God's opposition to homosexual behavior. Why?

[BilliardsBall]

Sometimes statements in generalities lead to wrong conclusions. Some, many, most psychologists and psychiatrists may have abandoned the "learned" many have not.

You asked in another post why the imprinting idea was being ignored, the answer is obvious.

This view challenges the new morality PC "fact" that homosexuality is the result of genetic predetermined inevitable factors established long before birth. Imprinting puts this concrete position in peril.

You err in thinking that certain discussions on this issue are about biological and psychological factors in causation. Extremely few are. They are always tumbled together with the PC fact above, which is far from proven, and what they consider must be the inevitable moral position as a result.

Evidence won't sway them, that is truly irrelevant. Inevitable biological predeterminism has been socially established as absolute, irrefutable fact, the science of the matter is not important as relates to the social PC fact.

Are you saying that people imprinted by same sex early relationships are no more likely to become homosexual?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because, as others have said, this is no less an inappropriate use of the term than when people call Beauty and the Beast an example of Stolkholm's Syndrome. You're using TV Freudian BS to try and find something wrong with the object of your prejudice.
It would be like saying Christians make for themselves a powerful illusion due to an infantile desire for a strong father figure, taking on childish behavior like belief in immortality of the self and being the innocent and meek powerless figure to cast off adult acceptance of superiority of nature over self.
(The above are actual Freudian diagnostics.)

Ultimately your assertion has no correlative power, let alone causitive.

Are you saying that people imprinted by same sex early relationships are no more likely to become homosexual?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Simple logic refutes what you've said. You've provided no evidence, just anecdotes. Science does not bear what you say is the cause of homosexuality. It's not a cause of abuse or a mental disorder. It's a naturally occuring variation on a spectrum of sexual orientations. I don't care about what your friends or whatever psychologists you know say. I have friends who say different and there's psychologists and scientists who say different. So save it.

Are you saying that people imprinted by same sex early relationships are no more likely to become homosexual?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I was 100% honest with you. Did I not say, in my post "I was one of the very few exceptions" (to gays growing up in loving, healthy families)? Here's the thing, you are talking about people who you do not really know (who you have "witnessed to," whatever the heck that means), and you say "thousands" of them to boot. I'm talking about people I've known, hundreds and hundreds of them, and often known members of their families, over long periods of time. These were my friends and close acquaintances, about whom I got to know something. And, even though I am an exception (as I stated), your claim does not reflect IN THE SLIGHTEST the reality that I know and have lived.

And that is why I suggested that I distrust both your statements and your motives.

Are you saying that people imprinted by same sex early relationships are no more likely to become homosexual?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Are you saying that people imprinted by same sex early relationships are no more likely to become homosexual?

I'm saying correlation doesn't imply causation and your agenda to reduce homosexuality to nothing but "abuse reasons" is not motivated by actual study but preconceived notions.

First of all, sexual imprinting doesn't have to be related to abuse. Second of all, sexual imprinting which causes same-sex activity is not limited to homosexuals
Why Some Straight Men Are Romantically or Sexually Attracted to Other Men | HuffPost
Third of all, nowhere does this suggest your previous assertion that more homosexuals come from "damage" of a certain kind.
Third of all, it's ignoring the existence of other factors in the discussion to tunnel vision your own bias.
Scientists find DNA differences between gay men and their straight twin brothers
The homosexual brain: Structural and functional difference | Version Daily
Homosexuality Might Develop in the Womb Due to Epigenetic Changes
Biological Exuberance

 

[shmogie]

Are you saying that people imprinted by same sex early relationships are no more likely to become homosexual?

Nope. I am saying that your idea conflicts with the new PC idea, unconfirmed, that homosexuals are born with the condition. Therefore any idea that it may be based environmental factors shows a change takes place after birth, which is totally unacceptable to those who demand the inevitable, unchanging, predetermined biological homosexual.

 

[shmogie]

You said that there is very little evidence that gay people are “born that way” which generally indicates that they have some conscious say in the matter. Perhaps you could clarify as to exactly what it is you are claiming then.

When I say "general consensus" I am referring to the available information and scientific data on the subject. It's also based on my experiences as a heterosexual and the experiences of those people who identify as homosexual.


What on earth does this have to do with anything??

Even if they are born this way, and again, this is a theory, not fact, they still have some conscious say in the matter.

You implied that you couldn´t understand why someone would choose to be a homosexual. I pointed out some choices people make I don´t understand.

 

[CohenDavidson]

Do you live in the '30s dude? Single income households haven't existed for like 40 years.

Also did you get your parenting advice from the 50s or something? A male should provide comfort unless they're some sort of sociopath. A mother can be strict. It depends on the individual and their parenting style.

I'm not sure where you live, but I have many friends and family who live and have lived in a single income household. These things do exist and are becoming more common.

I agree, but as I said, each gender offers things that the other gender is not able to offer no mater how hard one may try. This is not "old school" its how God intended the family to be run. Its a fact, a child has a greater chance at success when they are brought up in a home that consists of one biological mother and father. This is the idea form when it comes to the family. Does this ensure that the child will turn out to be great, no it doesn't, but it increases the odds by a great deal.

 

[CohenDavidson]

Outdated thinking indeed.

Well what is your definition of an ideal family life? Where should a child get their values? Who should be a leader in the home? Who should provide protection? Who, biologically is better capable to nurture a child? Maybe its not so much outdated as it is unpopular and understated. Just because you may not agree doesn't mean that this is not true. Biology tells us that when a man and women raises a child, they are better capable and equipped to take on the challenges of life if it is done properly.

 

[CohenDavidson]

"Single" is not the antonym of "heterosexual".

I'm not sure of your intentions, but it seems your not here to have a discussion. I hope that is no the case, but if you would hear me out and actually try to understand what I'm saying then maybe we would get somewhere. When a single mother raises a child, a feminine aspect is persuaded on the child. They're without a masculine persuasion. When masculinity and femininity come together to raise a child, you have a perfect environment. As I have said, each gender offers something. When a gay couple raises a child, no mater how hard they try, they will never be able to fill the void and role of both genders. Its impossible biologically and emotionally.

 

[SomeRandom]

Are you saying that people imprinted by same sex early relationships are no more likely to become homosexual?

Yeah I am. Many heterosexual people who were abused by the same sex are still heterosexual.

Then it should be upsetting for you to bear false witness against me, claiming I'm lying.

Are you saying that people imprinted by same sex early relationships are no more likely to become homosexual?

Call em like I see it. Prove me wrong. Give me cold hard stats from "teh science." Should be easy if what you're saying is true.
Also again sexual orientation doesn't work that way. Many gay people tried heterosexual experiences at very young ages, perhaps it was their first sexual encounter and still turned out to be gay. The opposite is also true. So your pet theory fails right out of the gate. That's not even counting abuse. If we do count it, again many straight victims don't always experience opposite sex abuse. Unless you are suggesting that all abused children turn out heterosexual, gay and bi specifically due to abuse?

 

[Shaul]

How does sex "serve others"? If you're a sex bot with no real concept of sex and you're just doing it because your partner got you in the mail yesterday, sure, argue that it's about your partner and not you. If BOTH are living beings, though, some (if you will excuse me) "tit for tat" applies.

Sex can serve others by fulfilling the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, by doing it in a way that sets an example of following divinely given guidelines, or by altruistically helping others attain a supernal instead or base carnal sexual experience.

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm not sure where you live, but I have many friends and family who live and have lived in a single income household. These things do exist and are becoming more common.

I agree, but as I said, each gender offers things that the other gender is not able to offer no mater how hard one may try. This is not "old school" its how God intended the family to be run. Its a fact, a child has a greater chance at success when they are brought up in a home that consists of one biological mother and father. This is the idea form when it comes to the family. Does this ensure that the child will turn out to be great, no it doesn't, but it increases the odds by a great deal.

Except it's not proven. Study after study shows gay couples do just as well or even better at raising well adjusted happy healthy children. Oops.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm not sure where you live, but I have many friends and family who live and have lived in a single income household. These things do exist and are becoming more common.

I agree, but as I said, each gender offers things that the other gender is not able to offer no mater how hard one may try. This is not "old school" its how God intended the family to be run. Its a fact, a child has a greater chance at success when they are brought up in a home that consists of one biological mother and father. This is the idea form when it comes to the family. Does this ensure that the child will turn out to be great, no it doesn't, but it increases the odds by a great deal.

Well what is your definition of an ideal family life? Where should a child get their values? Who should be a leader in the home? Who should provide protection? Who, biologically is better capable to nurture a child? Maybe its not so much outdated as it is unpopular and understated. Just because you may not agree doesn't mean that this is not true. Biology tells us that when a man and women raises a child, they are better capable and equipped to take on the challenges of life if it is done properly.

I'm not sure of your intentions, but it seems your not here to have a discussion. I hope that is no the case, but if you would hear me out and actually try to understand what I'm saying then maybe we would get somewhere. When a single mother raises a child, a feminine aspect is persuaded on the child. They're without a masculine persuasion. When masculinity and femininity come together to raise a child, you have a perfect environment. As I have said, each gender offers something. When a gay couple raises a child, no mater how hard they try, they will never be able to fill the void and role of both genders. Its impossible biologically and emotionally.

This is all crap. Sexist stereotypes. There's no evidence that children raised by LGBT parents are less well-adjusted than children raised by a mother and father. Men can certainly be nurturing and sensative and women can certainly be protective and stern. People are individuals and each individual has the full possibility of emotions and personalities. A man can be feminine and a woman can be masculine. Etc.

 

[SomeRandom]

Even if they are born this way, and again, this is a theory, not fact, they still have some conscious say in the matter.

You implied that you couldn´t understand why someone would choose to be a homosexual. I pointed out some choices people make I don´t understand.

Okay so when did you specifically choose to ignore your bisexual urges and go straight?
Those are essentially the implications of choosing to be gay.
Everyone being bi and choosing to be one or the other.

 

[Shaul]

Keeping in mind that god never said a man and a woman shouldn't have sex unless it's for procreation, why didn't god condemn heterosexual behavior?
.

Because sex between a man and woman can be a good thing even if it can not end in procreation. If the act supports the divinely instituted state a matrimony, for example, it still does something positive even if it can’t lead to procreation. Take the example of an elderly couple beyond their child bearing age. Their conjugation still gives an example to younger couples that long term monogamy is good and supports committed marriages.

Scripture is quite clear on particular heterosexual sex that is condemned such as incest or rape.

It is not a homosexual or heterosexual issue as much as it is scripture letting us know what sexual activity is best for people. Homosexual behavior clearly isn’t the best thing for people according to scripture.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Are you saying that people imprinted by same sex early relationships are no more likely to become homosexual?

There is not a hint of anything like that in a single word I wrote. You are reaching -- for reasons that I don't understand -- for some validation of some theory you have. The simple fact of the matter is, as research clearly shows, that sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable. Almost no gay person I have ever met (that includes my life-partner, by the way) experienced anything other than normal family life, normal childhood, in normal school situations -- until, at some age (usually around puberty) they discovered that who they were attracted to, who they fantasized about, were members of their own gender.

And by the way, when I was growing up and discovering this, in the 1950s and 60s, I learned something else, too. That most of the world couldn't understand that, and were terrified by it, and therefore more than willing to be cruel and persecute because of it. I learned -- and I put it to you that this is probably part of where you are coming from -- that many strove not to be "who they were" because the society, or the religion, in which they lived could not and would not accept them. And we humans being social animals, young people threatened with that kind of ostracism were terrified. The very reason that so many came to their religious leaders seeking "conversion" was because their religious leaders hated them and threatened them with a kind of banishment that no human can live with.

In other words, in my view, the problem is not with any person's sexual orientation -- the problem is with how others who don't share that orientation decide to deal with it. Far too often, that dealing has little or nothing to do with the love that religions pretend they're preaching.

Oh, and by the way -- as a young man, I attended a Quaker boarding school throughout high school. And the Quakers, as I recall, were the first Christian sect that basically accepted homosexuality -- all the way back in 1963 when I was still at that school.

You should try it -- love is better than hatred and fear, trust me.

 

[CohenDavidson]

This is all crap. Sexist stereotypes. There's no evidence that children raised by LGBT parents are less well-adjusted than children raised by a mother and father. Men can certainly be nurturing and sensative and women can certainly be protective and stern. People are individuals and each individual has the full possibility of emotions and personalities. A man can be feminine and a woman can be masculine. Etc.

Are you saying their is no difference between men and women biologically and emotionally? If so, this is a very illogical idea that has immerged from the postmodernists movement... a very terrible movement at that. You can not deny that a man as well as a women is capable of different things. This is what the feminist movement was all about. Showing the world that women are different and have their own powers that a man simply is not capable of... Do you not agree with that?

 

[CohenDavidson]

Except it's not proven. Study after study shows gay couples do just as well or even better at raising well adjusted happy healthy children. Oops.

Where is the study

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Are you saying their is no difference between men and women biologically and emotionally? If so, this is a very illogical idea that has immerged from the postmodernists movement... a very terrible movement at that. You can not deny that a man as well as a women is capable of different things. This is what the feminist movement was all about. Showing the world that women are different and have their own powers that a man simply is not capable of... Do you not agree with that?

There are biological differences between males, females and intersex people but the psychological ones are overblown. Men and women aren't all the same. People are individuals. This has nothing to do with "post-modernism" but reality and facts. It is society, not biology, that tells a man he cannot cry or be senstive and nurturing. It's society that tells him to be aggressive, use violence to solve problems, what jobs he should pursue and so on. Same as how society tells women they're "emotional" and weak, that they should want to be mothers and please and obey their husbands, to not strive for an education or career, etc.

That's not what feminism is about. Feminism is about creating equality of opportunity regardless of gender or sex, combating stereotypes and forced gender roles, fighting for reproductive rights, against rape and so on. Feminism says you can express your womanhood in whatever way you please and same for your manhood. You don't need to live up to society's expectations of what a man or woman is.