had already declared, "And as we have borne the image of him who is of the earth, we shall also bear the image of Him who is from heaven.

Theophilus to Autolycus Book III [115 - 181 AD]
Chapter VI.-Other Opinions of the Philosophers.

And these things the other laws of the Romans and Greeks also prohibit. Why, then, do Epicurus and the Stoics teach incest and sodomy, with which doctrines they have filled libraries, so that from boyhood this lawless intercourse is learned? And why should I further spend time on them, since even of those they call gods they relate similar things?

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor. [Paedagogus.] Book III [153 - 217 AD]

Such images of divine wisdom are many; but I shall mention one instance, and expound it in a few words. The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to His own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned, pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men.

Chapter 3 Against Men Who Embellish Themselves

Such was predicted of old, and the result is notorious: the whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans: these detested effeminacy of conduct; and the giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the extremest penalty, according to the righteousness of the law.

Clement of Alexandria Exhortation To The Heathen

And what are the laws? “Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not seduce boys; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt love the Lord thy God.” And the complements of these are those laws of reason and words of sanctity which are inscribed on men’s hearts: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; to him who strikes thee on the cheek, present also the other;” “thou shalt not lust, for by lust alone thou hast committed adultery.”

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1

But life has reached this pitch of licentiousness through the wantonness of wickedness, and lasciviousness is diffused over the cities, having become law. Beside them women stand in the stews, offering their own flesh for hire for lewd pleasure, and boys, taught to deny their sex, act the part of women. Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature; women are at once wives and husbands: no passage is closed against libidinousness; and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated. O miserable spectacle! horrible conduct! Such are the trophies of your social licentiousness which are exhibited: the evidence of these deeds are the prostitutes. Alas for such wickedness!

Tertullian On Modesty [145-220 AD]
Chapter XVI.-General Consistency of the Apostle.

Just as, again, among all other crimes-nay, even before all others-when affirming that "adulterers, and fornicators, and effeminates, and co-habitors with males, will not attain the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9]" he premised, "Do not err" -to wit, if you think they will attain it. But to them from whom "the kingdom" is taken away, of course the life which exists in the kingdom is not permitted either. Moreover, by superadding, "But such indeed ye have been; but ye have received ablution, but ye have been sanctified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God; " in as far as he puts on the paid side of the account such sins before baptism, in so far after baptism he determines them irremissible, if it is true, (as it is), that they are not allowed to "receive ablution" anew.

Tertullian The Chaplet, or De Corona. Chapter VI.

Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one [law] prevailing all over the world, engraven on the natural tables to which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect. of the woman's veil he says, "Does not even Nature teach you? " -as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature. Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle [Rom 1.] he authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, by way of penal retribution for their error. [Rom 1:27]

Cyprian Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews [200-258 AD]

65. That all sins are put away in baptism.
In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: "Neither fornicators, nor those who serve idols, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor the lusters after mankind, nor thieves, nor cheaters, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers, shall obtain the kingdom of God [1 Cor 6:9]. And these things indeed ye were: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God."

Origen Against Celsus Book 8 [185-254 AD]

and that they often exhibit in their character a high degree of gravity, of purity, and integrity; while those who call themselves wise have despised these virtues, and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, “men with men working that which is unseemly.” [Rom 1:27]​

Does anyone care to touch on the multiple wives Abraham had? or that girls were married off @ 14 and dead by the time they were 30? I think not. .

Irrelevant! Logical fallacy, False analogy. The fact that there may have been other unrelated things, now considered wrong, unacceptable etc. has no bearing on this discussion.

 

[BigBadWlf]

You know something these qualified scientists do not know? If homosexuality was genetic these studies would show that very, very close to 100% of monozygotic, i.e. identical twins, are homosexual instead of somewhere between, 52% and 38%.


Perhaps you need to share your extensive polygenetic research with the scientific community.

What we got here is a failure to communicate. Some men you can't reach, that is they just don't listen when you talk reasonable so you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it, well he gets it, and I don't like it any better than you men.​

Here is proof beyond any doubt or argument, now or ever, that homosexuality, whatever it may or may not be, it is NOT genetic. End of story!

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers​

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual​

22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual​

11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual​

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991​

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html​

Better research, however, was based on twins who were recruited for other reasons, and only subsequently asked about their sexual orientation. These are known as "registry" studies, and they similarly gave a concordance rate between identical twins of less than 50%. There have been two major published registry studies (4,5), one based on the Minnesota Registry, the other on the Australian Registry. The larger of the two registry studies is the Australian one, done by Bailey, Martin and others at the University of Queensland. Using the 14,000+ Australian twin collection, they found that if one twin was homosexual, 38% of the time his identical brother was too. For lesbianism the concordance was 30%. Whether 30% or 50% concordance (snowball samples), all the studies agree it is clearly not 100%.​

The critical factor is that if one identical twin is homosexual, only sometimes is the co-twin homosexual. There is no argument about this in the scientific community.​

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html​

The distribution of sexual orientation among cotwins of the monozygotic probands appeared to be bimodal. In other words, most subjects classified themselves as heterosexual or homosexual, with very few giving evidence of significant bisexuality. This finding is in agreement with other recent studies (e.g. Buhrich et al. 1991).​

According to their data, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities of homosexuality were calculated using these results under a wide range of assumptions of the population base rate and ascertainment bias. Under all conditions considered, heritabilities were substantial (h2 was between .31 and .74 in all cases). However, "the rate of homosexuality among nontwin biological siblings, as reported by probands, 9.2% (13/142), was significantly lower than would be predicted by a simple genetic hypothesis and other published reports."​

http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/studies.html#sotmtsoh​

Bailey-Pillard​

In December of 1991, Michael Bailey of Northwestern University joined Richard Pillard of the Boston University School of Medicine in publishing a study of homosexuality in twins. Their conclusion is that sexual orientation is something one is born with.​

Bailey and Pillard surveyed homosexual men about their brothers, and they found some statistics that were rather unexpected. Of the homosexuals who had identical twin brothers, 52 percent of those twins were also homosexual. 22 percent of those who had fraternal twins said that their twin was gay, and only eleven percent of those who had adopted siblings said that their adopted brothers were also homosexual.​

Bailey and Pillard attributed the differences in these percentages to the difference in the amount of genetic material shared. Since identical twins have the same genetic code, they are far more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins. In the same way, it is obvious that fraternal twins have more in common genetically than do their adopted siblings.​

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homosex1.html​

AS posted earlier…and ignored by you.

Bailey and Pillard did NOT come to the concussion you claim and in fact disagree with your conclusion.

A genetic study of male sexual orientation by J. M. Bailey and R. C. Pillard concluded: "childhood gender nonconformity does not appear to be an indicator of genetic loading for homosexuality" which is nothing like what you are claiming they say.

Worse for your claim both Bailey and Pillard have enegaged in numerous other studies where they find evidence that sexual orientation is in fact in-born

J. M. Bailey, R. C. Pillard Human sexual orientation has a heritable component. Human Biology1998 Apr;70(2):347-65
“Family, twin, and adoptee studies indicate that homosexuality and thus heterosexuality run in families.”


J. M. Bailey, R. C. Pillard et al A Family History Study of Male Sexual Orientation Using Three Independent Samples. J of Behavioral Genetics. V29 number 2, 1999.
“Available evidence suggests that male homosexuality is both familial and somewhat heritable and that some cases may be caused by an X-linked gene. However, most studies have recruited subjects in a relatively unsystematic manner, typically via advertisements, and hence suffer from the potential methodological flaw of ascertainment bias due to volunteer self-selection. In the present study we assessed the familiality of male homosexuality using two carefully ascertained samples and attempted to replicate findings consistent with X-linkage in three samples.”

J. M. Bailey, R. C. Pillard, M. C. Neale and Y. Agyei Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women. Archives of Gen Psychology Vol. 50 No. 3, March 1993
“Heritabilities were significant”



J. M. Bailey, Bell A.P. Familiality of female and male homosexuality Behavioral Genetics V. 23, No. 4, 1993.
“We examined data from a large cohort of homosexual and heterosexual females and males concerning their siblings' sexual orientations. As in previous studies, both male and female homosexuality were familial.


K. M. Kirk , J. M. Bailey, M. P. Dunne and N. G. Martin Measurement Models for Sexual Orientation in a Community Twin Sample. Behavioral Genetics V. 30, NO.4, 2000.
“Analysis… providing stronger evidence for the existence of additive genetic influences on this phenotype than in a previous analysis (Bailey et al., 2000).”

 

[BigBadWlf]

Purposefully using BAD data clearly shows they are falsafing their experiments.​

And the evidence that the use of "bad data" (which was not demonstrated BTW) was purposeful…well there is none.