Are those who demand proof of God's existence fair and equal enough to ask for proof that homosexuals were born that way?

[inocente]

Show me where I claimed “most” victims grow up homosexual. I didn’t. I claimed that if the incidence of homosexuality in the general population is 2% and my quoted research says 46% of men and 32% of women homosexuals had been molested by a person of the same gender, then these are much higher incidences than what would have happened “naturally,” without an individual being molested as a child.

You claimed that “homosexuals can be created when a child is molested by an adult” but that isn’t at all what your cited research says. The paper says that “childhood sexual molestation may not be a causal factor for homosexuality and that the abuse molestation may be occurring after the individual is a homosexual”. Even the ultra-right wing homophobic conservapedia acknowledges that fact.

There is no evidence that gays are created by abuse, and your source is avoiding that inconvenient fact by quoting selectively from the abstract, which means nothing it says about anything is trustworthy.

If you want to stop child abuse then the majority is by men on girls, nothing to do with your tiny 2% of the population.

Or if you want to convert atheists, you might do better not to mention child abuse, as the priest scandal might be like a red rag to a bull.

 

[Candide_West]

You are correct. I should have used the word “evidence” instead of “proof.” Some people will accept evidence as proof. So, rephrasing the OP to say “evidence,” how does that change the point?

Well, it expands the number of people who could provide you with a useful answer mostly. And moves my own answer to being pretty much on topic.*

I only ask for evidence of Gods existence when someone is trying to convince me that I should modify my behaviour or views (such as joining a religion or otherwise) based on a God existing.

It’s not happened yet, but if someone was trying to convince me that I should modify my behaviour based on there being a strong genetic influence on sexuality, then yes I’d ask to see their evidence.*

The Archives of Sexual Behavior reports: “One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender.”

Marie, E. Tomeo, et al., “Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539.

Ok, interesting reading, but I’m afraid it doesn’t seem to support your statement. Since a large proportion of sexual abuse occurs within pre-existing sexual relationships I would expect that homosexual men would suffer a higher rate of sexual abuse by other men etc. This does not show that men were made homosexual by abuse.

In the same way, if you look at other statistics you will find that most heterosexual women who have been sexually abused have been abused by men. This does not show that women were made heterosexual by abuse.

 

[inocente]

Show me where I claimed “most” victims grow up homosexual. I didn’t. I claimed that if the incidence of homosexuality in the general population is 2% and my quoted research says 46% of men and 32% of women homosexuals had been molested by a person of the same gender, then these are much higher incidences than what would have happened “naturally,” without an individual being molested as a child.

You claimed that “homosexuals can be created when a child is molested by an adult” but that isn’t at all what your cited research says. The paper says that “childhood sexual molestation may not be a causal factor for homosexuality and that the abuse molestation may be occurring after the individual is a homosexual”. Even the ultra-right wing homophobic conservapedia acknowledges that fact.

There is no evidence that gays are created by abuse, and your source is avoiding that inconvenient fact by quoting selectively from the abstract, which means nothing it says about anything is trustworthy.

If you want to stop child abuse then the majority is by men on girls, nothing to do with your tiny 2% of the population.

Or if you want to convert atheists, you might do better not to mention child abuse at all, as the priest scandal might be like a red rag to a bull.

 

[inocente]

I never said everyone. The intentional creation of more homosexuals would be one potential solution to fears over world overpopulation by the progressive social engineers. If true, it would be nice if they would include the rest of the public in the decision making process rather than push propaganda. Much of the public might prefer family values plus a 2 child maximum instead.

I can’t take these conspiracy theories seriously. Not even a bit seriously.

If it were the slightest bit true then the proportion of gays would be skyrocketing, so common sense says it can’t be true. Incidentally, you forgot to say how it’s supposed to work. Do kids turn straight in the mornings and then gay in the evenings depending on which liberal media culture message got “promoted” last by these “progressive social engineers”?

 

[inocente]

Define “hate”. “Hate” is subjective and can have a limitless definition by the definer.

I merely repeated your sentence from post #28 about hate, only changing who it was about, so you tell me.

On the TV show Seinfeld. was Kramer a hater for refusing to wear the Aids ribbon? That’s the point. Who defines hate and what authority do they have? Since homosexuals can be created at a young age and there’s no evidence of being born that way, then one’s thoughts and opinions should become a matter of personal preference based on the evidence. If some chose it, then why should everyone be forced to think or feel a certain way about it when it was a choice for some? Are the “haters” born that way? Or created?

I can’t understand why you appear to think that people must either be born that way or must make a conscious choice. “No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.” - wikipedia

Personally, I’d like to see progress made toward homosexuality, but forcing untruths on the public like the song “Born That Way” is misleading and is the wrong approach.

Who is forcing the song on the public? How do they force the public to download it to their mp3 players? Whatcha talking about?

 

[inocente]

While homosexuals are only a few percent of the population, they wield an influence way out of proportion to their numbers. They do it like other numerical minorities: they join a coalition, thus politically multiplying their numbers. Fr. Mitch Pacwa in his “Relativism and Her Three Ugly Sisters” explains this by pointing out that some of the counter-demonstrators at abortion clinics are homosexuals. One might ask why homosexuals need abortion. They don’t, of course, but they are part of a large coalition that includes the pro-abortion lobby and who knows who else.

This thread is great for conspiracy theories then. So 4% get more influence than the other 96% through a nameless coalition containing “who knows else”. Is that meant to sound in any way factual or convincing?

Did Fr. Pacwa mention whether there were gays demonstrating on the pro-life side as well, such as Catholic homosexuals, or does he think that gays have to stop being Catholics when they join this mysterious secretive coalition?

Incidentally, this is why felons are not allowed to vote. It keeps them from influencing legislation.

Are you suggesting that gays shouldn’t be allowed to vote, or should all be locked up, or are you just injecting random thoughts at this point?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I only ask for evidence of Gods existence when someone is trying to convince me that I should modify my behaviour or views (such as joining a religion or otherwise) based on a God existing.

Likewise, which now days seems to be extremely rare. Most of my associates at present time are of eastern religions. They seem to be perfectly content to do what every they do without overtly imposing it on others and I’ve got no motivation to challenge them on that. The Jehovah’s witnesses that come to my door are the only ones I encounter that seem to be trying to sell a religion or a view. (I’ve found exchanges with them to be pretty pleasant).

 

[atheistgirl]

Much of the public might prefer family values plus a 2 child maximum instead.

Would not a two child maximum go against Catholic morality? Aren’t Catholics supposed to be open to the possibility of birth? If a young couple, say 19, have twins, for the next 70 years or so, they are to forgo marital relations, in case the mother gets pregnant again? Natural methods of spacing could be unreliable, would it be worth the risk given this mythical states two child policy?

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

The intentional creation of more homosexuals would be one potential solution to fears over world overpopulation by the progressive social engineers.

Do you really think someones sexual preference can be socially engineered?

Does that mean, because hetrosexuals are the majority, they are socially engineered due to the norms they are exposed to?

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Fr. Mitch Pacwa in his “Relativism and Her Three Ugly Sisters” explains this by pointing out that some of the counter-demonstrators at abortion clinics are homosexuals.

I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. I’ll bet some of the counter-demonstrators were also Jewish, Catholic, Black, White, Asian, Employed, Unemployed, Married, Single, Able bodied and Disabled

Sarah x

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

Would not a two child maximum go against Catholic morality? Aren’t Catholics supposed to be open to the possibility of birth? If a young couple, say 19, have twins, for the next 70 years or so, they are to forgo marital relations, in case the mother gets pregnant again? Natural methods of spacing could be unreliable, would it be worth the risk given this mythical states two child policy?

Sarah x

Yes, it would go against Catholic morality and it’s a totally ridiculous idea.

 

[sedonaman]

I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. I’ll bet some of the counter-demonstrators were also Jewish, Catholic, Black, White, Asian, Employed, Unemployed, Married, Single, Able bodied and Disabled

Sarah x

Didn’t you read my post? It was intended to show how homosexuals multiply their political influence. The fact other groups might be there only supports this multiplication.

 

[chepner3]

Hmmmm, I’m still waiting for someone to use the argument that if homosexuality becomes “accepted” that will open the door to pedophilia, beastiality and multiple-partner marriages.

I read these threads with the realization that no evidence, no tit-for-tat argument, will ever change anyone’s mind - on either side. What I hope for is for people to sit down and talk together while trying to sincerely seek understanding on this issue. I long for people to talk to someone they know who is homosexual - probably a family member - to find out, on a personal level, the struggle involved; the years of therapy they go through; the search for a cause and a way to change.

Like arguments against abortion, those who are homosexual find themselves subject to myths, misconceptions and prejudices. I sit stunned when I read arguments like “the media influences people to become homosexual” as if declaring yourself homosexual is something done on a whim or without any thought. Or that society makes homosexuality a fad, as though having homosexual intercourse is something people blithely engage in for “sport”. Along the way homosexuals are cast as so different from heterosexuals, you’d think they were from a different planet. Nowhere have a read an argument against homosexuality that is made with the sensitivity to realization that a homosexual person is just like a heterosexual person in every way, except for the gender of the person to whom they are sexually attracted.

Homosexual people have “blended” in society for thousands of years. They have pretended to be heterosexual in order to succeed in society, not upset their family and to enjoy the privilege of having children and a family. I think the arguments against homosexuality forget that there is a difference between the homosexual act and deep-seated sexual attraction. Sure there is a small segment of society that engages in promiscuous sexuality with both genders. Sure there is situational homosexuality. But the discussion should exclude those anomalies and address the homosexual person who is not engaging in any of those behaviors. Try formulating an argument again a specific homosexual person who successfully operating in society and is already raising children in a long term committed relationship. How could we deny a person like that to secure their commitment through legal recognition? Okay, the Catholic church won’t sanctify that union, but that isn’t the issue when it comes to legalizing homosexual marriage.

But I digress. Like I wrote, I’m waiting for every person who thinks homosexuality is “created” to sit down and sincerely discuss the issue with a homosexual person. I bet they would find that their arguments won’t find purchase.