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

[InSearchofGrace]

What a fascinating back story.

Thanks for those links - they were incredibly interesting reading.

The bottom line though, when one leaves out all the internal and external politics and social norms, is the scientific/medical evidence just wasnt there to sustain a credible claim of mental illness in relation to homosexuality.

Sarah x

Not necessarily. The bottom line is that the removal of the diagnosis was more about removal of the stigmatizing label of homosexuality rather than “scientific” evidence. Since the pathology of homosexuality has yet to be proven, I would have been satisfied if APA simply reached NOC - not otherwise classified diagnosis, at least, until a really independent, unbiased, agenda free study reveals something more definitive. Homosexuality is still associated with several mental health problems, but I will leave you to your own research capabilities.

“They were incredibly interesting reading …” referring to the 3 links I provided implies that that you were able to read through an hour of the episode I provided plus two articles in 33 minutes. Please convince us you are in this forum without pre-conceived ideas …
,

 

[atheistgirl]

Please convince us you are in this forum without pre-conceived ideas …
,

You provided very interesting links which I thanked you for. And you then insultingly imply I may have ‘‘preconceived ideas’’ for being ‘‘in this forum’’ - what specific ideas your mean I have no idea

I only refered to ‘‘reading’’ - I read the links - ''They were incredibly interesting reading - I have not listed to the audio. I never mentioned the audio, I thanked you for the very interesting ‘‘reading’’ in the links!

Please elaborate on what you think I need to do to convince you.

Sarah x

 

[InSearchofGrace]

You provided very interesting links which I thanked you for. And you then insultingly imply I may have ‘‘preconceived ideas’’ for being ‘‘in this forum’’ - what specific ideas your mean I have no idea

I only refered to ‘‘reading’’ - I read the links - ''They were incredibly interesting reading - I have not listed to the audio. I never mentioned the audio, I thanked you for the very interesting ‘‘reading’’ in the links!

Please elaborate on what you think I need to do to convince you.

Sarah x

Okay, the following is your post to which I responded, bolding mine.

What a fascinating back story.

Thanks for those links - they were incredibly interesting reading.

The bottom line though, when one leaves out all the internal and external politics and social norms, is the scientific/medical evidence just wasnt there to sustain a credible claim of mental illness in relation to homosexuality.

You specified links (plural). Even if you did not listen to the audio, it was reasonable to think that what you were saying was that you read through the transcript, which is an option in the first link, plus the two other links (in text). So it did not come across as credible that you really read what I provided, given the quickness of your reply.

Albeit with a note of thanks, and then your dismissive sounding ‘bottom line,’ I’m sorry to say, the whole thing came across as a brush off and patronizing of the effort that went into my post. If you will bother to read the second link, it is a critique of the “evidence” by the Evelyn Hooker study that the gay crowd and those sympathetic to their causes are known to use to justify the removal of the diagnosis of homosexuality in the DSM, in an attempt to dilute the shame of a politicized and coerced decision reached by the APA in 1973. The third link is from a thoughtful writer who cautions readers as they go forward with accepting whatever the APA concludes. Fortunately, there is another school of thought out there and a group of mental health professionals who do not align themselves with the APA. They are like David to the Goliath that is the APA, an association which decides studies that are favorably peer reviewed or not, studies that gets published or not, and to which majority psychiatrists and psychologists are beholden in the practice of their professions.

The pre-conceived idea remark that followed is referring to the notion that faithful Catholics are out of step in the modern world or have no more than religious basis for held values in the current culture. Non-Catholics including atheists and agnostics, and Catholics ‘in name only,’ come onto this board without wanting to have an honest exchange of ideas. Some are in fact here to antagonize or mock Catholics for their beliefs and values. If I lumped you with such posters from the first or second group in haste or in error, please accept my apologies.
,

 

[atheistgirl]

You specified links (plural).

Yes. Because I read them.

So it did not come across as credible that you really read what I provided, given the quickness of your reply.

Incredible or not, I read them.

If you will bother to read the second link,

I did.

The third link is from a thoughtful writer who cautions readers as they go forward with accepting whatever the APA concludes.

I actually read this one first, as when I opened it the opening anecdote immediately caught my attention.

The pre-conceived idea remark that followed is referring to the notion that faithful Catholics are out of step in the modern world or have no more than religious basis for held values in the current culture. Non-Catholics including atheists and agnostics, and Catholics ‘in name only,’ come onto this board without wanting to have an honest exchange of ideas. Some are in fact here to antagonize or mock Catholics for their beliefs and values. If I lumped you with such posters from the first or second group in haste or in error, please accept my apologies.
,

You did, but never mind. I’m much more aware now than I was 11 months ago on the Catholic position on numerous issues, including homosexuality. (Ive learned how Catholics distinguish between the orientaiton and the activity for example).

I am not here to mock, antagonize, or belittle. I am here to conduct myself with civility, repect, and hopefully enjoy some interesting and stimulating conversation.

But I am a little irked at times that, it seems, as soon as someone is identified as an atheist, their motives are instantly called into question, without the person doing so even bothering to review the posts by the person concerned, which would give them a much better idea of any ‘‘pre-conceived’’ ideas they may or may not hold.

I found the links very interesting reading. The internal and external politics were illuminating. I read your links and I thanked you for them. Pity it couldnt have just been left at that.

My thanks were genuine as you led me to materials I almost certainly wouldnt have found otherwise.

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Okay, the following is your post to which I responded, bolding mine.

You specified links (plural). Even if you did not listen to the audio, it was reasonable to think that what you were saying was that you read through the transcript, which is an option in the first link, plus the two other links (in text). So it did not come across as credible that you really read what I provided, given the quickness of your reply.

Albeit with a note of thanks, and then your dismissive sounding ‘bottom line,’ I’m sorry to say, the whole thing came across as a brush off and patronizing of the effort that went into my post. If you will bother to read the second link, it is a critique of the “evidence” by the Evelyn Hooker study that the gay crowd and those sympathetic to their causes are known to use to justify the removal of the diagnosis of homosexuality in the DSM, in an attempt to dilute the shame of a politicized and coerced decision reached by the APA in 1973. The third link is from a thoughtful writer who cautions readers as they go forward with accepting whatever the APA concludes. Fortunately, there is another school of thought out there and a group of mental health professionals who do not align themselves with the APA. They are like David to the Goliath that is the APA, an association which decides studies that are favorably peer reviewed or not, studies that gets published or not, and to which majority psychiatrists and psychologists are beholden in the practice of their professions.

The pre-conceived idea remark that followed is referring to the notion that faithful Catholics are out of step in the modern world or have no more than religious basis for held values in the current culture. Non-Catholics including atheists and agnostics, and Catholics ‘in name only,’ come onto this board without wanting to have an honest exchange of ideas. Some are in fact here to antagonize or mock Catholics for their beliefs and values. If I lumped you with such posters from the first or second group in haste or in error, please accept my apologies.
,

The Scientific Establishment is notorious for its rejection of evidence that runs counter to its preconceived conclusions…

 

[atheistgirl]

The Scientific Establishment is notorious for its rejection of evidence that runs counter to its preconceived conclusions…

In the short term, there will always be people with agendas, and nice big research grants, but in the end, the truth always outs.

Do faith based organizations have a similar reputation for rejection of evidence that runs counter to its preconceived conclusions only to later accept such evidence?

Sarah x

 

[Mudgely]

Here’s a summary for those who appreciate honest thought instead of the promotion of the unelected liberal media’s beliefs which are an artificial attempt to force one view on the public. People don’t want to be forced to believe “born that way” since the science instead supports a combination of developmental factors as the cause for many individuals. The liberal media propaganda only obstructs an understanding of the truth and takes people farther away from understanding. True understanding gives us the best chance to bring people together.

str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=PL_article_are_homosexuals_born_that_way

Is there a point here, or is this meant to be some sort of flame or joke?

 

[ManOnFire]

I think maybe your logic is back to front. If you believe in God then you’re not going to worry about proof of His existence. In the same way, if you accept homosexuals then you’re not going to worry about whether they are born that way.

Homosexuals can be created when a child is molested by an adult. Should society just “accept” that this is going to happen and promote homosexual behavior, such that it’s incidence rises? What if your kids are not “born that way” but “became that way” due to messages played in the media? Would that disturb you to know that your child “learned” it from an encounted that would not otherwise have happened, due to messages promoted by the liberal media culture? What about man-hating lesbians who are bigoted against half the world population? Where’s the outrage over their prejudice?

 

[ManOnFire]

Is there a point here, or is this meant to be some sort of flame or joke?

This statement from the article:

“The American Psychological Association (APA), for example, once held the position in 1998 that, “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.” However, a decade of scientific research debunked this idea and caused the APA to revise their position in 2009: “Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors” [emphasis mine]. A pro-gay group like the APA would revise their statement only if there was overwhelming evidence that necessitated a position change.”

stands in direct contrast to a song like Lady Gaga’s “Born That Way” to the point that Gaga’s song is more propaganda for the uniformed than entertainment. My point of bringing God into the discussion is for those who believe homosexuals were born that way and who refuse to believe in Him based on no proof, consider it to be a parallel argument.

 

[Candide_West]

…stands in direct contrast to a song like Lady Gaga’s “Born That Way” to the point that Gaga’s song is more propaganda for the uniformed than entertainment. My point of bringing God into the discussion is for those who believe homosexuals were born that way and who refuse to believe in Him based on no proof, consider it to be a parallel argument.

This seems like a bit of an odd question since it seems to be aimed at a very small number of people. People who demand proof (not evidence as all atheists I know would seek) of Gods existence AND actively believe that homosexuals were “born that way” (not just have a neutral position on the subject).*

I have yet to meet anyone who meets your criteria for answering the question.*

But to provide the best answer that I can… As far as I can tell the question whether homosexuality is genetic, developmental or otherwise seems to me to be irrelevant. I just don’t see that it matters one way or the other. If irrefutable evidence in either direction were produced tomorrow I cannot see any difference it would make any difference to my view of homosexuals.*

It might make interesting reading, just like it would make interesting reading if someone managed to gather irrefutable evidence that your career is or isn’t genetically or developmentally determined. But it wouldn’t suddenly make becoming a taxi driver or a journalist, or any other profession, inherently immoral.*

Of course if someone wanted me to take a particular life changing course of action based on the idea that homosexuality is genetically or developmentally determined, then I’d need to see some fairly solid evidence that it was true.*

In the same way, if someone wants me to join a religion then I’ll need to see some fairly solid evidence that the claims of that religion are true.*

Homosexuals can be created…

Interesting, could you expand on this please. Would be interesting to read your sources for when / how people have been made homosexual.

 

[inocente]

The Scientific Establishment is notorious for its rejection of evidence that runs counter to its preconceived conclusions…

This Scientific Establishment sounds amazing, I’d like to join. Could you link its website, and perhaps you could give a few examples of how it got to be so notorious.

In particular, I’d like to see any evidence for why psychiatrists (if they can be called scientists rather than medics) should reject their preconceived conclusion, a.k.a. the Hippocratic Oath, that they should not play God by randomly inventing “disorders” for anyone who doesn’t share their morality.

 

[inocente]

Homosexuals can be created when a child is molested by an adult. Should society just “accept” that this is going to happen and promote homosexual behavior, such that it’s incidence rises?

What? Most child abuse is committed by men on girls. Most of the victims grow up heterosexual. On what planet is that anything to do with gays? Is this thread in a fact-free zone?

What if your kids are not “born that way” but “became that way” due to messages played in the media? Would that disturb you to know that your child “learned” it from an encounted that would not otherwise have happened, due to messages promoted by the liberal media culture?

What? A worldwide “liberal media culture” conspiracy to turn everyone gay? Why? And how does it work? Do kids turn straight in the mornings and then gay in the evenings depending on which liberal media culture message got “promoted” last?

What about man-hating lesbians who are bigoted against half the world population? Where’s the outrage over their prejudice?

What about gay-hating heterosexuals who are bigoted against around 280 million people (4% of 7 billion) around the world. Where’s the outrage over their prejudice?

 

[inocente]

stands in direct contrast to a song like Lady Gaga’s “Born That Way” to the point that Gaga’s song is more propaganda for the uniformed than entertainment.

Either we live in a free world or we’ll need an inquisition to censor free speech, and must give psychiatrists the power to forcibly “cure” anyone who, while neither a threat to themselves nor to society, happen in some way to be different from the majority.

My point of bringing God into the discussion is for those who believe homosexuals were born that way and who refuse to believe in Him based on no proof, consider it to be a parallel argument.

Arguments that have no factual basis are unlikely to get people to agree with you, imho more the exact opposite.

 

[ManOnFire]

This seems like a bit of an odd question since it seems to be aimed at a very small number of people. People who demand proof (not evidence as all atheists I know would seek) of Gods existence AND actively believe that homosexuals were “born that way” (not just have a neutral position on the subject).*

I have yet to meet anyone who meets your criteria for answering the question.*

But to provide the best answer that I can… As far as I can tell the question whether homosexuality is genetic, developmental or otherwise seems to me to be irrelevant. I just don’t see that it matters one way or the other. If irrefutable evidence in either direction were produced tomorrow I cannot see any difference it would make any difference to my view of homosexuals.*

It might make interesting reading, just like it would make interesting reading if someone managed to gather irrefutable evidence that your career is or isn’t genetically or developmentally determined. But it wouldn’t suddenly make becoming a taxi driver or a journalist, or any other profession, inherently immoral.*

Of course if someone wanted me to take a particular life changing course of action based on the idea that homosexuality is genetically or developmentally determined, then I’d need to see some fairly solid evidence that it was true.*

In the same way, if someone wants me to join a religion then I’ll need to see some fairly solid evidence that the claims of that religion are true.*

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?

 

[ManOnFire]

Interesting, could you expand on this please. Would be interesting to read your sources for when / how people have been made homosexual.

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.”

 

[ManOnFire]

Interesting, could you expand on this please. Would be interesting to read your sources for when / how people have been made homosexual.

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.

 

[ManOnFire]

What? Most child abuse is committed by men on girls. Most of the victims grow up heterosexual. On what planet is that anything to do with gays? Is this thread in a fact-free zone?QUOTE]

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.

 

[ManOnFire]

A worldwide “liberal media culture” conspiracy to turn everyone gay? Why? And how does it work?

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.

 

[ManOnFire]

What about gay-hating heterosexuals who are bigoted against around 280 million people (4% of 7 billion) around the world. Where’s the outrage over their prejudice?

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

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.

 

[sedonaman]

I don’t understand - gays are around 4% of society, are you’re saying they have more money than the other 96%?

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.

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