Why are there so many homosexuals?

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

It’s fine as an intellectual exercise to speculate about such issues

I wasn’t suggesting we should speculate. But it would seem a valid scientific question to study: “Why is it that opposite sexes ordinarily attract? Why is it that in a small proportion of cases, this is not the case, and the attraction goes toward the same sex?”

There are all sorts of other interesting scientific questions we could study, too. Why, for example, do some people like certain foods like broccoli and others don’t? Why do people sometimes have favorite colors? Why do many men reportedly marry women who look somewhat like their mothers? These might be somewhat interesting questions to investigate, but it’s probably not very urgent that we do so.

Considering how complicated the brain is, I suspect that all we’ll be able to do for a long time is speculate about many things pertaining to our behaviors, emotions and attractions, likes and dislikes, etc. We still don’t even understand very much about the causes of many mental conditions that are far more important for us to understand such as depression, bipolar disorder, ADHD, OCD, etc.

 

[Rau]

There are all sorts of other interesting scientific questions we could study, too. Why, for example, do some people like certain foods like broccoli and others don’t?

In my experience, as one who is ok with broccoli now, but in the past was not, this is an interesting issue but not one that has been the subject of great debate. Certainly nothing about my body is especially equipped for broccoli. A dislike for broccoli never gave rise to social tensions. Nor a call to make new laws or redefine institutions.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

There are all sorts of other interesting scientific questions we could study, too. Why, for example, do some people like certain foods like broccoli and others don’t?

In my experience, as one who is ok with broccoli now, but in the past was not, this is an interesting issue but not one that has been the subject of great debate. Certainly nothing about my body is especially equipped for broccoli. A dislike for broccoli never gave rise to social tensions. Nor a call to make new laws or redefine institutions.

Issues having to do with race have caused a lot more tensions and calls to make new laws than anything having to do with sexual orientation or even gender identity. The social tensions surrounding LGBT people have been pretty mild in comparison.

 

[pearleaf]

LifeSiteNews isn’t what I would call a “reliable resource,” considering Media Bias/Fact Check ranks it as Mixed, due to multiple failed fact checks. There is also no reason for a religious leader to be quoted in an article supposedly on science, as it adds nothing to the understanding of the issue at hand.

For posterity’s sake, I looked up an article by Dr. Diamond on the subject. It … doesn’t quite say what the LifeSiteNews article you quoted wants it to say. Not surprising, considering the bias of the mentioned Dr. Laura A. Haynes (if the article is about the findings of Dr. Diamond, why doesn’t the article actually deal with it, instead of quoting people who misinterpret the data for a political purpose?).

 

[adamhovey1988]

There are not really that many homosexuals. I think that belief comes from the media. The same media that thinks Arab or Arabic speaker=Muslims (most Muslims I know are African American), Hispanic or Latino=brown (my first girlfriend was of Asian Mexican descent, and my third is a White Hispanic via Puerto Rico and South Texas), or that there are a lot more Jewish people than there are. (Ironically, they UNDER REPRESENT the amount of Jewish people in the south, everyone in the south is Baptist, nevermind Savannah having a very long Jewish history, or the very successful Methodist missionaries)

 

[buffalo]

Dr. Diamond tells LGBT activists near the end of her YouTube lecture, “I feel as a com-
munity, the queers have to stop saying, ‘Please help us. We’re born this way, and we

can’t change’ as an argument for legal standing. I don’t think we need that argument,
and that argument is going to bite us in the rear end, because now we know that there’s
enough data out there, that the other side is aware of as much as we are aware of it.” In

other words, Dr. Diamond says, “Stop saying ‘born that way and can’t change’ for politi-
cal purposes, because the other side knows it’s not true as much as we do.”

She also directly discussed the harm of political activists promoting the “can’t
change” myth in her own book on sexual fluidity in women (2008, pp. 256-257) that

won the Distinguished Book Award from the APA Division 44 (LGBT). She acknowl-
edged that, for political motives, some activists “keep propagating a deterministic model:

sexual minorities are born that way and can never be otherwise.” She addresses the
question, “s it really so bad that it is inaccurate?” Her answer is, “Over the long term,
yes, particularly because women are systematically disenfranchised by this approach.”

She said this deceptive practice does harm to women who have experienced sexual at-
traction fluidity and have “thought there was something wrong with them.” She said this

“silencing is ironic,” because it is being inflicted by the modern lesbian/gay/bisexual
rights movement.

https://www.aoiusa.org/american-psychological-association-course-correction-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-not-fixed-after-all/

 

[Polak]

You’re attracted to what you’re attracted to, no proof required. No sin.

You are operating under the belief that if you feel a natural urge to do something, it can’t be a sin. Absolutely not how Christians view life.

gay people want to have happy lives with a significant other of their own sex

Yes sure, and pedophiles might want to do the same things with children. It doesn’t interfere with your life, so you should be okay with that too, right?

there doesn’t seem to me to be any reason why they shouldn’t if they don’t have any personal religious beliefs that would prevent them.

Agreed. There is no reason a homosexual shouldn’t live such a life if they don’t believe it is wrong in the eyes of God. Doesn’t make it right, but I can understand it.

 

[nicholasG]

You are operating under the belief that if you feel a natural urge to do something, it can’t be a sin. Absolutely not how Christians view life.

No, not any natural urge. I’m talking specifically about a loving same sex couple. This a thread about homosexuality isn’t it? Please don’t misinterpret my remarks.
It may be a surprise to you but many Christians have the same view as I do.

 

[pearleaf]

You do realize that the bi community has been saying sexuality is fluid for years, right? Doesn’t make it a choice. And sexuality being fluid doesn’t help the non-affirming view in the slightest.

What non-affirming people need for their argument against gay marriage to have any secular merit is for homosexual desire to be a conscious choice. Which, it isn’t.

Otherwise, your churches can establish whatever rules of behavior that they want and that are binding on members of the churches themselves, but these will have no legitimate binding power outside your ecclesial communities. In other words: if you are against gay marriage, don’t get married to someone of your same sex. Otherwise, leave us alone.

 

[Polak]

Your words ‘you’re attracted to what you’re attracted to, no proof required. No sin’.

How did I misinterpret anything?

It may be a surprise to you but many Christians have the same view as I do.

I know that and no it doesn’t surprise me, but it is sad.

 

[nicholasG]

Your words ‘you’re attracted to what you’re attracted to, no proof required. No sin’.

Yes and I was talking about homosexuality. You know that very well. Stop playing word games.

 

[Polak]

No actually, I didn’t know you were using this in reference only in relation to homosexuality. I thought you were using that standard and applying it to homosexuality in this case.

 

[nicholasG]

No actually, I didn’t know you were using this in reference only in relation to homosexuality. I thought you were using that standard and applying it to homosexuality in this case

The “what” in my statement refers to “sex.” I should think you would have understood that since the topic on this thread is homosexuality.

 

[Polak]

Don’t get upset with me just because your statement wasn’t clear.

 

[Polak]

The “what” in my statement refers to “sex.”

To be clear your ‘you’re attracted to what you’re attracted to’ refers only to homosexual attraction’. And this is your argument for it being okay?

 

[nicholasG]

To be clear your ‘you’re attracted to what you’re attracted to’ refers only to homosexual attraction’. And this is your argument for it being okay?

For consenting homosexual adults, yes. I would say married adults but the Church doesn’t allow that.

And yes it’s my argument for same sex attraction being normal to homosexuals like opposite sex attraction is normal for heterosexuals.

 

[Polak]

And what qualifications do you have to say it’s okay for two consenting adults but not for a man and a child for instance? Unless you think that’s okay too?

 

[Abrosz]

And what qualifications do you have to say it’s okay for two consenting adults but not for a man and a child for instance? Unless you think that’s okay too?

A child cannot consent. Just like a dog cannot consent.

 

[Polak]

And if it could, would it then be okay?

 

[nicholasG]

And what qualifications do you have to say it’s okay for two consenting adults but not for a man and a child for instance? Unless you think that’s okay too?

No I don’t and you very well know that. That’s just an ignorant statement on your part. I never mentioned children. That’s just disgusting.