Of course, the authors of the study blame this on discrimination, but it is really because LGBT have mental/emotional issues that express themselves in self-destructive behaviors like LGBT that they should be treated for. LGBT is an illness complex, just like cancer only with LGBT being symptoms.

Article Here

You know why they can't find a cure for AIDS?
They can't teach rats to buttfuck

Homosexuality IS a mental issue so 100% of them have it.

I don't think it is, maybe in some, but I'm pretty convinced is a freak of nature having to do with hormones/

Doh!

Just like cancer, no one single cause. Different types, different causes. Some more rare than others. I probably know more people with who have told me it is their choice than hormonal by about 10-1.

The "choice" is driven by their hormonal composition. That said, ALL good looking chicks should be "bi"

We aren't beasts. We have responsibility for and control over our actions.

With billions of cells in the body, it only takes a few that differ from the "normal" bodily composition to cause differing preferences. I agree that homosexuality is generally biologically related. I don't think that a preference or choice is made; it's just the way God made them.

Like AIDS?

jorgeI,



If your contention is true why is it that genetic twins are not all homosexuals when one is?

What are genetic twins, Fraternal or identical and the same can be said if one develops diabetis and the other doesn't, and I don't doubt the "Choice" can be driven by other factors, but no doubt in my mind (or the medical community) the issue of homos is a freak of nature.

I guess I don't understand why someone who has been screwing the opposite sex for a most of their lives would tell me they have decided to live "the gay lifestyle". Sex? Well the ones I've talked to that made the switch at first weren't sure about that, but after several years they appear to have settled into it.

I swear, big corps seem to be run by these types.

Gee, I wonder why when you stick your dick in a hepatitis loaded butthole and some dummy has it in his mouth next.

God calls homosexuality an abomination and condemns it as evil time after time in the Bible. You're saying that God created something evil. God gave us all a choice to do good or evil and they've chosen the evil.

The claim that homosexuality is an innate, biological difference was a political tactic that was knowingly promoted by the LGBT community in the '70s so that they could receive affirmation and minority recognition instead of counseling.

For a variety of reasons (none of which included my orientation) I had many homosexual friends during my college years. Every one that I got to know well enough had some identifiable cause that resulted in this psychological reaction, to the point that I could not concur with the idea that it was an innate biological condition. Nothing I have seen since then has changed my impression of that.

Personally, I don't particularly care how people pursue love or get their rocks off, but I am tired of homosexuality as a political cause - it is hollow. The frequent need of gays to rub the public's "face" in their choice of behaviors by parades, banners, lewd public behavior and so on is just another expression of the inner conflict they feel over this choice.

"God" as in the Bible, written and edited by human beings? noted.

Got to disagree... pretty convinced at least a few leftie trolls here are the result of said intercourse...

For one, I do not stick mine in either...

One thing is for sure homosexual it does have a cure....it's called aids

And, not a word of it will fail to come to pass.

Even change for the better causes pain. Nobody wants to do much self examination, especially of the sort needed for profound change.

The "biological" view is unmerciful, it condemns people to a life of disease and misery. The "biological" view also condemns children who are unsure about themselves. My view is merciful and allows for people to change for the better, to have hope for a life full of vitality and joy.

Prove it. Nobody else has, and they have been trying like heck. This is your chance at fame! The left touts science as the impartial repository of facts and when none are available, they make them up.

well said

I don't have to. When I say a man, skipping around a penchant for interior decorating and a feminine voice, it doesn't take a genius...

Please prove this.

lol

The Bible calls MANY things in everyday life "an abomination". Do you feel the same disdain for ALL of them too, or just this cherry-picked one...?

jorge, you seem like a very good guy, but looks like you are on thin ice with this "hormonal" driver and "freak of nature" explanation unless you are willing to conjure a similar way to explain pedophiles, necrophiles, etc., etc. throughout the realm of aberrant sexual behavior. Some people do make strange choices with their lives.

As for those skipping around with a penchant for interior decoration, that can simply be another aspect of the human ability to put on an act - maybe an act of wishful thinking - and those with mental illness are best at such displays.

Those who try to find some "normal and natural" defense for homosexual behavior have been claiming the "hormonal" and "born that way" excuses for a long time, but their scientists have not come up with any solid data to those ends. Some people do make strange choices with their lives.

Homo issues are common in nearly every species. Years back a fellow researcher worked with sheep. A gay ram is not an issue if one has a 1000 animals. In a hobby flock with only a single ram, however, a breeding season could be a complete loss. Gay issues in sheep are at about a 5 to 10% rate.

The research project involved hopping up rams on every conceivable hormone possible in an attempt to kick them into gear using both blood and brain pump injections. Shipped in some really hot ewes from Nevada, and not a single ram came around. It's a wiring issue as opposed to hormones.

Hormones are often used in AI breeding programs to determine when cows are ready for breeding. In those instances a cow is hopped up with male hormones, and she will then exhibit male behavior humping anything that smells or postures correctly. When she singles out an individual, it's hustled into the chute and inseminated.

Have a nephew that's come out, and he's sat literally in tears telling his mom and grandmother that he'd do anything to be straight. He is a very unhappy kid.

Honestly...I am at the point where I do not think there is any 'normal' when it comes to innate human behaviour...I have come to the conclusion we are what we make ourselves, for good or bad.

I suspect the only over-riding common theme across humanity is the inborn need to control and dominate, some do it via hunting, some by entering politics, religion, sects, etc...others do it by channelling into family, career, and such.

Whatever you do is at the base level up to you and as such whinging about the choices made is pitifully arrogant and pointless.

I don't know about some of you fellows but I have known that I liked T&A for as far back as I can remember. It's not such a stretch to imagine someone else growing up knowing they liked the twig and berries.

All of them.

Except the one's Jesus excluded.

I'm hoping that includes shellfish and bacon.

Used to have an older guy at work - this was in the early 1970's - who told me more than once that it was LESS stressful to be bi-sexual, as it made it twice as easy to get a date on Saturday nights!

Growing up I heard that Homosexualism was a disease and they could not help themselves, the last few years it is suddenly a choice. I tend to agree that the overwhelming majority are doing this by choice. Metrosexuals did not exist a decade ago and are suddenly prevalent, what brought that on?

I also think that being a man trapped in a womans body or vice versa is a genuine mental disease.

i personally DON'T think homosexuality is a disease, it isn't something that is contracted.

i'm sure some people are wired to be attracted to the same gender, and i have no problems with that

I do however also think that because individuals can and WILL get extra attention for being LGBT, that some are "coming out" for the sole purpose of getting some nature of attention that they were not getting otherwise

And, interestingly enough, all of those behaviors along with homosexual behavior, addictions, and other compulsive disorders are extremely difficult to change. To the point that some argue they are impossible to change.

God says "it's wrong"

Darwin says "you can't survive"

take your pick

Don't have to. It is written.

we call 'em queer, because being homo, is not normal.

if your main sex act involves rooting around in other peoples bee hinds with your mouth and genitals, then it don't take a genius to figure out why thats unhealthy. i really don't understand how people can not realize that this is abnormal, unnatural behavior and condone it and try to paint a rainbow over this disgusting behavior.

Lots of meaningless BS is written.
That doesn't mean it's all true.

Nonsense!

Sure are alot of guys defending homosexuality on this board.

Also, ridicule and make light of what the Bible teaches about it all you want, that doesn't change the fact. God didn't make them that way.

And no, I don't need to prove it.

I wont defend homosexuality, hormones?, BS, if it were hormones then explain being Bi-sexual, sticking a dick where it dont belong, for [bleep] sake, its everywhere I look now, especially since orlando.
I feel bad for the victims of Orlando, but to me all homo's are victims.

Ya, I taught my kids its wrong and the school that was pushing this shyte on them was wrong too.
People can stick their dick wherever they want, just dont teach my kids its great.

After spending a few minutes with Leviticus, I am pretty sure that God had nothing to do with it.

And just like tipping a bottle, or shoving a needle in your arm, who you screw IS a matter of choice.

Left to it's own devices, homosexuality self corrects in one generation.

What was wrong with the days of Jim Neighbors and Rock Hudson?

Hating an entire group of people because your book tells you to is chickensheet if you ask me. The muzzies do the same thing.

lol

People hate other people and justify it with a Bible verse, people persecute other people and justify it with a Bible verse, people have enslaved other people and justify it with a Bible verse, people have bigotry towards other people and justify it with a Bible verse, and when somebody questions them about 'that' they can often come up with a Bible verse with which they've found a way to disregard and mistreat some of the very people for whom Jesus loves and died for...!

THIS...!

Folks who disagree hafta be made into haters.

How else can you give them the Saul Alinsky treatment?

I didn't ask you. And show me where I said a hated them.

Dennis nails it:

I am not justifying anyhing. Just stating a confirmed opinion that God did not "make 'em that way".

Though I find it interesting how many religions are beginning to embrace the lgbt crowd. Cause, after all they can help fill the collection plate.

You referenced what the Bible teaches about gays....the Bible gives instructions to stone them. That sounds like a pretty hateful action.

The dirty little secret is that many of them experimented with it as teenagers. That doesn't make them queer, but it sure does make constructive conversation difficult.

That and PETA would get involved.

The left leaves this professor alone, who calls transgender a mental disorder.

http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/m...t-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

Not so sure about that theory. I think over the last 40 years, they have gotten to be "accepted" or at least "tolerated". Churches usually teach compassion and acceptance and lgbt fits right in.

All I know is, I'll never understand it. And I won't try to. I can't fathom someone preferring a cock over a good lookin woman. So they must be so far removed from my mental framework, it's not worth the effort of trying to figure out why.

1minute,



Is he any different from a married guy who wants to have sex with other women?

I'd say yes. Based on the incontrovertible fact that he, unlike your hypothetical married guy, does not want to have sex with women.

Since the time of the Levites, several thousand years ago, it has been common knowledge that God equates homosexuality, with bestiality, and incest. The practitioners of these sins were to be put to death.

These words were recorded as those of the omnicient, eternal God.

Now, in the last seventy five years, Christians have determined that God did not really mean it when he spoke on homosexuality, but that other stuff......yeah that is still a sin!

That sounds much more like a political position to me than a theological position.

Thus my concerted belief that God don't make queers. That is a result of free choice.

So does this study explain Rob Jordan?

Adulterers, and stubborn and rebellious sons were also to be stoned to death. These are also the words of "the omniscient, eternal God" from the Bible. Are you good with stoning to death people who cheat on their spouses, along with stubborn and rebellious sons...? After all, the words of "the omniscient, eternal God" from the Bible also say that God equates cheating spouses, and stubborn and rebellious sons, with beastiality, incest, and homosexuality...as all are capital offenses and punishable by death.

Holding one sin up higher than all the rest doesn't make it worse than ANY of the others. Some folks can find a Biblical justification for just about any prejudicial behavior or evil agenda that they support. They've taken theology and they've twisted it to empower themselves to do the very opposite of what God commanded them to do...His 'greatest' commandment...*the* thing that communicates more than ANYTHING ELSE that you're one of His followers.

I am confused. Are you saying that God changed his mind and now condones sodomy?

On the other hand, I never said that I felt homo sexuals should be punished in any way. I said nothing one way or the other about their behavior.

I only pointed out that it is a bit rediculous to blame their sexual orientation on "God".

If one chooses to partake of any of the many manifestations of the lbgt lifestyle, so be it.

Just don't be a Democrat about it. Accept responsibility for your actions and your choices. Don't blame God for the choices you have made in your life.

RM,

See my Dennis Miller video above.

Yes, he is very different.

Don't make it true.

Another jocular ' fire thread. Many with dreams of watching women sucking anothers goods... Yet, wait, .... TFF.

Did He change His mind and now condone adultery...? Did He change His mind and now condone stubborn and rebellious sons...? It's important to remember that the Old Testament or Old Covenant/Mosaic Law was for God’s relationship with the Nation of Israel, and they lived in a theocracy. The Old Testament Law is NOT in force today (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23–25; Ephesians 2:15). The New Testament is for God's relationship with EVERYONE who chooses to participate in that relationship...and it is summed up by God's 'greatest' commandment...by *the* thing that communicates more than anything else that you're His follower. Not by your theology, not by how you interpret certain Bible verses, and not by the disdain that you have for others or what they do.

Do people who are born with birth defects blame being born that way on God...? People who are born with Down Syndrome or Spina Bifida don't blame being born that way on God...that's just the way they were born. And 'saying' that they were born that way is clearly NOT blaming God for them being born the way that they were. Some unfortunate people are born with congenital anomalies while many more are not, and we don't really clearly know why...we just know that it happens.
It's easier to show and feel prejudice against them (gays) if you can convince yourself that they 'chose' to be that way.

So your disagreement isn't with me, but with God. A few others here to.

I've known, more than in passing, 2 gay guys. Both have been to treatment for eating disorders, have had pill addictions and are emotional roller coasters.

In short, they are chicks with dicks.

Interesting you should point those out because they are still serious sins and I think they are recognized as such.

One explanation for the wide support for homosexual rights is the predominance of sexual sins in general - adultery, fornication, infanticide, etc. The guilt of those involved forces them to feel like they must legitimize anything.

There's no evidence your god exists, so my disagreement is not with him, but with those who choose to believe in the fables of bronze age goat herders, and attempt to use them as the model for their behavior and relationships.

You keep bringing up the stoning business.

Pretty sure I was asked to move past being that type of instrument when Someone else bore the brunt on a cross. Bible says that too.

It appears that your disagreement is with those who choose to believe in the fables of bronze age goat herders, and attempt to use them as the model for their behavior and relationships, whether they are minding their own business or not?

Wondering here:
Why is society willing to call homosexuality normal, and a happenstance of birth/genetics, or whatever, and it should be accepted and no effort should be made to change it to restore it to the norm.

And we also say that birth defects such as a cleft palate is a happenstance of birth/genetics, or whatever, and it should be surgically changed to restore it to the norm.

Yes, surgical alteration is done in transgenders, but I'm talking about homosexuals. And besides, transgenders are biologically and genetically still binary -- they are genetically either male or female, despite the claims. And that can't be changed.

In other words, if physical birth defects are recognized and addressed, why are so many people unwilling to accept psychological birth defects? The result is that we take heroic steps to correct physical birth defects, but psychological birth defects are tolerated and encouraged.

Steve.

IMO, perverts be perverts. Whether gay or straight.

EXACTLY! so if you do it, there HAS to be something other than CHOICE, for if you were normal and obviously you are, you'd find it repugnant and if you don't, there's something wrong with you. We don't think of eating sheit so if you do, there HAS to be something wrong with you. Do some choose it, no doubt, but just like we have psychopaths,we have queers, it's a freak of nature.

Met a tranny some years back at a work-related situation. He/she at one point asked me directly to answer just one question... this is a 6'2" individual with a big Adam's apple...

"What if you were born with both and your parents made to wrong choice?"

And both is not as uncommon as I had thought it would be.

Then why do I know so many people who have chosen to go that route late in life? It's not that they were "repressed". Some have told me they wanted to live the "lifestyle" without the sex. Although they seem to have eventually given in to that too.

Porn viewership has been shown to correlate positively with approval of all sexual deviances.

That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read.

Dats 'cause you can't prove it.

Good info, but being "non-interested" in breeding or in chasing the opposite sex does NOT equate with homosexuality - the deliberate act of sexual intercourse with the same sex.

Yep. You should have seen my jaw drop the first time I heard that! Lady with 3 kids, married for 20 years as she was about to run off with her lesbo BFF.

Sheesh. I don't see the point in willingly living with someone and not having sex.

David Bowie is one of the most public examples of someone who did just that.

Come on, that'd not an argument even worth addressing. I'm sure you know better than this.

xxclaro, he didn't present an "argument", he asked an interesting question. I'm curious - in your mind why is his question not worth addressing? A lot of money is spent trying to deal with psychological defects, including some congenital. I could be wrong, but this looks like you are trying to put him down and dodging a seemingly cogent question. What is your explanation?

As many as 65 percent of men and 55 percent of women will have an extramarital affair by the time they are 40, according to the Journal of Psychology and Christianity. A Christianity Today survey found that 23 percent of the 300 pastors who responded admitted to sexually inappropriate behavior with someone other than their wives while in the ministry. But hardly any of the people who loudly condemn homosexuality for 'Biblical' reasons seem to have any problem with adultery...which is just as bad of a sexual sin as homosexuality is according to the Bible that they thump so vigorously. And adultery is MUCH more prevalent than homosexuality is. These folks that claim to be against homosexuality for 'Biblical' reasons sure as heck don't voice their opposition to adultery in a comparative manner. Not even close.

Antlers, you make some good points there. I am not smart enough to know if they are equally bad behavior, but one aspect in your post is that adultery and homosexual acts are linked as matters of choice.

I appreciate the kind words. The two 'Biblical' sins mentioned above are 'linked' in that they were BOTH punishable by death in the Mosaic Law, and they are BOTH referred to as sexual sins in some of the writings of the New Testament. Some people choose to believe that homosexuality is a 'chosen' behavior, while others believe that it is a congenital anomaly.

Why do we presume it's an either/or situation?

How and to what extent does the biological affect the psychological?

At what point do the affects of the biological on the psychological made it no longer a "choice"?

An "anomaly" through birth is one thing, and it very well may apply to the proclivities of a person. Regardless of laws or stated values, all persons have freedom to choose what they actually will DO sexually. When, where, with whom, etc.

So - like adultery, the choice to commit a homosexual act with another person is exactly that - a decision, a choice - and the outcomes are the responsibility of the one deciding to commit the act. Your post shows that both behaviors are inextricably linked in that manner.

Ok. Physical birth defects such as cleft palate are obvious at birth and will cause problems for the person as they grow older. Easiest just to fix them right away. You can't tell if a baby is gay. If a person wants to take action to stop being gay, that's fine and I don't think anyone will stop them but are you going to try to force gays to undergo some sort of straightening therapy against their will? We do recognize psychological defects in people, and if they pose a threat to others we do try to fix them. You can be as messed up as you want as long as your not a threat to someone else though. It was just a ridiculous comparison,imo.

Regardless of how people (especially those who profess to be Jesus followers) feel about this issue, the fact is that God could not love us more. Nothing we could ever do will cause Him to love us less. And the corollary is this...every person that you're ever eyeball to eyeball with, God could not love them more, and there's nothing they could ever do to cause God to love them less either.

So that whole Hell thing....God doesn't really love the people he sends there less?

When you open the New Testament and ask the question, "What does it look like to be a follower of Jesus...?", it's crystal clear. If you don't 'get' anything else, here's the thing that should describe you, here's the thing that should characterize you 'more than anything else', here's what He said to His closest followers before he left the earth - "By *this* everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

It's not the gold cross hangin' on your neck, it's not goin' to church on Sunday morning, it's not your church bumper sticker, it's not what kind of family you were born into or raised in, it's not that you were baptized, it's not your self-professed 'Christianity', it's not the disdain that you have for certain people, and it's certainly not policing other people's behavior.

When people used the words of God to hurt people bearing the image of God, Jesus was quick to remind them that they were on the wrong side of God. Everybody is somebody that God loves. Everybody is somebody for whom Jesus died.

And that is my point exactly. While one might not be able to choose his/her proclivities. Whether those proclivities are genetic or ingrained being irrelevant to this discussion.

The individual can certainly choose what he/she does about those proclivities.

Sodomy, just like pedophelia, necrophilia, beastiality, adultry, achoholism, and drug use IS a personal choice.

Antlers, Antelope Sniper, etc. - good with the Biblical concept that God loves us all as humans and that, as humans, we cannot determine any differences in His degree of love for one person or another - regardless of what we might think about a person's individual behavior. But, that is not the only universal concept involved.

In addition to important instructions, God also gives us free will - to choose our beliefs and behaviors. Such decisions determine our relationship with Him (among other things). AS, that is where the "Hell thing" comes into play.

An example - not on nearly the same level, but helpful to some - is the mother who dearly loves her son - a murderous son - and who continues to love him even when he is sentenced to imprisonment or death and she agrees that the sentence is just. Her love does not end.

I think we are going to again be shown that some absolutes do reign, and that our decisions are very consequential.

If that is true, they are keeping their findings (but not their unsupported opinion) secret, for some reason. I worked with a lot of gay men, and some were very good friends. Virtually all of them were victims of predation by older gays in positions of authority. In fact, when a new guy came on board, you could actually see the gays working to cull him from the (straight) herd and indictrinate/coerce him. If it worked, he would spend some time in flux and eventually fully accept the life. Like other predators, they looked for weakness of some sort, a vulnerability, and capitalized on the opportunity. There will always be anomalies, but for the most part, my opinion is that gays are made, not born. This is a result of many years of observation, having worked in a gay heavy occupation, and having been "courted" myself. They are predators.

You can’t 'force' someone to become physically and emotionally attracted to someone who they are not attracted to, whether gay or straight.

Explain David Bowie. Explain the behavior of prisoners & sailors of old.

If your position is that gays can be made, then you are also saying that you yourself could be convinced to enjoy the D.

Very telling.

jorge, I simply don't see any coherent "mind" of the "medical community" speaking on most things, and certainly not on that "freak of nature" concept.

benchman's observations and descriptions are very accurate with regard to the predation that occurs in many work/organizational situations. Probably not as intensively, but I have witnessed that same isolating and predatory behavior over the course of a career. Insidious and intensified social pressure can be overwhelming for some, and especially for the less secure and less loved.

justin10mm, maybe try grasping the idea that people who may be seduced or coerced into a behavior do not necessarily find it enjoyable, as you pose "enjoy".

It happens all over the world through out history with arranged marriages and the slave trade.

50% of adolescent males across the world will shove it into any hole available. (Come on folks, read the Kinsey report)

Add to that number to include victims of molestation/coercion and those boys trained from birth to be Momma's little girl or a sensitive grammer school boy with hurt feelers cause he was rejected by his second grade female crush.

Oh yes, folks, homosexuals can defenitely be created.

Some boys learn that it is easier to just slip into the gay community than it is to learn how to attract a female mate.

I know several women who grew up, fell in love with the wrong man, got married to that man, had kids and became abused. After divorce, they found a sensitive female partner, or in one case a butch female divorcee with kids.

Okay, when did they become lesbian? From birth? I don't buy it!

Oh, and what is the current pandemic display of homosexuality throughout the video entertainment industry, if not a (very successful) multi-continental recruitment program?

I am saying that given different parenting, different circumstances, a different upbringing, different societal cues, any of us could have been taught to do anything.

There, but for the Grace of God, go I. Where the heck do you think suicide bombers come from!

Explain the lonely goat herder.

Were you a priest or in prison?

Christ man, this is a thread about poofs, not muslims.

Nurture has some affect for sure, but Nature always wins out in the end.

You're going to be sorely disappointed if you try to raise a pitbull to be a good bird dog.

Well the motivation is probably the same!

Then kindly explain all the prisoners that 'aren't really' gay when in gaol.

Not a good analogy.

If it were, homosexuals would be extinct as they fail to breed and would self extinguish.

Instead, due to cultural influences, their percentages are skyrocketing.

Really...? So YOU could be 'forced' to be gay...? So YOU could be 'forced' to be physically and emotionally attracted to other men...?

At this point in my life?

No, no more than I could be forced to abuse little girls, or boys.
No more than I could be forced to strap on a suicide vest and walk into a mall.
No more than I could be forced to bow to Mecca several times a day.

But had I been handed off to Muslims at birth, I would be a Muslim.
Had I been taught to steal as a child, I would be a thief.
Had I been handed everything needed for life as a child and not taught to work, I'd be a Democrat.

Well, you see where I am going with this.

Yes, you take absolutely no responsibility for yourself.

You were born a pliable piece of putty that was molded to suit your surroundings. If those surroundings had included raping little boys...well... that would not have been your fault.

Yeah, you're sayin' that since someone can be taught to speak Spanish, that they can also be taught to be physically and emotionally attracted to someone of the same sex.

Only if the putative phagot gene(s) is/are 100% penetrate (pun and genetic term intended).

Anyone with a 'C' average in public school biology class would have learned that genetics is not so simple and straight forward. Especially as to how it relates to behavior.


Ruling out the putative genetic components for phagotry takes more that the Extinction argument.

justin10mm - your sniping is not adding to the discussion and your recent posts on this topic show twisting of terms and some very weak (if any) logic. Do you have any solid experience with this matter or serious thoughts to provide? The topic now is the genesis of homosexual behavior - not one saying he is "gay", not someone somewhere being forced into aberrant sexual acts, etc.

And, where in Idaho Shooter's posts do you see him NOT taking responsibility for his words and positions?

Antlers - looks like you are doing some of the same twisting. The guy did not say that since a person can be taught Spanish the person also can be taught that he should engage homosexual behavior. That is your construct. He cited influences and factors that can affect some persons in that direction - maybe weak or needy persons.

My personal views on how and why a person becomes homosexual seems not important to all of this, but there is learning to be had here and I'd like to see good mind work. Why not offer something solid?

Professional singer.

The gentleman made it pretty clear that he thought a person could be 'taught' to be physically and emotionally attracted to someone that they are NOT attracted to. And he made it pretty clear that he thought a person could be 'forced' to be physically and emotionally attracted to someone that they are NOT attracted to.

That's some funny stuff right there. You might want to think about taking a reading comprehension course.

If you want something solid, read the Kensey Reports, though you may not like what they have to say. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports

The issue is not as black and white as someone is either "born gay" or "born strait".

No, that is not quite what I said.

I said, "God did not make 'em that way.'

And I said, "Most of them are that way because of societal and rearing influences."

And I said, "Behaving in the manners of a homosexual is a personal choice."

Many of those influences may be very difficult fo determine, as 90% of who we are and what we will become has been ingrained into the child by the time he/she is three years old.

While most refuse to recognise that a three year old may be sexualized to any extent. The foundation has been built. The personality is established. All that is left is fine tuning.

The rest of the structure is dependent upon the stability of that foundation.

The human genome has been thoroughly mapped for about ten years. The genes are pretty well identified.

Embryonic genetic testing will pretty well identify all the physical traits 8 1/2 months before birth.

I have not heard of anyone predicting sexual orientation based on genetics.

I don't believe you. Sing us something!

Total abstinence is also a personal choice, but it dose not erase the underlying sexual desire that is being suppressed.

You can "choose" to live a heterosexual life, but if you have attraction to the same sex, then you are gay/bi. The reverse is also true.

The thought that most gays participate in the life style because of societal influences is laughable. They may have it easy on the coasts, but just about everywhere else it can be a hard life for open homosexuals. This forum is proof enough that many still despise their very existence.

I would wager that there are orders of magnitude more "strait" people living that way because society has historically deemed heterosexuality the only acceptable life style. We are just now seeing the tides start to change when it comes to this.

Even though it's been mapped out, the work of learning and understanding all of it is still in it's infancy.

If molecular genetics knew as much as you think it knows, a bunch of wicked bad diseases would be fixed already.

George Gilder summarized the evidence the best when he said "Anyone can become a homosexual. No one has to be one." The best article ever written on the causation of homosexuality (IMHO) is a chapter in the book "When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False" by sociologist Steven Goldberg. A bit dated, but an still an excellent read. The science on causation hasn't changed much over the years.

Jordan

justin10mm, that is NOT funny stuff even though you would like to make fun of it. Those comments are based directly on what you and one other person did with your posts. So far you offer nothing in the way of expertise or experience here, and then you resort to recommending a very well known (old) report and you can't even correctly spell the name. Do you think you are breaking any new ground with your "neither black or white" comment? Looks like faking.
benchman offers real-life experience/knowledge from working a profession that is shot-through with the issue. I once worked quite a bit in the same area - his insight rings very true. From whence comes this "knowledge" you profess?

As interesting as these discussions are, to some folks anyway, a lot of the time we consistently look for evidence to support what we already believe, and we consistently filter out anything to the contrary.

"If you cain't fix it, it ain't broke." G. Keillor

Apropos on multiple levels.

No surprise whatsoever they have more health problems. And for the record, it is a CHOICE! They are NOT born that way.

Your proof to backup this statement is....?

I agree, and anyone who thinks its ok to have sex with another man is brainwashed, think about it....

Twin studies involving identical male twins, raised in different homes and with no knowledge of, or interaction with the other twin brother do not have a 100% concordance rate in homosexuality. In other words, if one twin is homosexual, the occurrence of homosexuality in the other twin is considerably less than 100%. If sexual preference is "genetically determined" (as the color of your eyes is genetically determined), then we would expect a 100% concordance rate in homosexuality among identical twin boys (identical meaning boys having exactly the same genotype) where one of the boys (brothers) is a homosexual. The fact the concordance rate is less than 100% as between identical twin brothers means that although genes might be a necessary condition to the emergence of homosexuality in males, they (genes) are not a sufficient condition. It is therefore not the genes that are determinative, but the environment. As Jeffrey Goldberg has put it (paraphrasing from memory) but for the necessary facilitating environmental conditions, homosexuality will not occur regardless of genetic propensity.

BTW, female homosexuality is an entirely separate and distinct phenomena from male homosexuality in terms of causation.


Jordan

It's no surprise that it's the extreme religious nut who take the extreme all-or-none position.

Twin studies actually do demonstrate a genetic component to sexual preference. Although genetics is not 100% deterministic, the largest twin study, which included all adult twins in Sweden showed genetic influences explained 40% of the variance in sexual orientation in men. You assertion there's not biological component to sexual orientation is a result of your great delusion related to a guy reading from gold plates and declaring American Indians the Lost Tribe of Israel.

Lotta guys on here way too invested in where other guys are stuffing their cocks.....

You just never miss an opportunity for a cheap shot at religion or its adherents, do you AS? Unfortunately, your overweening arrogance and anti-religious bigotry make you the fool yet again. Let me simplify this for you (in case you are intellectually challenged too and not just arguing in bad faith ): The results of twin studies are empirical. Empirical evidence is not affected one iota by the identity, or traits of the person citing such evidence. The fact that the concordance rates of identical twin boys (when one boy is a homosexual and the other not) is significantly less than 100% is an empirical fact whether the person citing that fact is a non-practicing Mormon, a Satanist or an arrogant, overweening, logic-challenged atheist. But you knew that, didn't you? You're just incapable of arguing the issue on the merits. I accept the concession of impotence you've made by choosing to employ ad hominem invective instead of logic.

This is the salient point: the fact that the concordance rates of genetically identical twin boys, where one is a homosexual, is less than 100%, means that homosexuality is not genetically determined if, by determined, we mean caused in the same sense that the color of your eyes are caused. In other words, in the case of two boys with identical genotypes, where one becomes a homosexual and the other does not, genetic influence on the first boy cannot logically be said to have determined his homosexuality in the same sense that genes determined the color of his eyes because it didn't determine the second twin to homosexuality. Note that this is not the same as saying genes have no on influence on someone becoming a homosexual. No one disputes the fact of genetic influence and I certainly did not deny it in my post--either explicitly or implicitly. The thrust of the debate in this thread has been whether homosexuals have a choice in their behavior. If genes were determinative of homosexuality in the same way genes are determinative of eye color, then, of necessity, the genetic determinism theory would require that both identical twins
(having the exact same genotype) be homosexual 100% of the time. The twin studies prove there is not 100% concordance, therefore disproving the theory of genetic determinism. The fact that twin identical brothers of homosexuals are not themselves homosexual 100% of the time means that the trait of homosexuality is not genetically determined (caused) and thus that choice, free will and environment are not relevant determinative factors.

Does this mean that resisting homosexuality might not be extremely difficult in consequence of genetic make up? Of course not. And nothing I said implies the contrary. What twin studies mean however, is that because homosexuality is not genetically determined (caused in the same way eye color is caused) genes may be a necessary condition, but they are not a sufficient condition to explain homosexuality. Environment, the free will of the individual and the influence and interplay of environment on the individual is therefore determinative. As Jeffrey Goldberg has put it: regardless of genetics, absent the necessary facilitating environmental conditions, no one must become a homosexual.

Twin studies undercut the narrative of the homosexual rights movement (which the United States Supreme Court has embraced virtually as a matter of law, even though that narrative is empirically false) that homosexuality is determined by genes---and is thus an outcome beyond the control of the homosexual. Twin studies prove that environment interacting with the individual is dispositive and therefore that free will (the metaphysical freedom of the mind) remains relevant.

In short, you've erected and attacked a straw man.


What I find most humorous though is a materialist such as yourself (someone who of necessity thinks free will is entirely illusory) arguing his case on the basis of concordance studies. Because if your default position is that the metaphysical freedom of the mind is illusory (because all freedom of action is determined by factors outside the control of any such thing as a "free agent")then what is the point of relying on a concordance study at all? The very fact of reliance upon concordance evidence in the case of genetically identical twins implies the belief that a behavior might not be genetically determined! I've thought for a very long time that you're not quite the thorough-going atheist you claim to be and your response above proves it (either that or you haven't thought through your atheism very thoroughly).

Jordan

Oh, and one other point....you're apparently not much of an evolutionist either because at present, there is no satisfactory evolutionary explanation for homosexuality on a theory of genetic determinism. Leading evolutionists and geneticists have been very clear that homosexuality cannot be explained on the basis of our current understanding of evolution and genetics. This means one of three things (1) neo-Darwinian macro-evolution is false; (2) homosexuality is not genetically determined or (3) there is a satisfactory evolutionary explanation for the survival of a gene which results in an organism (viz., a homosexual) leaving less offspring than its conspecifics, but we just haven't discovered it yet. No doubt your faith is up to the challenge though!

Perhaps you should.

No fan of RJF but the Twin Studies revealed that genotype is not the entire story as to explaining behavior.

Having identical genes does not mean that those genes are necessarily expressed exactly the same for each twin. From genotype to phenotype is a complex pathway. And it is safe to assume that the greater the complexity, the more possibility for stuff to diverge.

iTwins are normally not absolutely identical, even in utero.

Epigenetic studies have demonstrated identical twins with different epigenetic markers. An example are iTwins born with different birthweights. Genomic examination show correlation with divergent epigenetic markers.

So RJF arguing that 'phagots are not born as phagots' on the merits of the Twin Studies still needs to exclude the possibility that epigenetics cannot mediate phagot behavior to be absolutely correct.

Ain't that what good "christians" are supposed to do?

As usual, you are just wrong on all points.

First I mentioned your choice to follow the religion of a modern convicted fraudster because it demonstrates you inability to evaluate the quality of evidence. If you can't see through the story of the hat and gold plates, how could it be expected that you could evaluate the quality of sources and complexities of Human Genetics.

I really like how you quote Jeffery Goldberg, a conservative Jewish journalist. Heck, why not just use Glen Beck for your scientific authority.

As for the quality of your argument, you begin with a complete lack of understanding of genetics. In your example, you use eye-color, but even eyecolor is affected by as many as 16 genes,. Although eye color is usually modeled as a simple, Mendelian trait, further research and observation has indicated that eye color does not follow the classical paths of inheritance(1)

However, if you look at height, height is a non-Medelian trait that's determined by the interaction of several thousand genes. In a new study published in Nature Genetics, researchers have proven that no less than 697 small variations in our genomes influence our height. (2)
In addition to use your loaded language, genetics is not "deterministic" for height. With women in western nations, genetic factors may account for as little as 68% of what determines a woman's height.

According to your previous argument, since genetics is not 100% deterministic of height, that means a persons height is a matter of personal choice. We know that's not the case, which demonstrates the absurd nature of your argument.

As for your assertion that evolution has not explanation for the occurrence of variance is sexual preferences, again you continue to demonstrate your lack of knowledge. As previously mentioned, sexual preference is affected by over 1000 different genes. It's not uncommon for genes to affect more than one trait, so although homosexuality is a negative trait for the continuance of that individuals linage, it does not preclude that gene from having a positive effect on a different trait. The gene for sickle cell anemia provided some protection against Malaria, a positive trait, but when joint in combination with the wrong combination of other genetic factors, it leads to a devastating disease.

As for the choices you provided above, the correct answer is (4)

(4) Rob Jordon doesn't know enough about genetics to provide an all include list of possibilities.



1.http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v56/n1/full/jhg2010126a.html

2. http://sciencenordic.com/scientists-discover-which-genes-determine-your-height

Yes,

Identical twins are not identical. Typically range of variation is 50 to 200 genes.

Yep, the creator of the Universe, with 100 billion galaxies with billions of stars each is most concerned about this one primate species, who they have sex with, and it what positions.

lol

Coffee in my nostrils...!

So, lets disentangle this. Let's start first with our continuing education of you on simple logical constructs and fallacies.

http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/

Ad Hominem Definition

Ad hominem (Latin) means “against the man”. As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments.





There are cases where consciously or unconsciously people start to question the opponent or his personal association rather than evaluating the soundness and validity of the argument that he presents. These types of arguments are usually mistaken for personal insults but they are somehow different in nature and the distinction is very subtle.

Arguers who are not familiar with the principles of making logical arguments commonly end up saying something that would draw the audience’s attention to the distasteful characteristics of the individual. Such people use this fallacy as a tool to deceive their audience. Making such a blatant personal comment against somebody makes it hard for people to believe it isn’t true. Typically, even the arguer himself believes that such personal traits or circumstances are not enough to dispose of an individual’s opinion or argument. However, if looked at rationally, such arguments even if true never provide a valid reason to disregard someone’s criticism.

Ad Hominem Examples

1. Just look at this common example.


“How can you argue your case for vegetarianism when you are enjoying your steak?”

This clearly shows how a person is attacked instead of being addressed for or against his argument.

2. A classic example of ad hominem fallacy is given below:


A: “All murderers are criminals, but a thief isn’t a murderer, and so can’t be a criminal.”
B: “Well, you’re a thief and a criminal, so there goes your argument.”

3. Another example of ad hominem fallacy is taken from Velonews: The Journal of Competitive Cycling. After an article about the retirement of Lance Armstrong, its webpage shared a post with its readers. A commenter posted a comment saying how great an athlete Armstrong was and that the people should be proud of his achievements.




Another commenter wrote in response to the first commenter:


He’s not a great athlete; he’s a fraud, a cheat and a liar. That’s why not everybody is “happy for Lance.”

The reasons given by the arguer may very well be true but he does not support his argument with reason and logic. He rather takes the disregarding approach. He does not say anything to prove that the premises it proposes are problematic, instead he goes on attacking the person who proposed them.

Functions of Ad Hominem

A writer’s background is considered to be a very important factor when it comes to judging his work. A book written on a particular subject in history will be perceived differently keeping in view the background of the author. Therefore, it is important to understand that a writer’s traits and circumstances have a pivotal role to play in his feelings, thinking and the construction of his arguments.

To put it simply, the considerations regarding the use of ad hominem can explain certain arguments and the motives behind them better. Nevertheless, such considerations are not enough on their own to evaluate an individual’s opinion and are certainly not sufficient to disregard them as false or invalid. The fact is that ad hominem is a kind of fallacy that leaves a great impression on the audience’s mind. It is an argumentative flaw that is hard to spot in our daily life. Although, the personal attack that has been made on the opponent might not even have a speck of truth in it, it somehow makes the audience biased. Ironically, despite being flawed, ad hominem has an amazing power of persuasion.

The worst thing about using ad hominem purposely is that an opponent insults you publicly. Whenever this happens to you, you must recover from the humiliation and then point out the false connection in the argument, which was used a trap for the audience. Moreover, the dilemma with ad hominem is that once it has been used against you it smears your reputation. Once somebody makes such a judgmental argument about you, the audience instead of evaluating it on logical grounds take it to be true.

_________________________

In short, arguing my religion is as relevant to this discussion as Steve Young's religion is relevant to his ability to read defenses, or the obnoxious Danny Ainge's ability to manage the Boston Celtics. There is a reason that in academic journals discussing the work of scientists, critics don't invoke the religion (or lack thereof) of the their dialectical opponent. It's irrelevant. I suspect you know all of this, but since you have to create the appearance of winning even when you're badly losing, regardless of the cost---including the cost to your reputation, which is already well established on this site as that of the master of the anti-religion cheap shot, you forge ahead. But intelligent readers will have no difficulty identifying your arguments as fraudulent.

Oh, and by the way, Steven Goldberg was a sociology professor at CCNY and the Chair of the Sociology Department. He has a Phd.---from Yale if I recall correctly. He is the originator of the theory of the inevitability of patriarchy. He's a well respected academic with numerous highly regarded works to his credit. He has been published and favorably peer reviewed in numerous journals. William Briggs, a highly regarded mathematic statistician PHD., in his own right, calls "Goldberg is one of the most brilliant statisticians of the first kind that I have ever come across." I notice that your penchant for religious bigotry could not prevent you from mentioning Goldberg's religion either. I am 100% certain that no critic of his academic, peer reviewed articles has ever been so intellectually bankrupt as to attempt to rebut him by invoking his religion. Few people are that stupid---though that level of stupidity is prevalent on this forum. You would be exhibit A.

(BTW, the reason academics to not employ the mode of argument (the invocation of logical fallacies) which is your stock-in-trade. They would be embarrassed to admit their incapacity to discuss issues on the merits that such a mode of argument necessarily entails.)


Now, let's discuss your wholly irrelevant invocation of and discussion of height. Height, as a phenotypic outcome, is an expression of the interrelationship between genes and environment. For example, a person might have the genes to be 6'6" tall, but if he is malnourished before and during puberty he may very well not reach his full genetic height. Therefore, height as a phenotypic outcome can never tell us with certainty how much of the outcome was caused by environment and how much by genes. Height, which is dependent on environment and not on genes alone, is therefore a useless example when one is attempting to prove the theory that a particular trait is influenced exclusively (100%) by genes (i.e., is determined genetically).

The argument of proponents of the political agenda of the homosexual rights lobby is that it is unfair and inhumane to discriminate in any way against homosexuals because their behavior (homosexuality) is genetically determined in the same way that eye color is genetically determined. (Implicit in this argument however is the notion that it is not necessarily unfair to discriminate against people who do have a choice in their behavior.) The salient point however is that height, which is an outcome of the interplay between genes and environment is useless and irrelevant as an example of model of causation where the theory of causation which the research seeks to test is the theory that homosexuality is 100% dependent on genes.

In short, it is irrelevant and analytically silly to use height as an example of genetic determinism when height is heavily influenced by environment. The very last thing proponents of the homosexual rights lobby want to do is leave open any room in their causal model for environmental influences. Unfortunately for them, the identical twin studies prove that homosexuality is akin to height, not eye color. Twin studies show that genes are necessary, but not sufficient to explain the expression of homosexual behavior in a conspecific.

Jordan

It has been a while since something has amused me as much as that did.

Their noses would be better kept in their own business...and if that idea caught on maybe others wouldn't be so all-fired pissy about us owning firearms.

In this one statement you reveal your dishonesty in discussion/argument, your ignorance in logic, and maybe emptiness of soul. Beyond the absurdity of your statement, it is not what RJ said and it can not at all be found "according to his argument". Very sad behavior and hardly even worth comment, except that you shovel up this dreck time and time again.

Pot...meet kettle.

Its a great example of AS's mendacity. He's not above completely lying about someone's argument. And yes, it speaks volumes of his lack of integrity.

Rather than condemn people to a life of more suffering like you do?
Yes.

Like I said, there is a lot of guilt to go around that apologizes for bad behavior. How about we all face up to our mistakes and forgive ourselves? Then you can forgive others and do charity rather than condemn people to wallowing in misery.

So Barry, you think it is your mission in life to make people do as you want.

You don't see anything wrong with that?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's no wonder they're unhealthy, and not to mention the disease factor, any self loathing, confused, morally depraved, reprobated freak that hates everyone else and is always looking for something to cry 'victim/racist/prejudice' about ain't gonna be healthy, or long for life.

I can't make people do anything. But I can refuse to go along with the conventional "wisdom" and point out an alternative to it.

Change begins with me.

ETA:
I pointed out a problem via the article I cited. I believe I have a way to alleviate that suffering. Problem with that?

And that is exactly how the anti-firearms crusaders work, the exact same interfering busy-body controlling way they operate.

No, in the post I cited you pointed out that Christians are supposed to be interfering arseholes.

But hey...have it your way.

There's a reason some people can't be reached. I can't do anything about that. All I can do is hope I'm there when they are ready. All I can do is hope that we can all let ourselves be reached when we need to be reached.

If your car wrecks, I hope I can be there and pull you out. How's that for interference?

I'm sorry for you that me pointing out an alternative offends you.
I will not stop.

That analogy doesn't wash as you are talking of vetoing peoples personal choices, not providing physical aid.

You are doing EXACTLY what the gun-grabbers are doing, putting your choices ahead of everyone else's.

Gays do not interest me in the least...but what you are doing does as it is what the gun-grabbers are doing, and they all get on their moral high horse just the same as you are doing.

And they refuse to stop as well.

That brings up an interesting point - if Christianity was all about eating a cracker and drinking some wine, maybe throwing a coin to a widow, it would be hugely popular. But getting people to look at themselves and admit that they, like all the rest of us, aren't perfect and could use a few changes seems to only enrage the vast majority.

JSTUART, one has to wonder how you could you possibly know enough to even attempt that?. So, what do you actually KNOW about the content of my soul. Kindly reveal your knowledge.

Seems to me it's busybodies like you waving your Bible and condemning folks,not me.

Maybe you should run into a gay bar and pull some cocks outta azzwholes?

Not at all. You rested your entire argument on the "genetics is not 100% determinant" peg.

It's not my fault you choose such a weak peg and a simple example of how genetics actually works would cause it to break beyond the point repair.

You do realise that you were referring to the lack of content of AS's soul, and that I was pointing out your hypocrisy.

But hey, you can rewrite it and go with you being the victim if you like...but before you do, "one has to wonder how you could you possibly know enough to even attempt that"?

Now instead of preaching from the almighty high pulpit, try reading and understanding your own words...then apply them to yourself.

Some "christians" need to remember this verse.

How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye?

Are you attempting to remove a speck from my eye?

Frankly, this isn't necessarily a Biblical issue. Even an Atheist such as yourself could look at the numbers from studies like this and conclude that there's a problem with the behavior.

No doubt.

But then, the behavior of fat people do too. Even a few of them on this forum.

Why not make gluttony your crusade? Bible sez that is a sin too.

Why single out buttsex and rainbow thongs? You might also consider supersized oral gratification.

Fixing fat phagots could be *your* nirvana.

I, like you, am a finite being. Isn't there something else *you* could be worrying about?

Good evening Barry...I agree that it isn't a biblical issue and I most definitely agree that their behaviour is ratty, also that not a lot of good can come form messing about in other blokes arses.
However I do not want to impose my beliefs upon others as the gun-grabbing buggers do upon me, and as long as none interfere with me or mine then I can live and let live so long as I am afforded the same accommodation.

I can respect that you too can't worry about everything. Like everyone else, you have to pick your issues to deal with.

There's only one of you, only 24 hours in a day and only so many days in your life.

Poking fun at overbearing zealots seem like fun this week.

Barry,

Of course it's a less the optimum condition. The question is are you justified in imposing your bronze age belief system upon those in this condition.

I don't think medical facts have much to do with "bronze age belief systems".
What about my "bronze age belief system" is different from what you believe your average Atheist would do? Aren't there any Atheist doctors? EMTs? Don't any Atheists give to charity? Any of them teach?

I understand that Atheists generally don't like being charitable, but not all of them are that way.

What? You playing 'follow the red herring' now?

Or are you saying that *your* charity comes with antibuggering strings?

Never mind. Easy to see what *fascinates* you.

People who profess to be Christians that hold up a cherry-picked sin higher than all of the others 'never do' list all of the other sins and 'abominations' on the list that the God of the Bible finds equally offensive. There's 2 kinds of adultery in the Bible. There's outright adultery, and there's adultery caused by divorce. Divorce is very prevalent in our society, even among those who profess to be Christians. Divorce is certainly a lot more prevalent than homosexuals are. And divorce has certainly damaged more lives than homosexuality has. Wonder if 'any' of those who profess to be Christians and are vehemently condemning homosexuality for Biblical reasons have ever been divorced themselves, or have loved ones that have been divorced...?

That is exactly my experience with the LBGT crowd too. I agree with you fully. The only exception that I ever saw was in a drag queen club in Washington DC. There was a guy there that could have given Refrigerator girl a run for her money. I suspect that he was probably a hermaphrodite, because he was female in ever aspect except for his crotch package.

uh oh.

A member with an overactive gaydar is going to come on the thread and ask what you were doing in a gay bar in DC looking at some guy's package.

Barry,

The difference is I don't believe being gay is the equivalent of having a sunken chest wound and that I have a mandate from the creator of the universe to "fix them". Consequently I have a more measured view.

Mild prostate cancer can be very survivable for a long time. If an ancient belief system causes you to think everyone with prostate cancer is doomed to a eternity of fiery torture it might cause you to kill the patient with an overly aggressive regime of chemo, radiation, and surgery, when it could of been amply controlled with radioactive seeds.

This is one of the biggest problems with extreme religious views, it doesn't allow people to see nuance. Rob demonstrates this above where he goes out of his way to deny the biological influences on sexual preference because what his religion has proclaimed sin would then be the fault of his god, thus preventing a rational discussion of one of the significant variables in this equation.

Earlier you mentioned "helping" gay people. What's your proposed method of help? Praying away the gay? Forces conversion "therapy", life in solitary (because lots of butt sex occurs in prision) stoning to death?

How do you propose to "help" them?

Whenever something like this comes up I just naturally assume they were on the grog with 'flave.

Reminds me of 'flave saying that lesbians are just regular girls + a sixer of 40 ozers . Might apply to some guys too.

"Measured"? "Nuance"?

Careful my friend. That is the vocabulary of bleeding heart liberals.

Allen,

I believe the evidence indicates sexual preference is not and ON/OFF switch but more of a continuum, a dial from zero to 100. When you encounter someone along way down the gay scale, it can be easy to quickly pick them out, even when the dress and act normal, voice, effeminate body movements, and even body odor can be a dead giveaway. Some are not that glaring, and perhaps they could go either way. The wrong influence at the wrong time, the man in authority, such as a priest, mentioned above, and their future preferences are greatly affected. Others will never show any interest in same sex relations and cannot imagine anyone not preferring the fine female form.

Far be it or me to point the finger, but there have been times when I have sat on the toilet with my eyes watering and my nose streaming from the stench...God know why anyone would go near that voluntarily.

But, each to their own.

Unless you are this girl:

Even if the orifice of discussion belongs to this?

What kind of grapes are those I wonder?

You failed the gay test.

I think/know the gays are running the beauty pagents these days because I saw a contestant on CNN the other day.
She/it is the 1st openly gay contestant, she/it wasn't good looking at all, thats why I dont remember the contest, the adams apple on a woman really turns me off.

If LGBT is a high health risk group, will they have to pay higher insurance premiums?

I've already been over that in this thread. Please re-read it.

I think that is bigoted and condemning.

What I wonder is if you've ever done anything to help reduce the incidence of divorce. You certainly complain about it enough. Do you have anything or just more nihilism?

ETA: I thought more about this.

If you are so concerned about divorce, why don't you start a thread about divorce instead of crapping in threads that have nothing to do with it?

But, I don't believe you really care. I think your just a nihilist getting your jollies crapping in threads.

I am still married to the woman I met when I was 21 years of age, does that mean at 52 I can have a say about the prevalence of divorce.

No it doesn't, neither does being Christian or straight entitle us to pontificate about those that are gay.

In their eyes it does. They're doing God's work dont'cha know?

I figured someone would ask that. The answer is my ex-wife had a lesbian aunt that was only a couple of years older than us that worked at the Pentagon. When we would go to Washington, we would stay at her house. Her aunt would always want us to meet her friends and adopted "family". (Mom was a 50 yr old drag queen) So yep, we hit most of the gay clubs (avoided the leather bars) in the area. It was interesting, but helped me make up my mind that LBGT is a choice, not a condition, and at the time, most of them would agree with that statement. My overall impression was that were uniformly unhappy.

Until God himself appears before them and asks a favour then it is all about people controlling other people.

Nothing more, nothing less.

You know that and I know that but.......

Your impression that homosex attraction is a choice and that those that practice that condition were uniformly unhappy implies that they were uniformly choosing to be unhappy.

Do you find that odd?

Aren't you glad that God doesn't choose to look at YOU through the filter of a cherry-picked Old Testament Bible verse...?

Aren't you glad that God didn't look for a loophole or workaround when it came to His love for YOU...?

It seems, *more than anything else*, that what you don't like is someone pointing out the hypocrisy that is present in ALL of these threads where homosexuality is vehemently condemned by 'Christains' who are themselves sinners according to the very Bible that they thump so loudly.

The thumping deafens them to hearing themselves.

You and I have been over this before. Please point out where I've said I'm an atheist.

Why does everyone ground the argument against homosexuality exclusively in the Bible? Homosexuality is contra naturam (against nature). It would still be wrong even if every religion in the world said it was right. BTW, there is good research going back even from the 90s showing that homosexuals, especially men, have psychic disress and pathologies that appear intrinsic to being a homosexual. (Not including the physical health problems [disease] of a homosexual lifestyle.) This phenomenon of intrinsic psychic distress is also present in homosexuals who live in cultures or societies which give "status parity" to homosexual and heterosexual behavior. It is therefore, not a function of discrimination. In other words, this psychic distress is intimately bound up with being a homosexual.

When the APA removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM, they did not do so on the basis of any empirical evidence but solely in capitulation to political pressure (a sit in and protest by homosexual activists at the annual meeting of the APA). The president of the APA was very explicit: the delisting was done on "humanitarian" (viz. emotional and political) grounds, not on the basis of science.

Jordan

I think it is the other way around. There is a uniform unhappiness that leads them to make a poor choice, trying to escape thier unhappiness. I've seen it more recently in one of my God children. She is unhappy with something in her life,is drinking to excess, and living a lesbian lifestyle. I'm fairly certain she doesn't consciously know why she is unhappy. I've spent a lot of time fishing with her and wish I could help her more.

No, it's just a fact. Just because I recognize the differences in a person, doesn't mean I dislike or judge them based upon those differences. Unlike you, who is compelled to do so by the creator of the universe.

Hey bozo, you do realize that I realize a lot more than you can imagine, and don't feel the least bit "victimized" by jive-talking fools. I do enjoy exposing smart-alek fakers, tho. Nothing was re-written or misinterpreted - those were your very terms. You simply were asked to support your poor assumption - which you have not done. Further and clearly, either you do not understand the basis for hypocrisy or you might and are so silly as to apply that label without knowledge. About AS and the soul, I spoke in "maybe" terms - you seem so self-assured as to state your baseless assumptions as knowledge. Now, what label applies to that?

Actually you are right about being able to recognize a gay person easily. My ex-wife lesbian aunt and her "man" told me the same thing. We can all recognize one of the limp writers easily, but it's also easy to spot people that are unhappy when they shouldn't be. That has been an accurate tell-tale for me.

Analysis here shows that quite a few discuss well the practice of homosexuality - including the possible origins and drivers - but don't engage in condemnations or superiority statements regarding the homosexual. It looks as though some of these same discussants are Christians, so those using the broad brush critiquing Christians in this regard may wish to re-think their positions. No matter how much we might enjoy expressing differing views and data on the origins and causes of homsexuality, such views seem like vapor in the long run. I think that the actual homosexual behavior may be the important pivot point - now with regard to the OP topic and later on a day of reckoning.

This is what you stated, your own words aimed squarely at AS.

Read your own words 'bozo'.

WEAK, JSTUART.
Per normal, I thought those before writing them (gave the guy the grace of "maybe") and read them well before posting. You should try such technique.

The proof of the credibility of the Christian revelation is found in the multitude of exact and specific fulfilled prophecies as concerns the person of Christ; his birth, his manner of life, his sacrificial death etc. Most of this is found in the prophet Isaiah. Daniel 9 is extremely shocking in its exactness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Anderson_(Scotland_Yard_official)

The Coming Prince:
http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/E-Books/christ/Anderson/Prince/TCPindex.htm

A close study reveals that the time of the Hebrew Messiah had to be a specific number of years after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem but before the destruction of the temple. Sir Robert Anderson split all the hairs and showed the exact math.

Nonetheless a quick reading of the entire text of the prophet Isaiah is enough. And the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecies could not have been through intrigue or collusion because Isaiah was translated into Greek in Alexandria under the Ptolemies in about 250BC and that is an irrefutable fact of history.

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...leness-of-Christianity-by-John-Locke.pdf

The cause and cure of the sodomite deviancy, Romans chapter one:

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Allen, I believe this to be the case as well. In my job, I have noticed this in those folks too. An unhappy, searching for something to fill their lives, and when they meet someone, they are ecstatic, and act like its the rainbow's end. But then troubles soon pop up, and its arguments on the phone during worktime. Hard to not overhear the vocales, then calling in sick because they're hung over from the bar. Emotional troubles translate to physical troubles, and demands to management to change their work schedules or get additional time off. So many other things demanded like they need recognition of entitlement. Something always pops up, they're not happy with what co-workers get, and feel victimized. It gets tiring in the workplace.
It will be interesting to learn how many sanctioned gay marriages last more than a couple years. From what I've noticed, gay people run through alot of partners in a short time.

What he said.

Yep.

The God cure worked out well for a bunch of Catholic priests.[color:#FF0000][/color]

Carbon, that was both disingenuous of and beneath you...don't you know they aren't "real" Christians, and anyway they can ask forgiveness and be made new again in the eyes of the church.

Though it is a pity the "real' Christians think less of their parishioners children than they do of their paedophile priests.

Come on you spineless c nts...lets see you defend your paedophile 'spokesmen for God'.

Kinda anxious to hear this myself...been waiting decades...

Ummmmm.....

My post was lauding the God cure for all the Catholic Priests that were cured. Because there must be one or two. Somewhere......

I know Carbon, I was going for irony and sarcasm, neither of which was directed at you.

Yeah, I know. I was just padding my post count and bumping up the thread.

Fair enough.

Depression is damn curse and obviously not a choice.

That don't prove schidt.

Interesting read...

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...rched-earth_battle_for_gay_marriage.html

Yep.

"Pray away the gay" is so effective for the Catholic Clergy.

That may be like arguing which came first, the chicken or the egg. In my small subset of the LBGT community that I have delt with enough to have some knowledge of, and inordinate number are being treated for depression, however not all. They all seem to have an underlying unhappiness though. It's manifest in a lot of ways such as domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, etc...a seemingly much higher rate than straight people. I grant you I am in no way an expert in this. All I can offer is my experience with a small group and their friends I have been acquainted with the last 35 years.

Allen,

You are hitting on one of the most difficult issues in Social Science. Correlation is easy to spot, however, the direction of causality can be extremely difficult. Let me give you an example.

In your subset, are there underlying biological conditions that cause homosexuality, and does that lead to unhappiness, depression, alcohol abuse etc, or does depression lead to desperate behaviors such as alcohol abuse and homosexuality. Trying to determine something of this nature often requires a complex double regression model. Unfortunately, your psychologist etc. are notoriously lousy at statistics.

Am going out on a limb here, but for today I don't care. Look at their troubles, and it seems that they have an inability to accept or tolerate anything or any one that is different from THEM, and an inability for many to accept the social boundaries within their OWN subculture. having sex with their friend's partner, or a friend, like anybody is a potential bed partner. Wanting what they want without respect of others, a narcissism of needing others to be like them and for them. An emotional immaturity and nonacceptance of the world around them, and the rules that don't meet THEIR wants and needs. Surely, no world like that exists, and yes, they would be depressed because they persist in wanting it that way.
How many subcultures are within that subculture because they can't get along with each other? Everyone wants what each wants, and its different, depending on their mood of the day.

You just described a large portion of the general population.

Yep.

Great write up Wyogal. There's just no reason to think it only applies to gays.

Why would someone defend "a pedophile spokesman for god"? and if a priest, Paster, is a pedophile, an adulterer, or gay, do you think thats going to turn me against god?

No, and it should not for your relationship with God is between you and God...it is not something to be herded by some piece of rubbish that feels the need to be an 'intermediary'.


But stick around for some dill will 'forgive' the ped filth.

I may have missed it but did you document that the original listing of homosexuality as a mental disorder on the DSM was done so on the basis of sound science in the first place?

Perhaps it's more about the nature of questions we would expect these examples to cause you to ask.

The guests that Jerry Springer invites on his show could own Wyogal's laundry list of bad behavior. And some of them are probably not homosexual.

Half the people I meet up the street would give that list a shake.

HEEHEE, yes, so true. But that's because I described narcissistic personality behaviors, pretty much according to the psychiatric DSM 4+. And the narcissistic personality is becoming more and more prevalent in our society, both gay and whatever. Hint...

Hmmm, young Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, gays, yes a laundry list of people as well.

Caberet' society pre-ww2 in Germany, history repeating itself, a correlation? Narcissists with nihilistic propensity. Their utopia vision....nothing to look forward to but the me and the now.

Did you mistaken this thread for one of the many anti-Trump threads started by RJF?

Anyone that:
likes to cook
is clean
likes music
dresses nice
talks with a speech impediment
is poorly coordinated
is educated
etc
etc

is suspected of being gay by the non-bigoted bigots.

I think the funniest part of this whole thread is how priests get thrown in.

It's obvious that there are a lot of people who are angry that the priests have "gotten away with it" while they can't seem to get away from their own past and maybe present behavior.

My tip to them - give yourselves a break. Get over yourselves. Admit it and move on. Don't allow yourself to be trapped by it.

If you think that list exempts any from anything you are sadly mistaken and a miserable judge of character.

Or...keep agitating until every single one of the mongrels are rotting in gaol.

No, actually. Re-read Allen917's post about restless unhappy persons making poor choices, one of which may be to live a homosexual lifestyle.

Interesting that the LGBT groups are the only segment of society, who identify themselves in terms of what they sexually do in bed. That is their primary identity.

You're usually a nihilist about everything. (Like Oxford, for instance)

Did you get molested?

No I have not...have you molested some little boys in your congregation?

Typical bullsh t Christian method, don't get your own way so the Christian goodness and charity comes to the fore.

I had a great elementary school experience, going to Catholic school. But after the pedephile priest scandal broke out, I thought, how smarmy and deeply disgusting could it be to have such a priest hearing confessions of others and giving absolutions, while doing those awful things to boys. That's when I left the Church. And for the record, no, I wasn't molested either.
Years ago, in the mental health community, many homosexual men recounted a history of molestation as a pre-teen by a man, they held to be trustworthy at the time. They mistakenly thought that this early sexual contact meant that they were homosexual. They had a difficult time seeing it as a sexual violation of them, because they trusted the man at that time. It caused a big internal conflict in them. These days we know that rape and molestation is a crime of power, not sex. But the sequelae of childhood molestation leaves scars and confusion about the young person's own identity. I think it valid to bring up the priest scandal history, as it did affect the sexual identity issues of many gays years ago, adding to a cluster of historical issues regarding gay identity. I don't know about today.
One thing we do see as a abnormal reaction to molestation, is that some of those molested, take the direction of then molesting others or using others sexually, in a futile attempt to empower themselves by being the molestor, the ONE in control.

The need to be the ONE in control, and the inability to tolerate criticism or differences in others, can unfortunately dovetail into the development of a narcissistic personality.

I'll have to disagree with you on this point.

In my experience U.S. former Christians who convert to Islam are the same way.

Their new religion becomes their identity. Probably over half the girls on campus who wore the full burka were U.S. converts.

By "primary" I meant that they will likely see themselves as homosexual before identifying themselves by means of their profession or religion or political party. Sorry I wasn't very clear. I don't really care what people do in bed, as long as its not with kids, so I am surprised when a person chooses to inform me either verbally or in passing that they are gay, before they would even disclose their profession, hobbies, religion etc. This has happened often. So they want others to know what they do in bed, kinda off... I'm old school and believe that my intimate relations with another is a personal thing, and not the entire primary identification of who I am.

Much has been said above regarding the negative health effects, psycho-emotional traits and unhappiness quotient identified in homosexuals. Other aspects are often noted as well, and a reality check may be helpful. Is it the case that:

a homosexual person is more/most likely (as noted by Wyogal) to first ID themselves as "gay" or "LGBT+" or some other created euphemism rather that simply a "homosexual"?

homosexual lobbying/power entities demand over-reaching "rights" rarely denied them en masse in the first-place and base the demand on their sexual aberrancy - as compared with other cohorts ID'd by color, race, ethnicity, etc. whom historically have experienced discrimination and denial of rights. Do those extreme homosexual demands seem to be driven by a need to gain legitimacy, acceptance or less negative perception - rather than to gain a right(s) denied?

certain geographic centers seem to have a magnetic pull for homosexuals - not not due to concentration of persons with shared language, ethnicity, cultural heritage, etc. - but due mostly to concentration of homosexual activity? Is this it?

certain homosexuals in the workplace or hierarchical organizations seem to push their homosexual identification with supervisors/leaders much more than do persons who have unique cultural/ethnic minority standing? If so, why?

homosexual identity groups have been careful to include some other sexually deviant subsets of behavior that could broaden their base appeal but also have been careful NOT to include pedophiles, incest and bestiality practitioners, necrophiles, and other such deviants in their agendas. If so, why would this discrimination be the case?

CCCC,

Most of what you've said in this post can be said of any minority group. Minority groups coalescing is nothing new. Ever heard of "China Town" in SF or "Little Italy" in NYC? I like living around people who understand guns, shooting, and the ethos of the American West. That's why I don't live in SF or NYC.

Minorty groups demanding additional rights is not new either. Take what you said about LGBT, and substitute Black, Hispanic, women, at one point they all demanded their extra right. In this state 10% of business are "minority owned", but receive 50% of the state contracts.

In the end, these extra rights are all about politics and politicians paying off a highly vocal group.

As for why the later groups are not included in the LGBT movement, it's all about consent. Minors, farm animals, and dead bodies cannot give consent.

AS - nice reply - some stuff most know. But, was not primarily adressing "coalescing". Might be missing a central point. Maybe.

When I was in the Army a guy in my squad graduated from a University that had just transitioned from and all girls school. At that time there was an 8 to 1 female to male ratio. Let's just say he didn't go there for the curriculum. Like wise around here a lot of guys to go to Greeley to study the Nursing students. It has a 4 to 1 female to male ratio.

Conversely, Colorado Springs is a great place for a single girl on the hunt.

Humans are creatures of a sexual nature, and yes, that nature drives many of our decisions.

Very interesting read. Good find Hooker.

So you have no respect for John Locke...

Glad you admit this in public. The founders of America read Locke more than any single political science philosopher. Locke is the DIRECT inspiration for the Declaration of Independence. When you disdain Locke you divorce yourself from Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, George Washington, Lee, Mason, Madison and on and on.

Some of my ancestors were intermarried with Huguenots. French Prostestants. St Bartholomews Day Massacre drove the Huguenots out of France almost entirely. They came to America to flee the flame and the stake and being murdered in their beds. The Vatican openly celebrated the slaughter of the Huguenots. Luther had advocated for reform. Some nations embraced those reforms. France did not. Niether did Austria or Italy or southern Germany or Spain.

Protestants were nothing if not iconoclasts. We do not bow before images or pray to saints or make idols of man. The Apostle Paul makes a direct connection between the sin of idolatry and the debasement of sodomite deviancy.

Protestant Christianity is not without flaws and faults and problems; it was the prevailing culture of the early US, England, Scotland, Sweden, Norway, Northern Germany, parts of Finland, Estonia, Holland, Denmark, Australia, New-Zealand, and various South Pacific islands such as Kosrae. Before the great apostasy set in in the early 1900's the Protestant cultural ethic was almost totally devoid of sodomite deviancy or its acceptance.

The Vatican has been the scene of murder, rape, immorality, mass murder, intrigue, apostasy, and sodomy for over a thousand years. Rodrigia Borgia comes to mind. It all goes back to Empress Irene who murdered her son so she could retain the throne in Constantinople. She was pro-idol-usage. She is a saint in the E.O. Church and celebrated on a feast day. She convened a council, stacked it with pro-idol bishops and changed the church discipline. Rome tagged along without complaint and so idolatry became part of the worship of the apostate church since about 800AD or so.

Protestant Christianity is best exemplified in the gracious and redemptive work of the Wesleyan revival organization known as the Salvation Army, during its heyday in the late 1800's. Street preaching servants of the poor, advocating a holy life by grace alone.

The apostles foretold terrible apostasy in the last days and we see that across the board in every denomination. But the Great Awakening, the spread of Christianity prior to Constantine and the better aspects of revived reformed biblical Christianity all testify to the truth and credibility of the true Christian faith.

And I would add to anyone who might be wading through all of this. The grace of Christ, His redeeming blood and the power of the Holy Spirit can not only forgive the deviant sodomite but transform and deliver and sanctify too. There is hope for the repentant deviant; real hope. Many many many have been totally delivered from the chains of sin and filled with grace. Changed, transformed, delivered.... saved. Yes indeed. Just as in the days of William Booth laboring among the hopeless drunkards, or David Wilkersn among the hopeless heroin addicts.

Is this non-sequitur hour?

You were asked to prove your claim regarding the Bible that "not a word of it will fail to come to pass", and now you are attacking Sauer for not respecting America, because your link to Locke fails to make the case for the truth of Bible Prophecy?

Is your favorite sea food Herring, perhaps of the Red variety?

"because your link to Locke fails to make the case for the truth of Bible Prophecy?"

No. Locke's work does prove it. Where specifically, chapter and verse did Locke fail?

But your lack of charity was never a problem?

Hey, it was just a question, nothing wrong with me asking. You really seem defensive.

Thats a pretty good system....deviant behavior is ultimately rewarded.

Pretty bad defense for your pedophiles, and no help for their victims.

WOW, just Wow...I need to be selling you people insurance, annuities,or bridges.

looks to me like a Protestant (R_W) bashing bad, bad, very bad Catholicism and then at the epilogue, promised a way to pray away the gay.

IOW, *it was the other guys. Not us.*

And me asking you whether you molested some little boys in your congregation was just a question...that you avoided, guilt perhaps?

There is all hell to pay in Ballarat where the ped friendly bishop protected his ped priests by ignoring the problem then sending the peds on to new victims...it is causing no end of grief as the Vatican is desperate to keep it quiet 'til it goes away.

But it won't now as Derryn Hinch has been elected to the senate and he will not give up on this, and he has an enormous amount of support from mainstream Australia with this issue (he just got elected on it).

So far as I can see all religious organisations should immediately lose their tax exempt status, and be held accountable for their transgressions...and yes I recognise that not all priests are or were peds...but every single one of the bastards sure as hell kept quiet about it.