• 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.

Why are they gay?

Status
Not open for further replies.

GenemZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
22,169
1,377
75
Atlanta
✟109,031.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well lets start with:
Loehlin and McFadden. Otoacoustic Emissions, Auditory Evoked Potentials, and Traits Related to Sex and Sexual Orientation. archives of sexual behavior. V32, n2, 2003

OK...... Lets say for the moment that it is not a choice.

Let's say that some are just born gay.

Why did God's Word condemn the homosexual act between two men in the Law? Why does Romans 1, say that for punishment, God hands both men and women over to uncontrollable homosexual desire?

How can God turn a straight person into a homosexual? By changing their inner ear function?

When I was a teenager I remember watching a talk show on TV. The man who was interviewed (this was before the sexual revolution took full swing) appeared to be a Wall Street broker type, wearing a three piece suite. He spoke as a normal (uneffected) man would. He spoke like a clear thinking, rationale, and sophisticated man of the world.

He explained how in his earlier years he was exclusively heterosexual. How he had sexual encounters with women and did quite well sexually. Then, later on in life he found himself attracted to a man, which he said he preferred. He was not born gay according to what he said.

You can try to tell me this is all made up. But, I can recall this as if it were yesterday. For at the time it confounded me and frightened me to see what he was saying. It changed my view of the world from that day on.

How are all those things possible?

Is God's Word a lie?

Does God now approve of gay marriages? Chapter and verse, please?

It appears to me that from what you have said concerning parts of God's Word, you simply view the Law of Moses as being man made in origin. Not from God. Do I read you correctly?


In Christ, GeneZ
 
Upvote 0

relspace

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2006
708
33
Salt Lake City
Visit site
✟24,052.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well lets start with:
Loehlin and McFadden. Otoacoustic Emissions, Auditory Evoked Potentials, and Traits Related to Sex and Sexual Orientation. archives of sexual behavior. V32, n2, 2003
Researchers have long known that the inner ear produces "click-evoked otoacoustic emissions" -- imperceptible echoes made in response to particular sounds. These echoes can be measured and are used to diagnose potential hearing problems in newborns. Sensors placed in the ear emitting such a sound will record echoes showing that the ear is working. Loehlin and McFadden tested 61 homosexual and 57 heterosexual women all of whom had normal hearing (and matched for ethnicity, age and occupation) and found that lesbians have a different threshold for a response to this test compared to the heterosexual women. This threshold is genetically determined and set when the inner ear forms when one is still a fetus at about twelve weeks after fertilization.
I was troubled by the fact I could not see any verification of this find by follow up studies.

Alternate explanation:
http://www.otoemissions.org/definitions/TEOAE4.html said:
An alternative hypothesis which might elucidate these differences would be to consider the role of hormones (estrogen in particular) on the functional status of the OHCs (see an early paper of Wharton JA, Church GT.

Interesting comment on research done on sexual orientation.
http://www.queerbychoice.com/palmistry.html said:
As the article states, Dr. Mark Breedlove and a group of his undergraduate psychology students at U.C. Berkeley questioned 720 people about their sexual orientation and then asked them all to stick their hands in a Xerox machine so their handprints could be photocopied. When the students measured the handprints, the article explains, they found that "the index fingers of lesbians tend to be much shorter than their ring fingers, whereas on straight women, the fingers are usually the same length."
....
This is pretty laughable pseudoscience, right? Even an elementary school kid would be able to figure out that Xerox machines don't measure finger lengths accurately to within the thickness of a credit card. So why did this study ever get any attention? Who funded it? How could a professor at a respected educational institution dare to publish it under his own name? Why did a supposedly respectable scientific journal like Nature pay him money to print it? And why did TV networks, radio networks and newspapers all over the world report on it and treat it as though it were worthy of at least some kind of serious consideration? Better yet, why did they get so many facts wrong ("the index fingers of lesbians tend to be much shorter . . .") and omit so many completely devastating criticisms (like the extreme unlikelihood of a Xerox machine being able to produce consistent finger lengths to within the thickness of a credit card)? What is the news media's agenda here?

Unfortunately, the Breedlove finger study described here is not in any way atypical of the quality of biological research done on sexual orientation so far—nor is it in any way atypical of how the news media have misreported and distorted all biological studies on sexual orientation to make them appear worthy of serious academic attention when in fact they are laughable pseudoscience.
Hmmm I think that sounds a lot like what I said.
 
Upvote 0

jlerollin

Regular Member
Oct 17, 2004
364
5
✟744.00
Faith
Baptist
i am amazed that some are positing that the sex drive is a consciously driven impulse! It simply shocking to hear that it sounds so dense its incredible.
obviously the people saying it are against gay rights (which i understand and probably to some extent agree with) certainly not every instance of same sex encounter is because people are actually homosexual,
however the people who are saying that sexual orientation is a conscious decision also know that their sexual orientation isnt a conscious decision.
this basicly means that they are saying that those who are attracted to men but are not women are actually lying but they know full well that they wouldnt start sleeping with the same sex exclusively with all of the attendant social ostracisim and disaster that is likely to ensue with no desire for it at all.
I certainly think that to assume that everyone who is claiming to be genuinely homosexual is lying is simply hilarious ( they probably dont know any and need to get out more out of their small universe)
certainly i think some people are driven to homosexual acts by other forces but god says that he gave some over to wrong "desires" in the text qouted from romans earlier. so to me it says that it is possible for homosexual desire and that it is actualy a punishment from God to society that homosexuality now exists it wasnt gods initial design but because of rebellion against our creator creation has been spoilt and all sorts of things now dont function as they were intended in every species, there are many of us who are born blind or deaf or dumb and God claims he made people that way. he has left us an imperfect world geneticly(not wanting to go into the homosexual gene debate just general disease) and otherwise because it is his creation and we have dishonoured him and pay the consequences in many ways
 
Upvote 0

HunterRose

Active Member
Jun 2, 2006
349
28
✟23,152.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
OK...... Lets say for the moment that it is not a choice.
A moment?

Let's say that some are just born gay.
Which all the evidence points to…

Why did God's Word condemn the homosexual act between two men in the Law?
Why would God place verses in the bible condoning slavery?
Racism?
Infanticide?
Human Sacrifice?
Rape?


Why does Romans 1, say that for punishment, God hands both men and women over to uncontrollable homosexual desire?
It doesn’t.

It says God gave that particular group of people over to desires that were unnatural for THEM.


How can God turn a straight person into a homosexual? By changing their inner ear function?
Who says God is changing them?

When I was a teenager I remember watching a talk show on TV. The man who was interviewed (this was before the sexual revolution took full swing) appeared to be a Wall Street broker type, wearing a three piece suite. He spoke as a normal (uneffected) man would. He spoke like a clear thinking, rationale, and sophisticated man of the world.

He explained how in his earlier years he was exclusively heterosexual. How he had sexual encounters with women and did quite well sexually. Then, later on in life he found himself attracted to a man, which he said he preferred. He was not born gay according to what he said.

You can try to tell me this is all made up. But, I can recall this as if it were yesterday. For at the time it confounded me and frightened me to see what he was saying. It changed my view of the world from that day on.
When I was a kid I watched a movie based on the abduction of Barney and Betty Hill

How are all those things possible?

Is God's Word a lie?

Does God now approve of gay marriages? Chapter and verse, please?
Does God specifically disapprove? Chapter and verse please

It appears to me that from what you have said concerning parts of God's Word, you simply view the Law of Moses as being man made in origin. Not from God. Do I read you correctly?


In Christ, GeneZ
Do you follow the law of Moses? Or do you pick and chose among said law which you will follow, which you will use to condemn others and which you will ignore?
 
Upvote 0

HunterRose

Active Member
Jun 2, 2006
349
28
✟23,152.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
I was troubled by the fact I could not see any verification of this find by follow up studies.
Where did you get the notion that there were no follow up studies?

Alternate explanation:

One must specifically note that this older experiment was not looking at sexual oriention but was rather comparing post menopausal women to younger men.

From the conclusion of your reference:
“While this does not dispute an anatomical explanation for the gender effect in ABR, hormonal changes accompanying menopause may also account for some of the gender differences noted in ABR.”

Interesting comment on research done on sexual orientation.


Hmmm I think that sounds a lot like what I said.
And did this embellishment of the method used by Breedlove find methodological errors? Well no.

Did it find flaws in the statistical processing the data? Well no

Did it make any comments about the findings of the study in question? Well no

Did it misrepresent social science in general? You bet

Did it ignore other studies in order to peruse its own agenda? You bet

Did it honestly represent the study in question? Well no


Am I surprised that this site ws less than honest? Not at all.
 
Upvote 0

ChristIsCalling

Proud Gamer Nerd
Oct 6, 2005
1,549
18
34
Alberta, Canada
Visit site
✟1,749.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well, some people may say that they are born gay, but I don't really think so. To tell the truth, I can't say that I have a clue as to why homosexuals are... well, homosexual. My mom read a book once that suggested it was demon possesion, but I don't really know what I think.

But I really don't think that homosexuals are born gay, the Bible is pretty strict on the matter of homosexuality, and I just don't see why God would make someone in such a way, if He doesn't allow it... :\
 
Upvote 0

HunterRose

Active Member
Jun 2, 2006
349
28
✟23,152.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Well, some people may say that they are born gay, but I don't really think so. To tell the truth, I can't say that I have a clue as to why homosexuals are... well, homosexual. My mom read a book once that suggested it was demon possesion, but I don't really know what I think.

But I really don't think that homosexuals are born gay, the Bible is pretty strict on the matter of homosexuality, and I just don't see why God would make someone in such a way, if He doesn't allow it... :\
Ok…so on the one hand you say you don’t know why anyone is homosexual…but at the same time you reject the only reason that has any evidence to back it up. :scratch:
 
Upvote 0

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
64
Asheville NC
✟27,263.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Which all the evidence points to…
However you like to look at it, it certainly isn't all.
It says God gave that particular group of people over to desires that were unnatural for THEM.
So according to you if it is natural for me to want to have sex with children it's o.k. with God? Since it is natural for me to want to have sex with multiple women, yet somehow I don't believe God would approve; I know my wife certainly wouldn't. :) Again, according to you God says it's a go! Hmmm...

Who says God is changing them?
Who else could be changing them?

When I was a kid I watched a movie based on the abduction of Barney and Betty Hill
You seem to have this strange obsession with comparing someone who was gay and now is straight with someone who was abducted. At first I couldn't understand it, but I think I'm beginning to. Jesus came into their lives and He abducted them from a life of sin and death. Now that's an abduction that all of us need to experience. Not a bad analogy. :thumbsup:

Does God specifically disapprove? Chapter and verse please
It would appear for some reason that you don't like the chapters and verses that show His disapproval.

[/quote]
Where did you get the notion that there were no follow up studies?
I don't know maybe because they weren't provided. I'm sure if they're there you'll be more than happy to provide them.
 
Upvote 0

intricatic

...a dinosaur... or something...
Aug 5, 2005
38,935
697
Ohio
✟65,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Even a genetic explanation of sexuality doesn't mean sexuality isn't a choice. It's still a preference. We're not controlled by our genetics, in the sense of behaviour. If homosexuality is genetic, then chronic alcoholics can be excused as being genetically prone to alcoholism, and therefore acceptable.

We'd also have to look at the other side of the statement. Would it be true to say that some races are genetically more prone to high intelligence than others? This actually defines the truly propositional implications of philosophy on the way society percieves science in general.
 
Upvote 0

*Starlight*

Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time
Jan 19, 2005
75,346
1,474
38
Right in front of you *waves*
Visit site
✟140,803.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
To tell the truth, I can't say that I have a clue as to why homosexuals are... well, homosexual.
Homosexuals are homosexual for the same reason as why heterosexuals are heterosexual. :angel:
 
Upvote 0

relspace

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2006
708
33
Salt Lake City
Visit site
✟24,052.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
i am amazed that some are positing that the sex drive is a consciously driven impulse! It simply shocking to hear that it sounds so dense its incredible.
Ah... but nobody says any such thing (another good example of a strawman). All that is being said is that the mind and choice whether conscious or not plays a dominant role. This is abundantly obvious. The problem is that it makes this doctrine of the gay rights religion (that people are born homosexual) nonsensical.

People are all different and unique. I am good with babies and children, like cooking, and have absolutely no interest in spectator sports. Some people call that gender non-conformity which all these studies identify with a pre-natal determination of homosexuality. Pure garbage and utterly sickening. How depraved will these people go in thier denial of the responsibility for their own choices.

obviously the people saying it are against gay rights
Incorrect. I am for gay rights. The belief that there is anything wrong with homosexuality is a religious belief, and therefore religious freedom should guarantee the rights of homosexuals to pursue their chosen way of life in peace. The right of people to pursue their own choice of lifestyle MUST be respected, as long as it does not infringe on the same rights of others.

The problem is that I am also for religious freedom and the gay rights religion is not satisfied with this freedom, they want the right to force their beliefs on everyone else. They can believe that they are born homosexuals just as the guy on the street can believe that he is God, but that does not mean that I have to believe any such thing.

this basicly means that they are saying that those who are attracted to men but are not women are actually lying
....
I certainly think that to assume that everyone who is claiming to be genuinely homosexual is lying is simply hilarious ( they probably dont know any and need to get out more out of their small universe)
I don't think they are lying. I think they are entitled to their own beliefs, but I don't have to share them.

I find this belief that some people are born without the ability to feel any attraction for the opposite sex to be just as hilarious - and sad - and sickening. Yes sickening, because it implies telling kids that you think have this "condition" that they have no choice in the lifestyle that they want to live. The right thing to tell them is that they will one day have the right to participate in a love relationship and it will be entirely their choice and no one elses whether to participate or not.

but they know full well that they wouldnt start sleeping with the same sex exclusively with all of the attendant social ostracisim and disaster that is likely to ensue with no desire for it at all.
This thinking is utter folly for the cause of gay rights. If you argue that homosexuals have no choice because the life forced on them is so horrible. Then you are making it indistinguishable from a disease. That is not the way to get people to respect them, but only to beg for a cure. The correct way to get respect is to tell the Christians with this belief that homosexuality is a sin, to stuff their religion, and to assert the right to make ones own choice of lifestyle.

The only thing wrong with this approach is that you cannot force a religious group to accept your lifestyle - which should not be a problem unless you are opposed to religious freedom.

The only other difficulty is the adoption of children. But this just puts you on the same footing as members of any religious group that have show that their religion/lifestyle will not in any way be harmful to a child's well being. I believe this case has already been made rather effectively already. Some Christians may disagree with it but they cannot force their religious beliefs on other people any more than the gay rights religion can.

Homosexuals are homosexual for the same reason as why heterosexuals are heterosexual.

No argument there.

That "same reason" seems to be that they think that sex is just about satisfying their own biological urges and because they like justifying their behavior by saying they have no control over their desires and thus no control over their behavior.

The alternative way of thinking says that sex is about love, which is the highest expression of our freewill. The very purpose of freewill is to give us the ability to love. Nothing can force us to love. In this way of thinking there are no homosexuals, heterosexuals or bisexuals, only human beings who can be children of God if they ask God into their lives.
 
Upvote 0

HunterRose

Active Member
Jun 2, 2006
349
28
✟23,152.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
However you like to look at it, it certainly isn't all.

And where is the legitimately published evidence that homosexuality is the result of choice?

Where is the legitimately published evidence that homosexuality is the result of one’s relationship with either parent,?

Where is the legitimately published evidence that homosexuality is the result of a distant or absent father?

Where is the legitimately published evidence that homosexuality is the result of family structure?

Where is the legitimately published evidence that homosexuality is the result of any psychological sociological, or familial factor?

Your claiming it exists…well show us. Reference those studies.

So according to you if it is natural for me to want to have sex with children it's o.k. with God? Since it is natural for me to want to have sex with multiple women, yet somehow I don't believe God would approve; I know my wife certainly wouldn't. :) Again, according to you God says it's a go! Hmmm...

This is called Argumentum ad Hominem It is a logical fallacy

You are purposefully misrepresenting what I said (heck your just making it up) and then attack me personally for something I did not say. then you pretend (a moral???) victory based on an argument you fabricated yourself.


When you can argue and post honestly come back and we can continue to have a discussion
 
Upvote 0

HunterRose

Active Member
Jun 2, 2006
349
28
✟23,152.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Even a genetic explanation of sexuality doesn't mean sexuality isn't a choice.
Well it does. If sexual oriention is an inborn trait…then there is no choice involved…except of course the choice to be honest about who one is.

It's still a preference.
No…likening coffee with sugar is a preference. Likening abstract art is a preference. Liking jazz is a preference.

We're not controlled by our genetics, in the sense of behaviour.
Agreed.

Sexual oriention isn’t a behavior. Sexual behavior is behavior


If homosexuality is genetic, then chronic alcoholics can be excused as being genetically prone to alcoholism, and therefore acceptable.
The comparison between sexual orientation and addiction is flawed.



There is alcoholic gene. The reference is to the reaction the dopamine receptors in the cortex of brain has to alcohol. Some people have specific centers that are dopamine over stimulated with use of alcohol. This over stimulation is the addiction.

However one need not have this predisposition to be an alcoholic. In fact, many alcoholics do not have this predisposition at all.

There are many with this predisposition who are not alcoholics

One cannot be an alcoholic without first consuming alcohol. However, one can be homosexual without having sex…just as one can be heterosexual without having sex.

Likewise having same sex intercourse does not make one a homosexual just as having opposite sex intercourse does not make one a heterosexual


We'd also have to look at the other side of the statement. Would it be true to say that some races are genetically more prone to high intelligence than others? This actually defines the truly propositional implications of philosophy on the way society percieves science in general.
I would invite you to look at the many writings of intelligence as applied to race that were published in the 19th centuries. It was an ugly business but a popular one for those trying to justify prejudice.
 
Upvote 0

GenemZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
22,169
1,377
75
Atlanta
✟109,031.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Why would God place verses in the bible condoning slavery?
Racism?
Infanticide?
Human Sacrifice?
Rape?

I asked you...

Why did God's Word condemn the homosexual act between two men in the Law?

Now? Will you please answer the question? We can deal with the other issues after you do. For, you did not answer my question. But, diverted away to other questions as a smoke screen to hide in.


It says God gave that particular group of people over to desires that were unnatural for THEM.

But, it became natural to them.


When I was a kid I watched a movie based on the abduction of Barney and Betty Hill

The man who turned homosexual was not hallucinating. Was he? What has one got to do with the other?


Does God specifically disapprove? Chapter and verse please

That's a silly argument. A quick study of ancient Jewish culture which was established by Scripture, would DEMAND that new Scripture be provided to show a complete turn around in God's policy.

The silence reveals that no such change was made. Yet, there were passages provided to show that now the Jewish believers were to freely associate with the Gentiles who up until then were verbotin.

Gay marriage was not to be disproved by Scripture. No more than suddenly saying eating dung was still not acceptable. For that is how it was viewed by the first Church, who were all Jews. It was not needed to be disproved. For it was a given.


Do you follow the law of Moses? Or do you pick and chose among said law which you will follow, which you will use to condemn others and which you will ignore?

The same section of the Law that forbid homosexual expression between men, also forbid incest and bestiality. This was not ritual law. This was civil law.

Eating of clams and regulations for a woman having her period were not civil law.

Would a policeman give you a ticket for eating too much at McDonalds? You are confusing the Law as to being a whole. There are different sectors of the Law. Ritual. Dietary. And, Civil. Homosexuality fell under civil law, right next to adultery, incest, and bestiality.

Let's see...

Would you say that bestiality, incest, and adultery; God now approves of?

But, homosexuality which was included in the same category of law? He now does?

Who ever is caught up in his sin, does not see his sin as being sin. That's the problem. It takes the Holy Spirit to convict of sin. Not all walk in the Spirit who are saved. The way they treat their sin is evidenced of this. That's all it means. It does not mean that someone who believed in Christ is not saved. It means that they are refusing to walk in the Spirit whom they received when they were saved.

Galatians 5:16 nasb

"But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh."

Which means? Even if homosexuality is genetic? And you are saved?

Ephesians 4:30 nasb

"Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption."

In Christ, GeneZ​

 
Upvote 0

intricatic

...a dinosaur... or something...
Aug 5, 2005
38,935
697
Ohio
✟65,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Well it does. If sexual oriention is an inborn trait…then there is no choice involved…except of course the choice to be honest about who one is.
This is a false statement. We are not bound to adaptive behaviour based on genetics, but experience. If genetics play a part in it, this only means one of the possible choices in sexuality is predisposed, but not predefined. If sexual genetics were so imposing there would be no doubt regarding it's origin as it would require a very overt mechanism to potentiate the control over the neurological mechanisms that establish sexual adaptation and learning. There is no difference between heterosexual neurological mechanisms and homosexual neurological mechanisms. They're still human neurological mechanisms.


No…likening coffee with sugar is a preference. Likening abstract art is a preference. Liking jazz is a preference.
Sexuality is something innate? How do you explain the method people learn what "male" and "female" imply? There is no a-priori understanding of sexuality. This is what makes it a predisposition, which also means it relies to a large degree on learned behaviour. In other words, liking men over women is just as much a preference as liking suger over splelnda. ;)

Or are people who get a sexual high from animals just as much genetically prone to such behaviour as homosexuals are to members of their gender?



Sexual oriention isn’t a behavior. Sexual behavior is behavior
Unfortunately, that's exactly what it is. Sexuality in general plays an adaptive role in the neurochemistry. In order to be logically cohesive, any means to establish a "source" of sexuality needs to take this into consideration. You can "learn" to like different things in sex, and you can also "learn" to like members of the same gender in sex. Regardless of any potential genetic predisposition.


The comparison between sexual orientation and addiction is flawed.



There is alcoholic gene. The reference is to the reaction the dopamine receptors in the cortex of brain has to alcohol. Some people have specific centers that are dopamine over stimulated with use of alcohol. This over stimulation is the addiction.

However one need not have this predisposition to be an alcoholic. In fact, many alcoholics do not have this predisposition at all.
Would you say that there are many homosexuals without a predisposition to homosexuality?

There is a gene that makes one predisposed to alcoholism. However, that gene does not control a person and force them to be an alcoholic anymore than any possible gay gene would force a person to be a homosexual.



One cannot be an alcoholic without first consuming alcohol. However, one can be homosexual without having sex…just as one can be heterosexual without having sex.
According to who? Non-cohesive genetic explanations?



Likewise having same sex intercourse does not make one a homosexual just as having opposite sex intercourse does not make one a heterosexual
So attraction and sexual arrousal doesn't factor into it at all? This sounds like the argument that men cannot be raped.


I would invite you to look at the many writings of intelligence as applied to race that were published in the 19th centuries. It was an ugly business but a popular one for those trying to justify prejudice.
There were a few that were written around the same time that homosexual genetics became popular, too, but the homosexual studies were praised, and the intelligence studies were condemned. Mostly by the same groups. Are you being cohesive with your science?
 
Upvote 0

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
64
Asheville NC
✟27,263.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
[/size][/font]
And where is the legitimately published evidence that homosexuality is the result of choice?
It would appear that any study that goes against your view will probably be considered illegitimate. But here goes:

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_...803.pdf#search="studies homosexuality causes"

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_...903.pdf#search="studies homosexuality causes"

Where is the legitimately published evidence that homosexuality is the result of one’s relationship with either parent,?
http://www.cmf.org.uk/literature/content.asp?context=article&id=630

http://www.antiessays.com/print.php?eid=2046

Where is the legitimately published evidence that homosexuality is the result of a distant or absent father?
http://www.sfsu.edu/~protocol/human....pdf#search='study father role homosexuality'

http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/childhood_of_homosexual_men_2.htm

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

http://www.narth.com/docs/1996papers/dickson.html


Where is the legitimately published evidence that homosexuality is the result of family structure?
I never claimed that family structure causes homosexuality.


Where is the legitimately published evidence that homosexuality is the result of any psychological sociological, or familial factor?
This is an overall study.


http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet1.html

Here's a study that shows how it can be overcome.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/study.html

Just so we're clear here. You said:
HunterRose said:
It says God gave that particular group of people over to desires that were unnatural for THEM.
in response to:
Why does Romans 1, say that for punishment, God hands both men and women over to uncontrollable homosexual desire?
I then stated:
vossler said:
So according to you if it is natural for me to want to have sex with children it's o.k. with God? Since it is natural for me to want to have sex with multiple women, yet somehow I don't believe God would approve; I know my wife certainly wouldn't. :) Again, according to you God says it's a go! Hmmm...
To which you responded with:
HunterRose said:
This is called Argumentum ad Hominem It is a logical fallacy
HunterRose said:
You are purposefully misrepresenting what I said (heck your just making it up) and then attack me personally for something I did not say. then you pretend (a moral???) victory based on an argument you fabricated yourself.
HunterRose said:
When you can argue and post honestly come back and we can continue to have a discussion
When you can show me how I purposefully misrepresented you and made things up then I promise to apologize, otherwise I stand by what I said.
 
Upvote 0

HunterRose

Active Member
Jun 2, 2006
349
28
✟23,152.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
I asked you...

Why did God's Word condemn the homosexual act between two men in the Law?

Now? Will you please answer the question? We can deal with the other issues after you do. For, you did not answer my question. But, diverted away to other questions as a smoke screen to hide in.
Actually that was the answer


The answer(s) for your question are the same for my question(s).



But, it became natural to them.

Now you're just reaching


The man who turned homosexual was not hallucinating. Was he? What has one got to do with the other?
How do you know Mr. and Mrs. Hill were hallucinating? What do you have to base that assumption on?


The connection is obvious. Both were based on testimony. There is no difference between the two otherwise. Why are you declaring one testimony more valuable than another?



That's a silly argument. A quick study of ancient Jewish culture which was established by Scripture, would DEMAND that new Scripture be provided to show a complete turn around in God's policy.

The silence reveals that no such change was made. Yet, there were passages provided to show that now the Jewish believers were to freely associate with the Gentiles who up until then were verbotin.


Gay marriage was not to be disproved by Scripture. No more than suddenly saying eating dung was still not acceptable. For that is how it was viewed by the first Church, who were all Jews. It was not needed to be disproved. For it was a given.
So you can’t provide scripture and verse to back up your claim. Why didn’t you just say so?



The same section of the Law that forbid homosexual expression between men, also forbid incest and bestiality. This was not ritual law. This was civil law.

Eating of clams and regulations for a woman having her period were not civil law.

Would a policeman give you a ticket for eating too much at McDonalds? You are confusing the Law as to being a whole. There are different sectors of the Law. Ritual. Dietary. And, Civil. Homosexuality fell under civil law, right next to adultery, incest, and bestiality.
Can you cite chapter and verse detailing which old testament laws were “ritual” and which were “civil”

I can’t seem to find any.

In fact the only conclusion I can draw between what you are trying to declare as “ritual” and “civil” is your own personal preference.

Laws you wish to use to justify your own personal prejudice are in the one category and laws that you find personally inconvenient are in the other.
 
Upvote 0

HunterRose

Active Member
Jun 2, 2006
349
28
✟23,152.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
This is a false statement.
No it is an accurate statement. It is a statement you do not like…but your like or dislike does not change the truth of it.


We are not bound to adaptive behaviour based on genetics, but experience.

Again…sexual oriention is not a behavior. Sexual behavior is a behavior.


If genetics play a part in it, this only means one of the possible choices in sexuality is predisposed, but not predefined.
This is much like saying that right or left handedness is only a predisposition.

Can an individual write with his/her non-dominant hand? Yes…does that change him/her form right handed to left handed? No it does not it just adds a layer of behavior over the hard wiring of the brain.


If sexual genetics were so imposing there would be no doubt regarding it's origin as it would require a very overt mechanism to potentiate the control over the neurological mechanisms that establish sexual adaptation and learning.
can you provide evidence that sexual adaptation and learning affect sexual oriention?

There is no difference between heterosexual neurological mechanisms and homosexual neurological mechanisms. They're still human neurological mechanisms.
You might want to read up on the literature on this. ;)


Sexuality is something innate? How do you explain the method people learn what "male" and "female" imply? There is no a-priori understanding of sexuality. This is what makes it a predisposition, which also means it relies to a large degree on learned behaviour. In other words, liking men over women is just as much a preference as liking suger over splelnda. ;)
I have asked multiple times…and still no response…yet I will ask again:

Can you provide any legitimately published evidence that sexual oriention is affected by any social, psychological or familial trait?


Or are people who get a sexual high from animals just as much genetically prone to such behaviour as homosexuals are to members of their gender?
I will leave it up to others to decide if this was an ad Hominem attack or a poisoning of the well.


Unfortunately, that's exactly what it is. Sexuality in general plays an adaptive role in the neurochemistry. In order to be logically cohesive, any means to establish a "source" of sexuality needs to take this into consideration. You can "learn" to like different things in sex, and you can also "learn" to like members of the same gender in sex. Regardless of any potential genetic predisposition.
And the evidence that sexual oriention is a learned behavior please….


Would you say that there are many homosexuals without a predisposition to homosexuality?

There is a gene that makes one predisposed to alcoholism. However, that gene does not control a person and force them to be an alcoholic anymore than any possible gay gene would force a person to be a homosexual.
If you would have bothered to actually read my post you might have learned that there is no “alcoholic gene” rather it is the reaction in the dopamine receptors in the cortex of brain has to alcohol in some people. However one need not have this predisposition to be an alcoholic. In fact, many alcoholics do not have this predisposition at all.
One cannot be an alcoholic without first consuming alcohol. However, one can be homosexual without having sex…just as one can be heterosexual without having sex.

Likewise having same sex intercourse does not make one a homosexual just as having opposite sex intercourse does not make one a heterosexual




So attraction and sexual arrousal doesn't factor into it at all? This sounds like the argument that men cannot be raped.
According to your reasoning…men who are raped become homosexuals.



There were a few that were written around the same time that homosexual genetics became popular, too, but the homosexual studies were praised, and the intelligence studies were condemned. Mostly by the same groups. Are you being cohesive with your science?
Can you provide actual references? :confused:
 
Upvote 0

HunterRose

Active Member
Jun 2, 2006
349
28
✟23,152.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Just so we're clear here. You said:

in response to:

I then stated:

To which you responded with:
When you can show me how I purposefully misrepresented you and made things up then I promise to apologize, otherwise I stand by what I said.
Lets see…

Did I say ANYTHING about the sexual abuse of children?
No.


Did I suggest anyone sexually abuse children?
No..


Did I infer at any time that you personally sexually abuse children?
No.


Did I speak to the morality of the sexual abuse of children?
No.

What did you say again?

“So according to you if it is natural for me to want to have sex with children it's o.k. with God? Since it is natural for me to want to have sex with multiple women, yet somehow I don't believe God would approve; I know my wife certainly wouldn't. Again, according to you God says it's a go! Hmmm...”




BTW.

“legitimately published evidence” refers to scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals.

This means that once a scientist has conducted research and analyzed the data collected the entire project is turned over to experts in the field who are uninvolved with the research who examines the methodology, the hypothesis, the data, the investigation and the conclusions drawn searching for flaws and faults. Once said group of experts gives its approval the editorial board of said journal engages in the same process. The idea is to look for problems with any of the above that may affect the conclusions.

“legitimately published evidence” is not a blog or an essay someone does and puts up on the net. They are not published by vanity presses.

Your links fail the base criteria for evidence
are little more than blogs.

That aside complaining or engineering problems with studies does not provide evidence that sexual oriention is the result of any sort of choice.

I can blog away about how the Apollo moon landing was faked by the US Government…but that is not providing evidence that the earth is actually flat.


fail the base criteria for evidence

apparently this is another blog.





This one just made me laugh. The author was so proud of his/her work that they didn’t bother to write their own name on it.




I generally avoid hate sites such as NARTH. They are unpublished unreviewed




I was wondering when the writings of Paul Cameron would rear their ugly little heads.


Paul Cameron, in case you were unaware, was expelled form the American Psychological association for ethics violation in 1983. Cameron fabricated research data on homosexuals (some of this fabricated data even appears in this little pamphlet) and misrepresented the legitimate research of other scientists.



one has to wonder...if it was such a great study…why after nine years hasn’t it been published? what exactly is this wonderful study’s name? who is the author(s). amazing how all these details are left out isn’t it?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.