your opinions on gays

[pathia]

Once again sigh there is no study that shows any genetic cause for homosexual urges. The act is a mortal sin, not my choosing, but God’s and is un-natural…goes against nature in every regard. The inclination, while debated as sinful or not, is definitely a sign of our fallen human nature.

Are you sure you “learned” to tolerate it or were you genetically wired that way?

Wrong, there are plenty of studies that show genetic correlation, proving CAUSATION however is almost impossible in just about anything.

Even if twins are separated and adopted by different foster families there is a drastically elevated chance both will be gay if one is. 38% was listed in a study earlier here. The normal rate for homosexuality is something like 3-4%. 38% is WAY outside of that. It just proves that is not 100% genetic, not that it is 0% genetic.

 

[East_and_West]

I think there can be genetic factors that would predispose a person to homosexuality, but that is not the nail in the coffin.

 

[Elric]

BTW…since a genetic cause is being theorized, would you be in favor of a cure for homosexuality? If they can prove a cause for homosexual inclination (genetic, hormonal, etc.), then they can find a cure.

(all opinions welcome)

I think that perhaps genetic cause may be a little strong, although it could contribute.

A more accurate cause/term would probably be neurological cause/disorder similar to Autism Spectrum Disorder, Tourette Syndrome and Asbergers Syndrome (please note that I am not saying that these conditions are the same as homosexuality or are comparable, simply that they are neurological conditions)

To use a phrase that has been used before on this thread, “their brains are wired differently” to a “typical” persons brain and they do and understand things in a different way to “typical” people.

To answer your question: I dont know, I guess if the person with the “disorder” wished to be cured vollentarily. For many people it is an unwanted issue in their life that causes them much pain.

As for the 3 that I mentioned, yes and no. Yes because many are severly affected (ie: cant communicate/express themselves, unable to be independent and cant interact with society) and no because we could lose a brilliant person like a potential “Stonewall” Jackson or Albert Einstien.

 

[agangbern]

Wrong, there are plenty of studies that show genetic correlation, proving CAUSATION however is almost impossible in just about anything.

Even if twins are separated and adopted by different foster families there is a drastically elevated chance both will be gay if one is. 38% was listed in a study earlier here. The normal rate for homosexuality is something like 3-4%. 38% is WAY outside of that. It just proves that is not 100% genetic, not that it is 0% genetic.

Quote:
"Now let’s look at another study often cited as proof of this claim. This study is often called the “gay gene” study. In 1993, a team of researchers led by Dr. Dean Hamer announced “preliminary” findings from research into the connection between homosexuality and genetic inheritance. In a sample of 76 homosexual males, the researchers found a statistically higher incidence of homosexuality in their male relatives (brothers, uncles) on their mother’s side of the family. This suggested a possible inherited link through the X chromosome. A follow-up study of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers found that 33 shared a variation in a small section of the X chromosome. Although this study was promoted by the press as evidence of the discovery of a gay gene, some of the same concerns raised with the previous two studies apply here. First, the findings involve a limited sample size and are therefore sketchy. Even the researchers acknowledged that these were “preliminary” findings. In addition to the sample size being small, there was no control testing done for heterosexual brothers. Another major issue raised by critics of the study concerned the lack of sufficient research done on the social histories of the families involved."

 

[pathia]

(“http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homotheo.html”):
"Now let’s look at another study often cited as proof of this claim. This study is often called the “gay gene” study. In 1993, a team of researchers led by Dr. Dean Hamer announced “preliminary” findings from research into the connection between homosexuality and genetic inheritance. In a sample of 76 homosexual males, the researchers found a statistically higher incidence of homosexuality in their male relatives (brothers, uncles) on their mother’s side of the family. This suggested a possible inherited link through the X chromosome. A follow-up study of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers found that 33 shared a variation in a small section of the X chromosome. Although this study was promoted by the press as evidence of the discovery of a gay gene, some of the same concerns raised with the previous two studies apply here. First, the findings involve a limited sample size and are therefore sketchy. Even the researchers acknowledged that these were “preliminary” findings. In addition to the sample size being small, there was no control testing done for heterosexual brothers. Another major issue raised by critics of the study concerned the lack of sufficient research done on the social histories of the families involved."

As explained before I simply won’t accept NARTH or organizations directly linkable to NARTH as an acceptable organization, however you are free to believe what you wish of course. If you want the gory details I’ll PM them to you, they are not ontopic to this thread. Suffice it to say I consider them abusive and immoral They also say don’t say anything about twin studies, only brother studies.

 

[Jwlynas]

My opinion in Gays is that they are people much like the rest of us, and i will only discriminate against them if they are unpleasant people. Nothing against their sexual preferences.

Any bible passage I have read regarding the Homosexual as bad can be interpreted in different way very easily, as with the views on premarital relations.

However, from a Universaliasabilty point of view (can’t remember which Philosopher came up with this…any help?) It is a bad idea. Universalisability is simply “Consider what would happen were this to become a universal truth and everyone did it”

In the case of homosexuality…The human race would die out. Thus, bad thing to be exclusively Homosexual.

Simple logic. Don’t hate them, but do try to convince that there are better choices outside their own gender.

 

[agangbern]

As explained before I simply won’t accept NARTH or organizations directly linkable to NARTH as an acceptable organization, however you are free to believe what you wish of course. If you want the gory details I’ll PM them to you, they are not ontopic to this thread. Suffice it to say I consider them abusive and immoral They also say don’t say anything about twin studies, only brother studies.

What they say about twins:
"*Though this study has also been touted as proving a genetic basis to homosexuality, there are significant problems. First, the theory is not new. It was first proposed in 1952. Since that time, three other separate research studies come to very different conclusions. Therefore, the conclusions of the Bailey-Pillard study should be considered in the light of other contrary studies. Second, most published reports did not mention that only 9 percent of the non- twin brothers of homosexuals were homosexuals. Fraternal twins share no more genetic material than non-twin brothers, yet homosexuals are more than twice as likely to share their sexual orientation with a fraternal twin than with a non-twin brother. Whatever the reason, the answer cannot be genetic.

Third, why aren’t nearly all identical twin brothers of homosexuals also homosexual? In other words, if biology is determinative, why are nearly half the identical twins not homosexual? Dr. Bailey admitted that there “must be something in the environment to yield the discordant twins.” And that is precisely the point; there is something (perhaps everything) in the environment to explain sexual orientation. These are two studies usually cited as evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality."
*

 

[rlg94086]

My opinion in Gays is that they are people much like the rest of us, and i will only discriminate against them if they are unpleasant people. Nothing against their sexual preferences.

Any bible passage I have read regarding the Homosexual as bad can be interpreted in different way very easily, as with the views on premarital relations.

However, from a Universaliasabilty point of view (can’t remember which Philosopher came up with this…any help?) It is a bad idea. Universalisability is simply “Consider what would happen were this to become a universal truth and everyone did it”

In the case of homosexuality…The human race would die out. Thus, bad thing to be exclusively Homosexual.

Simple logic. Don’t hate them, but do try to convince that there are better choices outside their own gender.

Absolutely. There should be no hate or discrimination against people regardless of their sin. When we disagree with people and their lifestyle choices, we need to do it with love.

 

[pathia]

What they say about twins:
"*Though this study has also been touted as proving a genetic basis to homosexuality, there are significant problems. First, the theory is not new. It was first proposed in 1952. Since that time, three other separate research studies come to very different conclusions. Therefore, the conclusions of the Bailey-Pillard study should be considered in the light of other contrary studies. Second, most published reports did not mention that only 9 percent of the non- twin brothers of homosexuals were homosexuals. Fraternal twins share no more genetic material than non-twin brothers, yet homosexuals are more than twice as likely to share their sexual orientation with a fraternal twin than with a non-twin brother. Whatever the reason, the answer cannot be genetic.

Third, why aren’t nearly all identical twin brothers of homosexuals also homosexual? In other words, if biology is determinative, why are nearly half the identical twins not homosexual? Dr. Bailey admitted that there “must be something in the environment to yield the discordant twins.” And that is precisely the point; there is something (perhaps everything) in the environment to explain sexual orientation. These are two studies usually cited as evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality."
*

How does this disagree with what I said earlier? 38% means it is a mixture of multiple correlations, this is exactly what I have been saying since the start.

 

[agangbern]

Originally Posted by agangbern View Post
What they say about twins:
"Though this study has also been touted as proving a genetic basis to homosexuality, there are significant problems. First, the theory is not new. It was first proposed in 1952. Since that time, three other separate research studies come to very different conclusions. Therefore, the conclusions of the Bailey-Pillard study should be considered in the light of other contrary studies. Second, most published reports did not mention that only 9 percent of the non- twin brothers of homosexuals were homosexuals. Fraternal twins share no more genetic material than non-twin brothers, yet homosexuals are more than twice as likely to share their sexual orientation with a fraternal twin than with a non-twin brother. Whatever the reason, the answer cannot be genetic.

Third, why aren’t nearly all identical twin brothers of homosexuals also homosexual? In other words, if biology is determinative, why are nearly half the identical twins not homosexual? Dr. Bailey admitted that there “must be something in the environment to yield the discordant twins.” And that is precisely the point; there is something (perhaps everything) in the environment to explain sexual orientation. These are two studies usually cited as evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality."

How does this disagree with what I said earlier? 38% means it is a mixture of multiple correlations, this is exactly what I have been saying since the start.

What you said, pathia, as re-quoted below, is that they don’t say anything about twin studies, only brother studies In that way, the excerpt proved your allegation false.

As explained before I simply won’t accept NARTH or organizations directly linkable to NARTH as an acceptable organization, however you are free to believe what you wish of course. If you want the gory details I’ll PM them to you, they are not ontopic to this thread. Suffice it to say I consider them abusive and immoral They also say don’t say anything about twin studies, only brother studies.

 

[agangbern]

My opinion in Gays is that they are people much like the rest of us, and i will only discriminate against them if they are unpleasant people. Nothing against their sexual preferences.

I agree with this, that all of us were created equal. With equal dignity, equal rights, equal freedom and equal will power. Unfortunately the gays seem not to believe in this equality, specially in the equality of freedom and will power. They want us to believe that their freedom and will power is weaker than the average person. Hence, they demand for more understanding and sympathy. They want us to believe that their disordered behavior is simply natural to them as if to say that the Lord God was the one who made them disordered. That is how I perceived they have been portraying themselves here in this forum.

 

[East_and_West]

I agree with this, that all of us were created equal. With equal dignity, equal rights, equal freedom and equal will power. Unfortunately the gays seem not to believe in this equality, specially in the equality of freedom and will power. They want us to believe that their freedom and will power is weaker than the average person. Hence, they demand for more understanding and sympathy. They want us to believe that their disordered behavior is simply natural to them as if to say that the Lord God was the one who made them disordered. That is how I perceived they have been portraying themselves here in this forum.

Wow, you have no charity in your heart. You have no idea what a cross to bear homosexual inclinations are. There are those of us who battle them everyday, and yes we do expect some understanding on your part. We don’t want to spend the rest of our lives alone. We don’t want to never make love. But that is what God has called us to and its a hard calling. So show some respect.

 

[pathia]

I agree with this, that all of us were created equal. With equal dignity, equal rights, equal freedom and equal will power. Unfortunately the gays seem not to believe in this equality, specially in the equality of freedom and will power. They want us to believe that their freedom and will power is weaker than the average person. Hence, they demand for more understanding and sympathy. They want us to believe that their disordered behavior is simply natural to them as if to say that the Lord God was the one who made them disordered. That is how I perceived they have been portraying themselves here in this forum.

Really? I’ve never heard this argument ever. Considering the divorce rate in the modern world, the amount of children born out of wedlock and all the other vices of heterosexual sinners I can’t believe you could even consider such a statement.

What sickens me with the obsession over homosexuality, meanwhile the people shunning me are on their third wife or husband or plenty of other sinful arrangements.

Maybe you should think about that thing Jesus said about throwing stones!

 

[pathia]

What you said, pathia, as re-quoted below, is that they don’t say anything about twin studies, only brother studies In that way, the excerpt proved your allegation false.

They spoke of it, but they offered nothing to refute it at all, they just sort of glazed over it. Correlations in nature are NEVER 100% in anything, even genetics. Genes work very strangely and we don’t even know why. Twins might have identical genes, but they don’t always express identically. This is why one twin could be color blind, the other not, or the other get cancer the other not.

Twins are identical in looks and DNA, but DNA ‘expresses’ throughout life, and what unfolds out of DNA is not identical between twins.

I once met a pair of twins, one boy was effeminate from since before speech. He preferred pink, Barbie dolls and such from his sister, tossing aside his given toys to go play with her instead of his twin brother. I’m not sure what happened to him, but last I checked he was only 5 and his parents were sending him to therapists to try to modify his behavior.

 

[Pug]

What sickens me with the obsession over homosexuality, meanwhile the people shunning me are on their third wife or husband or plenty of other sinful arrangements.

I would think that you, pathia, would have a harder time than a homosexual. People at least can immediately categorize a homosexual as male or female. But you they cannot categorize, so you would be an enigma to most. I expect it would make a number of folks uncomfortable to talk with you (face to face, I mean).

 

[pathia]

I would think that you, pathia, would have a harder time than a homosexual. People at least can immediately categorize a homosexual as male or female. But you they cannot categorize, so you would be an enigma to most. I expect it would make a number of folks uncomfortable to talk with you (face to face, I mean).

I am fine day to day, it is only when people really get to know me my past starts to become more obvious that something is off about me. Ironically strangers often treat me better than people that have gotten to know me more, because of this. That is why I enjoy being on this forum, people here are less judgmental as they aren’t seeing me in person.

However, this thread is about homosexuality, not intersexuality as the moderator pointed out earlier If you have questions, PM instead.

 

[Elric]

What you said, pathia, as re-quoted below, is that they don’t say anything about twin studies, only brother studies In that way, the excerpt proved your allegation false.

I thought pathia was talking about narth. But that might just be me.

The writer from that other link wasnt very thorough and in some cases a little silly (suggesting that hetrosexuals dont get AIDS).

 

[agangbern]

They spoke of it, but they offered nothing to refute it at all, they just sort of glazed over it. Correlations in nature are NEVER 100% in anything, even genetics. Genes work very strangely and we don’t even know why. Twins might have identical genes, but they don’t always express identically. This is why one twin could be color blind, the other not, or the other get cancer the other not.

Twins are identical in looks and DNA, but DNA ‘expresses’ throughout life, and what unfolds out of DNA is not identical between twins.

In other words, the claim of some that homosexuality is genetic in origin is baseless.

 

[agangbern]

Originally Posted by agangbern View Post
I agree with this, that all of us were created equal. With equal dignity, equal rights, equal freedom and equal will power. Unfortunately the gays seem not to believe in this equality, specially in the equality of freedom and will power. They want us to believe that their freedom and will power is weaker than the average person. Hence, they demand for more understanding and sympathy. They want us to believe that their disordered behavior is simply natural to them as if to say that the Lord God was the one who made them disordered. That is how I perceived they have been portraying themselves here in this forum.

Really? I’ve never heard this argument ever. Considering the divorce rate in the modern world, the amount of children born out of wedlock and all the other vices of heterosexual sinners I can’t believe you could even consider such a statement.

What sickens me with the obsession over homosexuality, meanwhile the people shunning me are on their third wife or husband or plenty of other sinful arrangements.

Maybe you should think about that thing Jesus said about throwing stones!

I don’t see how your reaction is related to what I said. What stone have I thrown? You seem to be very defensive. Are you saying that it is not true that we are all created equal? Are you saying that it is not true that the homosexual preaches that he has weaker will power than the average person? Again, be specific, pathia. What stone are you referring about?

 

[kidderdoc]

Wrong, there are plenty of studies that show genetic correlation, proving CAUSATION however is almost impossible in just about anything.

Even if twins are separated and adopted by different foster families there is a drastically elevated chance both will be gay if one is. 38% was listed in a study earlier here. The normal rate for homosexuality is something like 3-4%. 38% is WAY outside of that. It just proves that is not 100% genetic, not that it is 0% genetic.

Plenty of studies? But you conveniently leave out the sources of these studies, and I warn you…I can disemminate a study to analyze it…so state your claim.