Yes we have. And I don’t believe you actually answered the question last time either.
I have answered all three questions in all their hundreds of forms that pro-homosuality folks cough up. I however no longer see the button that will take me back to the question so I can't make absolutely sure.
If sexual attraction really is a choice, why would anyone consciously choose to be openly gay in a world where they know they will be treated with disdain and contempt by people who can’t accept others for who they are when they could easily just “choose” to be attracted to the opposite sex and be treated with respect and dignity?
Modern times are the most accepting of gays in history not that acceptance is necessary for choice. No one is unaware that drugs, driving drunk, over drinking, over eating, etc... are bad ideas yet millions do them everyday. I love how you attack traditional morality by appealing to accepting people as they are which you don't do. Jails are full of folks virtually no one wants to accept as they are. I want to accept the right to live and their own money those who do not practice aberrations but forfeit both to pay for them. What about their rights if your so accepting? No, gays not only demand to do what they desire despite history, but expect the rest of us to pay for it and shut up.
There exists no reason to suggest that whatever is true of heterosexuality does NOT go for homosexuality.
The heck there is not. However I know for a fact I have been over this dozens and dozens of times in thread after thread besides this being perfectly obvious to everyone.
This view has no basis in reality. And it certainly doesn’t explain the people who say they knew from a very young age that they were gay, long before they’d ever engaged in anything you’d call a “homosexual act.” Never mind the genetic and epigenetic components involved.
It is perfectly consistent with reality. Pre-teens drink, do drugs, and have sex, etc..... is that no longer a choice and now good simply because it occurs?
Well then that brings me back to my question: When did you choose to be heterosexual? I really have to wonder how you can believe that sexual attraction is a matter of choice. Could you just decide tomorrow that you’re going to be attracted to men from now on? How would that even work?
And back to my response that the answer has no relevance. Countless sexual acts that have occurred to me have been a choice. Actually every sexual act I have ever engaged in has been a choice and those I used to indulge I had to stop because they were wrong. BTW I am not against an orientation (choice or biology) I am against acting on it if unjustifiable. I am against adultery and promiscuity in either orientation and at least one is biological.
Experimentation is quite common in adolescence but to say you trained yourself to be attracted to a certain gender doesn’t make much sense to me.
I trained myself to restrict countless desires I had to do a thing. Most to late to prevent damage but all before I killed anyone at least.
What positions, and by whom?
The statement you responded to was not a point, it was a preamble or prefix for what followed. You would argue with anything.
As far as we can tell, homosexuality has been around as long as human beings have been around, not to mention its occurrence elsewhere in the animal kingdom. So maybe at this point in time it’s a bit of a misnomer to call it unnatural, given its continued prevalence throughout human history.
Ah, hah you do claim that nature is justification for homosexuality. I will use this to point out just how biased you guys are. Forget every other claim about homosexuality for this. Despite the fact that less than 1% of animal life has homosexual tendencies, despite the fact that these too may be spiritual evidence of a fallen creation, and despite no species practice life long homosexuality you are actually going to use it as justification. So a thing not done in 99% of cases is actually your justification. Now this kind of wishful thinking shows up in every argument and every defense made by those who defend homosexuality. That all by it's self is enough to see that preference and emotion is what I am contending with, not reason.
All that said none of what you said was a response to what I remember stating. Psychopathy has been around as long as man, virtually everything we consider to be unnatural has been.
What you’re talking about is commonly referred to as the “fraternal birth order effect.” It says that the more older brothers a man has, the greater the likelihood that he will have a homosexual orientation. One explanation for it is that when a woman is pregnant with a male fetus, her body is exposed to a male-specific antigen (H-Y antigen, I believe), that causes her immune system to produce antibodies to fight it because it’s foreign to her system. Those antibodies remain in the woman’s system after the pregnancy has ended and build up with each successive pregnancy of a male fetus and after enough has built up, those antibodies can cross the placental barrier and break down the chemicals in the fetus’ brain that would normally produce heterosexuality. The odds are said to increase something like 33% with each successive male child.
Yes I believe that is it.
If this is the case, are you saying the response from the mother’s immune system is unnatural or abnormal (since you equate the two words)? (You were the one who brought up psychopathy, which is a personality disorder.)
Actually it was the secular researchers who said it was abnormal. I am just parroting it to see how others would handle it. Unnatural is used constantly to mean abnormal. Maybe technically, crap technical failures in the lab yet again. Have to go.
