Why are they gay?

[GenemZ]

Why do so many Christians lie about homosexuality and homosexuals?
Paul Cameron, James Dobson, Timothy Dailey, John Diggs, and so on…I would imagine the motive to lie is the same for all including the interviewee in the link you provided.
Attention.
Money for “testimony”
Advancement of a personal/political agenda.
I could think of a dozen or so more reasons why he would lie.

Pro-gay groups do not lie? They do not keep hidden what they do not want the straight community to know? They do not run with theories which can not be proven, and exclaim them as if they were absolutute truth? You have got to be kidding!

I would accept that no more than any one else’s unverified claims. And with the same level of confidence as testimony form someone claiming to have been married to Bigfoot

Or, someone saying he was born gay? Being born a male who is a bit feminine does not make one gay. It just makes him a weak male. Demons see this and recruit his soul. If this child is not protected spiritually he will become a victim. Yet, God wants to deliver the weak if they would only turn themselves fully to God.

2 Corinthians 12:9 niv
"But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me."
​

Its in our weaknesses where Jesus steps in and takes over. He makes us strong where we were once helpless. That is? If we follow Christ. The TRUE Christ. Not some so called christ who blesses our weakness and tells us he loves us as we live in evil.

Isaiah 5:20 niv
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."

​

The question remains if there really are that many “ex-gays” out there why is it the only people researchers can find who will actually claim to have changed their sexual oriention form fully homosexual to fully heterosexual are individuals actively employed by various ex-gay ministries…that is people paid to say that they are ex-gay?

You find it hard to believe. That's all that is saying. You do not wish to believe it is possible. For, if you did? Your thinking would be turned upside down. No longer confident in what has given you your confidence all your life.

Philippians 2:12 niv
"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling."
​

That is what happens when God gets us to shed our natural place of protecting ego.

To say God does not have the power to transform lives, is to say one totally fails to see who and what God is. Its to call God a liar.

Worse…these individuals have a nasty habit of later figuring out that lying about their “change” is morally wrong and recant their “testimony”.

Ever hear of backsliding? Even the one in the testimony I linked for you, said he backslid along the way until he was truly delivered. I guess you really did not read all of it?

The fact remains there is the same level of evidence for the existence of extraterrestrials as there is that people can change their sexual oriention.

That's almost like saying that there is no God. We only create the idea of God as to be a personal sense of comfort.

2 Corinthians 12:9 niv
"But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me."
​

Grace and truth, Genez
​

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Or, someone saying he was born gay?

I say I was born gay. Care to discuss?

 

[tulc]

This spot saved for something later
tulc(just in case)

 

[ReformedChapin]

You may have noted this was said in direct response to ganz’s declaration .. and pretty much tosses that declaration into the trash can.

So if sexual oriention is in born (as all evidence says it is) …and if God could have could have made gays str8…then it would seem that God is not the one with gays.

Similarly…if God can transform” a homosexual into a heterosexual. (and he should be able to because he is God after all) but he doesn’t seem to be doing this as expressed by the abyssiamal failure rate of such things as reparative therapy and ex-gay organizations like Exodus. Leaving the question to be if God wants people to be heterosexual why isn’t he doing something about it?

By your logic, God wants to die,He wants them to sin, He wants them to muder because if not, he would do something about it.

And no, there is no evidence that shows homosexuality is genetic.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Newguy, I though Hunterrose's list of articles was quite comprehensive and impressive. However, since you want something you can link to

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519.v

Just as I thought, "scientists" doing crappy studies. I hate it when they make corralation studies when both variables are not involved. By the way that article didn't show the date as to why the x chromosome could possibly have the 'gay gene.'

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html

One of the first successful scientific studies that was done on homosexuality was reported on in 1993. The purpose of this study was to look at families in which there was an abnormally high occurrence of homosexuality. By extensively studying the family histories of these families, researchers hoped to find some clues pointing towards the genetic factors that affect homosexuality. That is exactly what happened. By looking at the family trees of gay males (For some reason, this study only focused on male homosexuality, but made the claim that their findings would be similar to the ones that would be found by looking at female homosexuality. As this paper will discuss later, this assumption that male and female homosexuality can easily be compared may be entirely inaccurate.) it seemed that the majority of homosexual occurrences were on the maternal side of the tree. From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual. While this study did not come up with any hard core facts about the genetics of homosexuality, it showed that a connection very well could exist. Since this study did determine that the gene influencing homosexuality was carried by the mother, researchers participating in further studies knew that they could limit their search to the X chromosome, and that is exactly what they did (5).

this is by far the worst research I have seen in any article. Just because patterns occur in certain families that doesn't imply that it's a gene. Just that there is a factor within that family that causes homosexuality.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3735668.stm

this is is the same trash as the first article...
It is clear that our findings, if confirmed by further research, are only one piece in a much larger puzzle on the nature of human sexuality," they said.

In 2002, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics produced a report into the possible link between genes and behaviour, which included sexual orientation. It concluded: "There are numerous problems with genetic and other biological research into sexual orientation which mean that any reported findings must be viewed with caution."

http://www.oasismag.com/node/view/6260

Same crap as before...

talian geneticists may have explained how genes apparently linked to male homosexuality survive, despite gay men seldom having children. Their findings also undermine the theory of a single “gay gene”.

The researchers discovered that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same - as yet unidentified - genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the “gay” genetic factors in circulation.

The findings represent the best explanation yet for the Darwinian paradox presented by homosexuality: it is a genetic dead-end, yet the trait persists generation after generation

http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

Another crappy coralation study, again because some fruit flies have a "homosexual" orgy that doesn't imply it's a reocurring phoenomenon among humans or among the flies themselves. If for some reason or another it's genetic, it might be a disorder.

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

Another correlation study that proves nothing.

Just a few articles that explain some of the leading theory regarding homosexual genetics. The short version, is that while some homosexuality is clearly a case of nurture, environment or trauma related, there is also a vast amount of evidence to suggest that there is a "gay gene", carried by some women, which serves to enhance their fertility, but results in homosexuality when passed to male offspring.

I have tried to cite articles with no obvious bias one way or the other. I hope this enough to convince you that there IS a significant body of scientific evidence to support the theory that homosexuality can be a result of nature, as well as nurture, and therefore to think of it in terms of "choice" is, at the very least, one sided.

I'm not going to waste my time beliving idiot scientist trying to make connections where they don't exist. Again I want a legit study, peer-reviewed article which gives clear connections. Not just "what I think it is." By the way, those were biased.

Now speaking from a biblical perspective, it's clear that secularist will keep running in circules but now all sins are found by natural pheonomena. BTW, I don't believe anything sociobiologist think since they have preconcived notions that all behavior is part of evolution.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I say I was born gay. Care to discuss?

anyone who says that doesn't know what they are talking about


that's like saying I was born speaking english

 

[fevoldj2]

That is, if sexual orientation is learned behavior. I'm sure that most animals aren't taught by their parents how to reproduce.

 

[ReformedChapin]

That is, if sexual orientation is learned behavior. I'm sure that most animals aren't taught by their parents how to reproduce.

There's dogs who hump legs. Did those dogs learn that from their parents or is it genetic?

Gee maybe it's a product of natural selection.

 

[GenemZ]

I say I was born gay. Care to discuss?

Discuss......

Some people have been born timid in nature.

And?

2 Timothy 1:7 niv​

"For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline."​

​

Timid people did not choose to be timid. Yet? If they walk in the Spirit and Truth? They will not be.

Likewise, God did not give someone the spirit of being gay, but a Spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline.


Now? If you wish to discuss what you were when God called you? Feel free.

Luke 1:37 niv​

"For nothing is impossible with God."​

​

God did not make you gay. Adam's fall, did.

Romans 5:12 niv​

" Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned."​

​

Yet, there is offered us a potential to achieve. For we are now equiped with the power of God's grace to have him change us. We can not change ourselves! We have not the power in ourselves to do so! God's grace will change us if we are willing to develop patience in suffering, and endurance in Truth that will come our way if we choose to discover God's will for our lives.

2 Corinthians 5:17 niv​

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!"​

​

But, we must make the choice to walk in this newness of life!

Romans 6:4 niv​

"We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." ​

​

We have been crucified (our flesh) in Christ! God's power of grace will enable us to experience that as reality if we never quit and seek Truth in the power of the Spirit.

Colossians 3:5-9 (New International Version)​

"Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices." ​

​

We all do not have the same areas of weakness. In that way God keeps us onto Himself. That way we must depend upon him, and not use others as our crutch.

That individuality of weaknesses also avoids the aspect of 'safety in numbers' as an excuse for being normal. He has others be normal where we are weak to show us we are defective in function. We are all unrighteous in who and what we are born into in Adam.

If you believed in Jesus Christ you're going to Heaven.

Even if you refuse to allow God's grace to change you.

You can not lose your salvation.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15 (New International Version)​

"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames."​

As you can see. I am not here to condemn you to Hell if you keep on practicing lesbianism. But, I am here to tell you what you will forfeit blessing and rewards for believing a lie that God accepts and approves of gay marriage.

If God did now accept gays? It would have been a radical departure from the Law for the Apostles! You would then have seen loads of Scripture added on how to function in God's will in gay marriage. Yet, there is complete silence in Scripture.

Ask yourself. If anyone needed instruction more than husband and wife? And, husbands and wives do receive instruction in Scripture? Mandates for gays should be in Scripture even more so. Would there not be?

The Scripture is silent on this matter. Its as if one were placed in a sound proof chamber. You can only hear your own heartbeat. Nothing else...





If any believer (not just those who were gay) refuse to take up his cross daily and to deny self? He will never know the happiness God wants to share with the mature believer in time. And, all (straights and gays) who fail to mature in Christ will be denied their rewards of Eternity. Rewards that will allow each one of us to share in a speciality of life with Christ in unique area of oneness.

Grace and truth, GeneZ​

​

 

[relspace]

BTW, I don't believe anything sociobiologist think since they have preconcived notions that all behavior is part of evolution.

That is too bad since evolution provides some of the best evidence that there can be no homosexuality gene.


This is from the queer by choice website:

the following quote is from the pro-"gay gene" page at ReligiousTolerance.org:

"Any genetic trait that reduces a person's chance of procreating is said to have a "fitness cost." A trait that has a fitness cost of 1% lowers the probability of having children by 1%. The cost would cause the trait to essentially disappear within 100 generations. Homosexuality has a "fitness cost that is much higher than 1%." A 1981 study in San Francisco showed that gays and lesbians have only 20% of the number of children as do heterosexuals; i.e. the fitness cost factor among that sample of homosexuals is 80%. This number was probably much lower in the past, as gays and lesbians were often forced into marriages in order to escape detection. But it would only have to be 0.001% to wipe out the trait in the lifetime of the human race.
—the pro-"gay gene" page at ReligiousTolerance.org"
​

Powerful numbers, huh? And the only response the ReligiousTolerance.org site gives to its own argument is to suggest that instead of being genetic, there's always a chance that queerness could be caused by a virus, bacterium, or parasite. Ooh—now there's a liberating idea that'll make everybody glad to be gay. Well, that's why they call the site Religious Tolerance—because they think that queerness is a defect to be tolerated (and even that only as a last resort if they can first prove we "can't help it") instead of an achievement to be celebrated. The question now is this: Why are so many queer people agreeing with them?

So far as I have been looking through these so called scientific studies, I see only inconclusive preliminary studies after a long line of failed attempts. In other words I see the same kind of hunting expedition that can be found in "Creation Science" - which means this is not science but political and religious motivated rhetoric.

The best studies were the ones that horrified me the most for these were focused on establishing the claim that the masculine-feminine spectrum has prenatal origins. But the identification of such personality traits with homosexuality horrifies me. First of all, there are obvious non-biological reasons why there would be a link between personality and homosexuality purely as a matter of choice and therefore no reason to think the link is in any way determinative. Second, the doctrine that effeminate male personalities have no choice but to be homosexual is attrotious in the extreme, and I will not tolerate this blatant reaffirmation of bogus masculine stereotypes.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

anyone who says that doesn't know what they are talking about

So... I'm gay, and I don't know what I'm talking about? Who would you suggest would know what I'm talking about. Seriously? Cos I don't understand what you mean

that's like saying I was born speaking english

Not. Its like saying I was born blonde. See, I didn't have any actual hair when I was born, but when it grew, it was blonde. There was no matter of choice or learning to be blonde... it was just the way my body expressed its makeup at the appropriate time.

As for your claim that Newscientist is biased, or non peer reviewed... just... wow...

You asked for evidence, I in good faith found you some. If you want to ignore evidence thats there, well, I guess thats really your prerogative. Argue against it, whatever. But don't say there ISN'T any... cos thats just not true.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And fitness cost is only applicable if the gene gives no benefit as well.

As I have described elsewhere, sickle cell anaemia, deadly disease if inherrited from both sides, but immunity to malaria if inherited from only one side. In terms of gene transmission, homosexuality may be the same, and, as already stated, the current theory suggest that a carrier female may have higher fertility, while the gene expressed in male offspring results in homosexuality...

 

[ReformedChapin]

So... I'm gay, and I don't know what I'm talking about? Who would you suggest would know what I'm talking about. Seriously? Cos I don't understand what you mean

I'm not going to bother arguing with you since you don't seem to be consistent with your points. Your statement said you were claiming to be BORN gay, when infact you don't know that.

Not. Its like saying I was born blonde. See, I didn't have any actual hair when I was born, but when it grew, it was blonde. There was no matter of choice or learning to be blonde... it was just the way my body expressed its makeup at the appropriate time.

As for your claim that Newscientist is biased, or non peer reviewed... just... wow...

You asked for evidence, I in good faith found you some. If you want to ignore evidence thats there, well, I guess thats really your prerogative. Argue against it, whatever. But don't say there ISN'T any... cos thats just not true.

You have no clear understanding of how to do reasearch, you just read what some people look up and accept it. I don't do that, secular scientists make up all kinds of data that has been flase before and their doing it again with homosexuality. Again, you have a reason to complain when you provide reliabel research, if anyone of my statements were wrong the refute them...if you can.

BTW my statement saying there was no research is simple, making guesses without reliabel evidence is like having no evidence at all. I can say the moon is made out of cheese becuase it has a nice white color to it like milk that cheese is made out of, does that mean it's true? Does that mean I have some sort of evidence? Nope.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Your statement said you were claiming to be BORN gay, when infact you don't know that.

My initial response is that this is semantic nitpicking... however, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, rephrase and try again.

I am gay. For as long as I can remember having any sort of romatic feelings, (age 6-7ish) I have been gay. I have no recolection, or evidence of, any sort of significant event that "changed" me, nor do I have any recollection, or the ability, to make a conscious decision to be otherwise.

Therefore, I think that my sexual orientation is inherent (if the phrase "born gay" bothers you, I am willing to make this compromise in terminology). Do you believe that there are other people better qualified to comment on the inherrent nature or otherwise of my sexuality?

Just because patterns occur in certain families that doesn't imply that it's a gene. Just that there is a factor within that family that causes homosexuality.

you said this on an earlier page, so... if there is a "certain factor within families"... how is that NOT evidence that homosexuality is inherent to some people for reasons beyond their control? (whether genetic or not, that really is the crux of my arguement)

 

[EnemyPartyII]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowSection&rid=dbio.box.4131

http://www.mega.nu/gender.html

some more "evidence"... including a list of peer reviewed articles (the host sit is clearly biased, the articles are sound)
http://www.borngayprocon.org/pop/Studies.htm

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php?page=all&p=y

I say again. There IS evidence. deny it if you will, but how you can say there is no evidence with a straight face is a mystery to me.

That there is evidence doesnt even prove the point... I'd rather have the debate with someone who will at least admit the obvious (that there is evidence) rather than with someone who thinks dismissing evidence that does not support your priori assumption is the same as there being no evidence

 

[ReformedChapin]

My initial response is that this is semantic nitpicking... however, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, rephrase and try again.

I am gay. For as long as I can remember having any sort of romatic feelings, (age 6-7ish) I have been gay. I have no recolection, or evidence of, any sort of significant event that "changed" me, nor do I have any recollection, or the ability, to make a conscious decision to be otherwise.

Therefore, I think that my sexual orientation is inherent (if the phrase "born gay" bothers you, I am willing to make this compromise in terminology). Do you believe that there are other people better qualified to comment on the inherrent nature or otherwise of my sexuality?

The fact is what you say has no validity since there is no research to back it up.

you said this on an earlier page, so... if there is a "certain factor within families"... how is that NOT evidence that homosexuality is inherent to some people for reasons beyond their control? (whether genetic or not, that really is the crux of my arguement)

Do you have any understanding of what I said? I ment there is a factor that doesn't mean it's a inhereted trait, it would be a behavior that is repeated in that family we don't know what it is.

 

[ReformedChapin]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowSection&rid=dbio.box.4131

http://www.mega.nu/gender.html

some more "evidence"... including a list of peer reviewed articles (the host sit is clearly biased, the articles are sound)
http://www.borngayprocon.org/pop/Studies.htm

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php?page=all&p=y

I say again. There IS evidence. deny it if you will, but how you can say there is no evidence with a straight face is a mystery to me.

That there is evidence doesnt even prove the point... I'd rather have the debate with someone who will at least admit the obvious (that there is evidence) rather than with someone who thinks dismissing evidence that does not support your priori assumption is the same as there being no evidence

This is the last time I'm going to say this. There can be evidence for any argument, does this mean it's valid? NO. All of those studies are based on preconvived notions about human behavior, their theoretical frame work is useless and I'm not going to waste time refuting you anymore.

this article doesn't even support your case...The Evolutionary Psychology of Human Sex and Gender

this isn't even an article...just more unfounded opinions, the only guy that made sense was the con...Peer-Reviewed Studies on Sexuality Since 1990

If you're trying to suggest some how that researchers are unbiased you're wrong. I also suggest you take a look at this website, atleast these homosexuals accept the fact they made the choice of their lifestyle.

Debate me with evidence not crappy studies.

 

[vossler]

I'd rather have the debate with someone who will at least admit the obvious (that there is evidence) rather than with someone who thinks dismissing evidence that does not support your priori assumption is the same as there being no evidence

I'm not necessarily looking for a debate, at least not with regard to any scientific claims. However, I would like to know if you believe someone who is gay today could become straight in the future?

 

[intricatic]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowSection&rid=dbio.box.4131

http://www.mega.nu/gender.html

some more "evidence"... including a list of peer reviewed articles (the host sit is clearly biased, the articles are sound)
http://www.borngayprocon.org/pop/Studies.htm

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php?page=all&p=y

I say again. There IS evidence. deny it if you will, but how you can say there is no evidence with a straight face is a mystery to me.

That there is evidence doesnt even prove the point... I'd rather have the debate with someone who will at least admit the obvious (that there is evidence) rather than with someone who thinks dismissing evidence that does not support your priori assumption is the same as there being no evidence

I liked this one.

Robert L. Spitzer, M.D. et. al., in their October 2003 article in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior (Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 403-417) stated:

"This study tested the hypothesis that some individuals whose sexual orientation is predominantly homosexual can, with some form of reparative therapy, become predominantly heterosexual...

The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year. Reports of complete change were uncommon. Female participants reported significantly more change than did male participants....

Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians."

From This Site.

When it comes down to it, the question is incredibly simple. Are we alive, or are we robotic? Do we have control over how our psychology operates, or are we slaves to psychological condition?

 

[HunterRose]

[/size][/font]

Pro-gay groups do not lie? They do not keep hidden what they do not want the straight community to know? They do not run with theories which can not be proven, and exclaim them as if they were absolutute truth? You have got to be kidding!

You asked why would anyone lie about being ex-gay…well there are the reasons.

Why would anyone lie about research and medical findings about homosexuality and homosexuals as Paul Cameron, James Dobson, Timothy Dailey, John Diggs do. And even lie in court under oath about homosexuals…While that reason is between them and God I think that their motivations are pretty clear.

Or, someone saying he was born gay?

Is there empirical evidence to support the clan that homosexuality is an inborn trait…yes there is a considerable amount of such evidence.
Is there evidence to support the clan that someone claiming to have been married to bigfoot … no.
Is there empirical evidence to support the clan that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation?....no

Being born a male who is a bit feminine does not make one gay. It just makes him a weak male. Demons see this and recruit his soul. If this child is not protected spiritually he will become a victim.

What does being effeminate have to do with sexual orientation?

So…lesbians are born strong women? but if they are that strong…where do the mythical demons come in?

Yet, God wants to deliver the weak if they would only turn themselves fully to God.

Well that is awful nice of God…but strangely it seems the only people he “delivers” are those who are being paid to be ex-gay.

You find it hard to believe. That's all that is saying.

No I am actually asking if there really are that many “ex-gays” out there why is it the only people researchers can find who will actually claim to have changed their sexual oriention form fully homosexual to fully heterosexual are individuals actively employed by various ex-gay ministries…that is people paid to say that they are ex-gay?

You do not wish to believe it is possible. For, if you did? Your thinking would be turned upside down. No longer confident in what has given you your confidence all your life.

Now if only someone could actually offer up some real proof….but after thirty plus years of making a lot of claims the various ex-gay ministries can’t produce anybody willing to claim that they went from being a homosexual to a heterosexual who was not being paid to say that.

​

To say God does not have the power to transform lives, is to say one totally fails to see who and what God is. Its to call God a liar.

Sadly it the ex-gay ministries that are doing the lying…not God.

Ever hear of backsliding? Even the one in the testimony I linked for you, said he backslid along the way until he was truly delivered. I guess you really did not read all of it?

So if they “backsliding” that must mean that God didn’t do a very good job transforming their lives now did he?