Why are they gay?

[ReformedChapin]

I don't think anybody is expecting you to accept the titles. There is enough information in those titles for you to look up the articles and actually educate yourself on the topic. If you consider that a "waste of time" that is your problem.

I am educated on the topic thank you very much, and I will report this comment to the staff as a plain insult to me.

how am I supposed to find the article? magic?

 

[HunterRose]

[/size][/font]

Many blacks find the comparison between gays and blacks as an insult.

Well considering that there wasn’t a comparison rather a statement of fact that neither is the result of a genetic disorder…it would be pretty difficult to insult anyone.

The only thing that is shared in common is one of having faced prejudice. But, so have the Jews. Horrendously.

And being Jewish is not the result of a “genetic defect” either

You brining up prejudice and implying that hit is bad…but you don’t seem to have issue with justifying prejudice against homosexuals. Are you saying that prejudice against a minority is bad only for certain minorities?

And, so have criminals. What has one thing have to do with the other? All people that societies are prejudiced against have to be right?

Why is prejudice against blacks or Jews wrong but prejudice against homosexuals OK?

Yet, God would not allow for them to be made into sex slaves as it was common in pagan nations where homosexuality was also seen as a norm. Your point was?

My point is that perhaps you should actually read the bible you quote so often.


“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)

so God would not allow foreign slaves to be made into sex slaves…but any Hebrew could sell his daughter to be a sex slave…and that was all right.

I think slaves were much happier under Jews than the pagans. They were treated like family in many cases.

A lot of antebellum white folk treated their slaves like family too…and boy that made everything just nifty didn’t it? all those happy Negro slaves just singin spirituals and the white folk working hard to make sure they were all happy.

 

[HunterRose]

I am educated on the topic thank you very much, and I will report this comment to the staff as a plain insult to me.

how am I supposed to find the article? magic?

http://scholar.google.com/

 

[Mling]

how am I supposed to find the article? magic?

Here's an example:

Wood, EC Evolutions of an orientation concerning the nature of the male homosexualities. Am J Psychoanal. 1995 Jun;55(2):103-20; discussion 121-7.

You go to any local library and you find the American Journal of Psychoanalysis (if they don't have the journal you are looking for, you can move on to the next one or ask a librarian to order it for you from another library). You find the issue from June of 1995, and turn to page 103. There should be an article there by somebody called Wood. The article should be called "Evolutions of an orientation concerning the nature of male homosexualities."

If "educate yourself" (said in response to the idea that looking up articles would be a "waste of time", and responded to with a request to explain the "magic" of library databases) is a "plain insult", you are going to have trouble justifying "I suggest you take a course."

PS: The journals are arranged alphabetically.

 

[intricatic]

My point is that perhaps you should actually read the bible you quote so often.


“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)

so God would not allow foreign slaves to be made into sex slaves…but any Hebrew could sell his daughter to be a sex slave…and that was all right.

You're absolutely right. They should have just let the women fend for themselves in the inhospitable desert. The reasons for slavery in ancient Israel was a protective device for the members of society that would not be able to survive on their own. This statement is not saying "all women were slaves" or "all men were slaves", but those who were slaves, were, by law, treated well so long as they also followed the law. The women who were in slavery were provided far more comforts than the men were, as well. "Sex slaves"? Hardly.

 

[GenemZ]

Daem DR, Byron KA. Alpha 1-antitrypsin phenotypes in homosexual men.Pathology. 1989 Apr;21(2):91-2.



Just a small sample of the thousands of scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals showing a biological origin for sexual orientation.

That is categorically untrue. I took the time to check out this one source. It speaks of the incidence of a disease disorder found more commonly in homosexual men. It has nothing to do with what the origin is.

You just simply quoted a long list of what appears to be references to make your point.

As noted there exists no, REPEAT NO, single bit of equivalent evidence that homosexuality is somehow a choice, the result of choice.

That was a smoke screen if I ever saw one. My interest in nutrition and a familiarity with some of the terminology caused me to be drawn to that one reference. It had NOTHING to do with a genetic cause for homosexuality. It would be like saying homosexual men are more prone to migraine headaches than heterosexual males. Just a smoke screen in the way you presented it...


How do you explain the following?

Romans 1:24-27 niv
"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
​

What did God do? Alter their genes? One minute they are heterosexual? The next? Flaming gays?

Homosexuality is a SPIRITUAL issue. That is why God condemns it.

These people were perverse towards God before he turned them loose to be perverse towards nature.

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[HunterRose]

You're absolutely right. They should have just let the women fend for themselves in the inhospitable desert. The reasons for slavery in ancient Israel was a protective device for the members of society that would not be able to survive on their own.

So you are saying that if one lives in a difficult climate it is perfectly moral to sell your own daughter into slavery. I sincerely pray you never have a daughter.

This statement is not saying "all women were slaves" or "all men were slaves", but those who were slaves, were, by law, treated well so long as they also followed the law. The women who were in slavery were provided far more comforts than the men were, as well. "Sex slaves"? Hardly.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)
Yeah…that’s treating slaves real well.

 

[HunterRose]

[/font][/size]

That is categorically untrue. I took the time to check out this one source. It speaks of the incidence of a disease disorder found more commonly in homosexual men. It has nothing to do with what the origin is.

Gee…if you actually took the time to check out this one source as you are trying to claim here…then you might of actually read that the disease in question not only affects homosexual men significantly more than heterosexual men and the disease is genetic implying a connection between a genetic origin for sexual orientation

Tough to miss...I mean even if you only skimmed the abstract you would still see that…

You just simply quoted a long list of what appears to be references to make your point.

A small portion of a longer list of published scientific studies providing evidence that sexual oriention is an inborn trait

That was a smoke screen if I ever saw one. My interest in nutrition and a familiarity with some of the terminology caused me to be drawn to that one reference. It had NOTHING to do with a genetic cause for homosexuality. It would be like saying homosexual men are more prone to migraine headaches than heterosexual males. Just a smoke screen in the way you presented it...

Smokescreen?

Well please share with us all references for studies published in peer-reviewed journals indicating that homosexuality is the result of a choice, conscious or otherwise.

Please share with us all references for studies published in peer reviewed journals indicating that homosexuality is the result of how one was raised

Please share with us all references for studies published in peer reviewed journals indicating that homosexuality is the result of childhood sexual trauma

Please share with us all references for studies published in peer reviewed journals indicating that homosexuality is the result or ones relationship with one’s father

Please share with us all references for studies published in peer-reviewed journals indicating that homosexuality is the result one’s relationship with one’s mother

Please share with us all references for studies published in peer reviewed journals indicating that homosexuality is the result of ANY psychological, sociological or familial trait.


I won't be holding my breath.

How do you explain the following?

Romans 1:24-27 niv​

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ​

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. ​

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. ​

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. ​

Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."​

​

What did God do? Alter their genes? One minute they are heterosexual? The next? Flaming gays?

The relationships are referred to as being unnatural. the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic for that person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals. This is not a condemnation of homosexuals…rather it is a condemnation of ex-gay ministries.

Homosexuality is a SPIRITUAL issue. That is why God condemns it.

So wearing gold jewelry is a spiritual issue??? and eating shrimp is a spiritual issue???

 

[vossler]

Just a small sample of the thousands of scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals showing a biological origin for sexual orientation.

Did you really expect people to see a laundry list of 'studies' that have no links or other corroborating information and accept them without question? If these studies can stand up under scrutiny and back up your claims then I would think you'd love posting more in-depth information. I'd certainly like to see it.

As noted there exists no, REPEAT NO, single bit of equivalent evidence that homosexuality is somehow a choice, the result of choice. No evidence that homosexuality is the result of one’s relationship with either parent, that homosexuality is the result of a distant or absent father. No evidence that homosexuality is the result of family structure. No evidence that homosexuality is the result of any psychological sociological, or familial factor.

Well I don't know about 'evidence' in the sense of scientific facts, but I have personal evidence that someone I prayed for who was gay for their entire life and then became straight, went on to marry and is very happy. To me that's the best kind of evidence, first hand stuff.

 

[GenemZ]

Well considering that there wasn’t a comparison rather a statement of fact that neither is the result of a genetic disorder…it would be pretty difficult to insult anyone.

Atheists are not the result of a genetic disorder. Yet, if one claims people are prejudiced against Atheist like once were against blacks? Most people have good reasons not to like Atheists.

And being Jewish is not the result of a “genetic defect” either

Which proves nothing about gays being born that way. Does it?

You brining up prejudice and implying that hit is bad…but you don’t seem to have issue with justifying prejudice against homosexuals. Are you saying that prejudice against a minority is bad only for certain minorities?

Everyone has some bias. And, should in some cases.

Psalm 97:10 niv​

"Let those who love the LORD hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked."​

​

Who are evil?

And, while we are speaking of homosexuality...

Romans 1:32 niv​

"Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."​

​

How can those on the side of righteousness be a debate with those on the side of evil? And, come to any real agreement? It will not happen. Will it? What are you trying to prove, then?

Why is prejudice against blacks or Jews wrong but prejudice against homosexuals OK?

Live and let live. Unless those you are letting live, begin to tell you that those you now tolerate, must no longer be tolerated, but openly accepted.

Then try to convince the other side to like what they prefer naturally. That is when the line is drawn.

You want to be gay? Be my guest. You want to say God approves? Then you have stepped over the line.

My point is that perhaps you should actually read the bible you quote so often.


“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11

Perhaps you should study some isogogics. Find out the cultural setting and what others in surrounding nations were doing at that time? What was the norms of the day? What was God dealing with?

At one time slavery was a necessity for destitute people. Either financially, or mentally. It was a form of welfare that required you to work hard for your keep.

Some sold themselves into slavery for various reasons. The man mentioned in this passage was not using this woman as a sex slave. She was to be a handmaid.

It even speaks of her possibly being given to be betrothed to his son. Why be betrothed to his son? For, if what you claim is truth? Then he could have given her as a sex slave to his son. If your angle were true? Why betroth her to his son? People who took sex slaves did not think that way.


It also demands fair treatment if he was not pleased with her. Not to dump her as a piece of waste, like Gentiles did with their slaves back then. But, instead, even if he were displeased, to provide for her.

In that day and age? That was very humane treatment of a slave who displeased a master.

so God would not allow foreign slaves to be made into sex slaves…but any Hebrew could sell his daughter to be a sex slave…and that was all right.

There is no mention of her being a sex slave. You are perverting the meaning of that passage. Perversion is a bad thing. It distorts reality. You would not know that we were reading the same passage the way you see it.

A lot of antebellum white folk treated their slaves like family too…and boy that made everything just nifty didn’t it? all those happy Negro slaves just singin spirituals and the white folk working hard to make sure they were all happy.

Slavery was to end during the Church age. Not so, during the OT times. What you quoted was for OT saints in Israel, only.

1 Corinthians 7:20-22 (New International Version)​

"Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave."​

​

When Christ says to do something?

Do you do it?

Are you his slave?

Ephesians 5:25 niv​

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." ​

Ephesians 5:28 niv​

"In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself." ​

​

There are no such commandments for gays.

God forgot to include this newly integrated group if they are to be accepted?

Gays have severe obstacles to face in this life. Much more than heterosexuals. Why did God neglect to help with instruction if God accepts gay marriages?

Where are the instructions to be found? God knows the opposition you would face. God is not there? He is not truly omniscient? He missed including instructions for homosexuals?

He knows what's going on. And, He is letting it play out.

Grace and truth, GeneZ​

​

 

[Ave Maria]

Nobody knows for sure what causes homosexuality but it is probably a combination of genetics and environment.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus1.htm

 

[relspace]

so the whole idea smacks of strawman-ery anyway.

edit: I love this argument, because, not only does it have strawmanish overtones, but it actually fails to knock down the strawman. Which begs the question--what's the point of a strawman if you can't defeat it?

First you are grasping at straws and now you are grasping at stawmen. The whoppers keep getting bigger. The straw is all the so called evidence lying in a trail of failure behind the desperate attempts to find evidence for what is not there.

The idea is that, because a gay person is less likely to procreate, if homosexuality was genetic it would have been wiped out.

Now this is a good example of a strawman. You completely ignore the argument quoted from a pro-tolerance website to put forward your own poor explanation which is easier for you to shoot down.

Of course, attraction is waaaaay too complicated to be controlled by "a gay gene," and I think it's fairly well understood that no such gene can exist,

Well at least we agree on something. It is a place to start. I especially like the "waaaaay too complicated" part, for I most definitely agree about that. So many factors involved: physiological, psychological, and sociological. And the psychological factors are the most complex of them all. The complexity of all these different influences from all the different aspects of life are what make human choices something which no other person can hope to judge or understand. Which influences to embrace as the reasons for our actions is something we must do ourselves. That is why we must respect the choices that people make about how how they will live their lives. The only human being with any hope of making a choice among all these influences that will bring them happiness is the one whose life it is. Only God can do better and He is quite capable of providing any help that is required Himself.

You can find the same endless tossing back and forth of so called evidence in the evolution debate. The fact is that people have different beliefs as is their right. This is something everyone must accept. Let us not be like the circumcisors in the early church losing sight of what is really import because we insist that everyone practice Christianity as we undertand it.

 

[HunterRose]

Did you really expect people to see a laundry list of 'studies' that have no links or other corroborating information and accept them without question? If these studies can stand up under scrutiny and back up your claims then I would think you'd love posting more in-depth information. I'd certainly like to see it.

Would be happy to discuss any of these studies in depth.

Though usually when evidence is presented either people wishing that sexual oriention was not an inborn trait ignore it.

The original claim was that there is no evidence that sexual orientation is an inborn trait. This claim ignores the literally thousands of published studies that do exist.. the “laundry list” was provided specifically to show that not only do such evidence exist…there is a whole lot of it


If you want to discuss a study in depth…I am more than happy to oblige.

Well I don't know about 'evidence' in the sense of scientific facts, but I have personal evidence that someone I prayed for who was gay for their entire life and then became straight, went on to marry and is very happy. To me that's the best kind of evidence, first hand stuff.

Evidence as in those making claims about the origins and nature of homosexuality as a result of some choice or some psychological or familial trait/factor have been unable to provide evidence to back up those claims.

The practitioners of so-called reparative therapy claim that homosexuals are homosexual because of a dysfunctional relationship with their father. However they are unable to support this claim either by providing evidence that this is an actual causal effect or statistically support it.. They are also unable to explain homosexuals who do not have a dysfunctional relationship with their fathers and they are unable to explain heterosexuals who have a dysfunctional relationship with their father.




As for your “first hand” evidence. There are many who will testify that they have been abducted by UFO’s…is such “evidence” for the existence of extraterrestrials?

 

[GenemZ]

Gee…if you actually took the time to check out this one source as you are trying to claim here…then you might of actually read that the disease in question not only affects homosexual men significantly more than heterosexual men and the disease is genetic implying a connection between a genetic origin for sexual orientation

http://www.aegis.com/aidsline/1990/feb/M9020420.html

Alpha 1-antitrypsin phenotypes in homosexual men.

Pathology. 1989 Apr;21(2):91-2. Unique Identifier : AIDSLINE MED/90045686

Deam DR; Byron KA; Ratnaike S; Campbell DG; Mulhall BP; Mackay IR; Biochemistry Department, Royal Melbourne Hospital.

Abstract: The alpha 1-antitrypsin (AAT) phenotype was determined by isoelectric focusing in 215 male homosexuals and compared with those in 208 male heterosexuals. The incidence of abnormal phenotypes was 16.3% in the homosexual group which was significantly different (p less than 0.03) than the 8.7% in the heterosexual group. There was no difference in the phenotype distribution between homosexuals who were anti-human immunodeficiency virus reactive and those who were non-reactive. It suggests that investigation into the interplay of factors associated with homosexuality could include genetic as well as psychological and social factors.

It mentions, "associated with homosexuality."

The aspects surrounding the sexual life.

It says nothing conclusive.

"Suggests," and "could" do not indicate anything was conclusive by any means. Speculation is not providing one with something which is proof positive.

Homosexuality is believed wear many out. That is one reason we use the term, "f_gged out," to mean exhausted.

The immune system is weakened by stress and depression. Making one more prone to diseases one is exposed to.

A small portion of a longer list of published scientific studies providing evidence that sexual oriention is an inborn trait

It would be in the headlines of every news media outlet if it could be proven true. All we have is silence.

Smokescreen?

Yes...... And, that was just a second layer you added to cover the last one.

Well please share with us all references for studies published in peer-reviewed journals indicating that homosexuality is the result of a choice, conscious or otherwise.

When did you choose to believe in Jesus Christ?

Much of the process that brings us to that point is done in the subconscious mind long before we become conscious of our belief. Because?

Its a spiritual issue. Not a mental issue.

John 6:44 niv​

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."​

The ones in Romans 1, who God handed over to homosexuality? These ones rejected the drawing of God.

Romans 1:18-20 niv
​

" The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."​

The issue was not genetics. The reason was spiritual!

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[Mling]

Homosexuality is believed wear many out. That is one reason we use the term, "f_gged out," to mean exhausted.

Actually, that use of the word evolved from a completely different string of etymology, and has nothing to do with homosexuality. "F@ggot" also refers to things that make a person weary, or things that are hard to bear. Such as the "f@gging system" in traditional British public schools, and refering to one's wife as "my f@ggot" (now obsolete, but meaning the equivalent of "my ball and chain"). It's derived from the custom of making heretics carry their own firewood to their pyre--thus, a difficult load to bear.

F@ggot is a complicated word, and I am something of a stickler for accuracy in language.

According to this site, the use of the word as a slur for a gay man probably evolved from either a slur for a woman, or as a reference to the f@gging system, with the conotation of the servant being a catamite (as was sometimes the case). Another theory is that it refers to the practice of burning homosexual men in medieval Europe.

"f@gged out" would probably be referring to the f@gging system, also, meaning that somebody has been running you ragged.

 

[vossler]

Would be happy to discuss any of these studies in depth.

Great! Pick one and show us the hard facts. I'm very interested.

Evidence as in those making claims about the origins and nature of homosexuality as a result of some choice or some psychological or familial trait/factor have been unable to provide evidence to back up those claims.

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

The practitioners of so-called reparative therapy claim that homosexuals are homosexual because of a dysfunctional relationship with their father. However they are unable to support this claim either by providing evidence that this is an actual causal effect or statistically support it.. They are also unable to explain homosexuals who do not have a dysfunctional relationship with their fathers and they are unable to explain heterosexuals who have a dysfunctional relationship with their father.

Again, I'm not sure what kind of evidence it is that you seek. I do know of a doctor who surveyed 975 prison inmates who were gay and every single one stated they had a dysfunctional relationship with their father. No matter how you look at it, that's pretty strong!

As for your “first hand” evidence. There are many who will testify that they have been abducted by UFO’s…is such “evidence” for the existence of extraterrestrials?

You're doing this discussion a great disservice by comparing people who once were gay and are now straight with those who were abducted by aliens. Trying to make them look like some sort kook or freak is terrible and if this is the type or line of reasoning your going to go down I'm not going to participate.

 

[Mling]

Again, I'm not sure what kind of evidence it is that you seek. I do know of a doctor who surveyed 975 prison inmates who were gay and every single one stated they had a dysfunctional relationship with their father. No matter how you look at it, that's pretty strong!

Umm...yeah... It's strong evidence that prison inmates generally had dysfunctional relationships with their fathers.

 

[vossler]

Umm...yeah... It's strong evidence that prison inmates generally had dysfunctional relationships with their fathers.

I'm glad you got that.

 

[HunterRose]

http://www.aegis.com/aidsline/1990/feb/M9020420.html



It mentions, "associated with homosexuality."

The aspects surrounding the sexual life.

It says nothing conclusive.

"Suggests," and "could" do not indicate anything was conclusive by any means. Speculation is not providing one with something which is proof positive.

and your original claim was:

That is categorically untrue. I took the time to check out this one source. It speaks of the incidence of a disease disorder found more commonly in homosexual men. It has nothing to do with what the origin is.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=27462112&postcount=446

thank you for linking the abstract and showing your original claim was without foundation.

Homosexuality is believed wear many out. That is one reason we use the term, "f_gged out," to mean exhausted.

Um…you might want to…oh…I don’t know…actually look up the etymology of that ‘f’ word before you make ridiculous and false claims like this

The immune system is weakened by stress and depression. Making one more prone to diseases one is exposed to.

Which has…well absolutely nothing to do with…well anything here.

It would be in the headlines of every news media outlet if it could be proven true. All we have is silence.

Well there is silence for those not honest enough to actually look. But not everyone is willing to close their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears just to keep a tenuous grasp on their personal prejudices.

When did you choose to believe in Jesus Christ?

Much of the process that brings us to that point is done in the subconscious mind long before we become conscious of our belief. Because?

Its a spiritual issue. Not a mental issue.

Thank you for admitting that you cannot support the claims that homosexuality is the result of some sort of choice.

The issue was not genetics. The reason was spiritual!

To bad you can’t actually back that claim up.


But considering you can’t back up the ‘homosexuality is a choice’ claim…is this really surprise?

 

[HunterRose]

Great! Pick one and show us the hard facts. I'm very interested.

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.

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

How about a study showing that statistically gay men are more likely to have absent fathers…
How about a study showing that statistically gay men are more likely to have a dysfunctional relationship with their fathers
How about a double blind study showing that gay men are psychologically different from straight men
How about ANY study showing that gay men or lesbians have some sort of unique familial trait
How about any legitimately published study showing anything other than a biological origin

Again, I'm not sure what kind of evidence it is that you seek. I do know of a doctor who surveyed 975 prison inmates who were gay and every single one stated they had a dysfunctional relationship with their father. No matter how you look at it, that's pretty strong!

Question: how many heterosexual prison inmates had a dysfunctional relationship with their father?

The real problem with this is showing a causal relationship.

If one runs with the “dysfunctional relationship with their father” theory then we should be able to identify groups where it is more likely men will be homosexual. For example if the “dysfunctional relationship with their father” were to hold up then we would expect to see proportionally more African American homosexuals (given the significantly higher incidence of absentee fathers in that particular minority group) however we don’t see this trend at all. similarly if the theory were to hold up one would expect a significantly higher proportion of homosexual men among those born during and just prior to the second world war…but again no such increase is found.



I am curious as to what study you are referencing. It smells of something Paul Cameron would do. If so you can chuck in the trash can.

You're doing this discussion a great disservice by comparing people who once were gay and are now straight with those who were abducted by aliens. Trying to make them look like some sort kook or freak is terrible and if this is the type or line of reasoning your going to go down I'm not going to participate.

Why?
The level of evidence is the same in both cases. Both rely on personal testimony and the word of the individual doing the reporting.
The fact you do not like the comparison does not make the comparison invalid.