INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Agnostic75]

1robin has said that all of macro evolution has problems, but if the book of Genesis said that common descent is true, you can bet that 1robin would not have said that all of macro evolution has problems. Rather, he would be quoting the vast majority of experts who accept macro evolution.

I have noted that at Internet discussion forums, the majority of conservative Christians love to quote the majority of experts, but only when the majority of experts agrees with them.

One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept common descent. If those experts accepted creationism, you can bet that a large percentage of creationists would use them to support their own opinions about creationism. Of course, that is a kind of dishonesty, and unfairness, to sometimes criticize appealing to the majority, and on other occasions, to appeal to the majority. True honesty is difficult to find in the world today.

Regarding scientific issues, if laymen should never appeal to the majority of experts, who should they appeal to?

In court trials, experts are often called to testify. Should amateurs be called to testify?

Yes, during the past several thousand years, experts have been wrong many times, but they have also been right many times. Even though the minority of experts is sometimes right, how could amateurs in science reasonably know that regarding particular scientific issues? I always accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts unless I believe that I have sufficient knowledge to disagree with them, and only if at least someone else agrees with me.

The large consensus of experts who accept common descent is particularly impressive because it consist of the vast majority of skeptics experts, and the majority of Christian experts.

It is quite easy to understand that the only reason that 1robin objects to macro evolution is not because he knows a lot about biology, but because atheists accept macro evolution, and that by protesting macro evolution, he can by implication also question atheism.

What about the possibility that aliens brought life to earth from another planet? That would not explain where life from the other planet came from, but it would explain where life on earth came from.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Choice and choice. However when no firm moral foundations exist it is futile to suggest hard choices will be made. I guess like most other bad ideas it will just have to destroy that which it can and then an end or repeat will occur.

You never answered my question … When did you choose to be heterosexual? Why do you think sexual orientation is a choice?

1. I believe that genetics are not significantly influential concerning homosexuality. 2. I do not KNOW what the case is but it is not proven that genetics are not what I stated above.

Then you believe wrong. Sexual orientation and/or sexual identity are the result of the combination of genetics, biology, prenatal, postnatal and environmental factors, as most things are.

 

[SkepticThinker]

1. Regardless of genetics it has been demonstrated exhaustively the practice can be resisted and left behind by people of every race and origin.

I can’t believe anyone can even say this with a straight face. It simply is not true, in any sense of the word that such a thing has been exhaustively demonstrated. More like the opposite.

First of all, homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder by any mainstream scientific organization. Therefore, there is no need to “cure” homosexuals of anything. In fact, most mainstream psychologists will tell you that “conversion therapies” (which are unregulated and not subject to any professional standards, by the way) are ineffective, unethical and even harmful, resulting in increased anxiety, depression, self-hatred and suicidality among those “treated” for something that isn’t even a mental disorder in the first place. In fact, there is/was a civil suit in New Jersey where 4 former patients of some kind of conversion therapy group (JONAH) sued the organization because they still have same-sex attraction and they’ve had to seek actual therapy to overcome the damage done by the “conversion therapy.”

Studies show that these so-called “conversion therapies” actually do more harm than good. In 2009 a task force within the American Psychological Association reviewed all studies carried out between 1960 and 2007 and found that the vast majority of those studies found that “conversion therapies” don’t have any evidence to back them up. The best quality studies found in this review which focused on subjective experience of people undergoing such “therapies” indicated that enduring change to an individual’s sexual orientation is uncommon and that people with same-sex attractions before the “therapy” weren’t significantly more attracted to the opposite sex after the “therapy.” The same review also indicated that “conversion therapies” can be harmful, as I mentioned above.

There was one single study that was conducted by Robert Spitzer and published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in which he initially reported that interviews with “conversion therapy” patients suggested that some people could change their sexual orientation, turned out to be scientifically unsound and Spitzer later wrote to the editor of Archives of Sexual Behavior saying, “I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy.”

So no, it has been demonstrated exhaustively that the practice of homosexuality can be resisted and left behind by people of every race and origin.

And if you don’t believe me, then here are some statements from some groups who probably know what they’re talking about a little better than you do:

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
“Therapy directed at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety, while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/92/4/631.full.pdf

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION and AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION
“Our AMA … opposes the use of ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.”
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-people/member-groups-sections/glbt-advisory-committee/ama-policy-regarding-sexual-orientation.page#__utma=149406063.1468176648.1373918236.1373918236.1373922202.2&__utmb=149406063.1.10.1373922202&__utmc=149406063&__utmx=-&__utmz=149406063.1373922202.2.2.utmcsr=google|utmccn=(organic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=studies%20gay%20conversion%20therapy&__utmv=-&__utmk=170693920

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPY
“The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy takes the position that same-sex orientation is not a mental disorder. Therefore, we do not believe that sexual orientation in and of itself requires treatment or intervention.”
http://www.aamft.org/iMIS15/AAMFT/MFT_Resources/MFT_Resources/Content/Resources/Position_On_Couples.aspx#__utma=149406063.1468176648.1373918236.1373918236.1373922202.2&__utmb=149406063.2.10.1373922202&__utmc=149406063&__utmx=-&__utmz=149406063.1373922202.2.2.utmcsr=google|utmccn=(organic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=studies%20gay%20conversion%20therapy&__utmv=-&__utmk=237803136

PAN AMERICAN HEALTH ORGANIZATION (a branch of WHO)
“Besides the lack of medical indication, there is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of sexual re-orientation efforts. While some persons manage to limit the expression of their sexual orientation in terms of conduct, the orientation itself generally appears as an integral personal characteristic that cannot be changed. At the same time, testimonies abound about harms to mental and physical health resulting from the repression of a person’s sexual orientation. In 2009, the American Psychological Association conducted a review of 83 cases of people who had been subject to “conversion” interventions. 5 Not only was it impossible to demonstrate changes in subjects’ sexual orientation, in addition the study found that the intention to change sexual orientation was linked to depression, anxiety, insomnia, feelings of guilt and shame, and even suicidal ideation and behaviors. In light of this evidence, suggesting to patients that they suffer from a “defect” and that they ought to change constitutes a violation of the first principle of medical ethics: “first, do no harm.”
http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=17703

AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION
"Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or 'repair' homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, "reparative" therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, [the American Psychiatric Association] recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.

The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.

Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation."

Cont'd below ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

AMERICAN PSYCHOANALYTIC ASSOCIATION
“Same-gender sexual orientation cannot be assumed to represent a deficit in personality development or the expression of psychopathology. As with any societal prejudice, anti-homosexual bias negatively affects mental health, contributing to an enduring sense of stigma and pervasive self-criticism in people of same-gender sexual orientation through the internalization of such prejudice.
As in all psychoanalytic treatments, the goal of analysis with homosexual patients is understanding. Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful efforts to "convert" or "repair" an individual's sexual orientation. Such directed efforts are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized homophobic attitudes."
http://www.apsa.org/About_APsaA/Position_Statements/Reparative_Therapy.aspx#__utma=149406063.1468176648.1373918236.1373918236.1373922202.2&__utmb=149406063.5.10.1373922202&__utmc=149406063&__utmx=-&__utmz=149406063.1373922202.2.2.utmcsr=google|utmccn=(organic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=studies%20gay%20conversion%20therapy&__utmv=-&__utmk=201617809

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
"People seek mental health services for many reasons. Accordingly, it is fair to assert that lesbians and gay men seek therapy for the same reasons that heterosexual people do. However, the increase in media campaigns, often coupled with coercive messages from family and community members, has created an environment in which lesbians and gay men often are pressured to seek reparative or conversion therapies, which cannot and will not change sexual orientation. Aligned with the American Psychological Association's (1997) position, NCLGB [NASW's National Committee on Lesbian and Gay Issues] believes that such treatment potentially can lead to severe emotional damage. Specifically, transformational ministries are fueled by stigmatization of lesbians and gay men, which in turn produces the social climate that pressures some people to seek change in sexual orientation. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful."
http://www.naswdc.org/diversity/lgb/reparative.asp#__utma=149406063.1468176648.1373918236.1373918236.1373922202.2&__utmb=149406063.6.10.1373922202&__utmc=149406063&__utmx=-&__utmz=149406063.1373922202.2.2.utmcsr=google|utmccn=(organic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=studies%20gay%20conversion%20therapy&__utmv=-&__utmk=268736881


So there we have it. The people who know what they’re talking about on this subject, disagree with your opinion.

Is what is true even if true of any given segment of the animal kingdom true of humanity. Thousands of animal types can breathe underwater, what does that have to do with humans. Something not proven for more understood humans is certainly less proven than for monkeys. The Bible says creation is broken. Pointing out examples of that is not proof it is false.

Umm, because human beings are part of the animal kingdom?

This argument is so awful I took time to render it meaningless long ago. I will do so again but will never debate it again. Drinking like homosexuality may be less harmful in some circumstances but:

1. Drinking causes a promiscuity in judgment that affects those same people when not in those exact environments.
2. Apparently homosexuality also causes or is indicative of promiscuity in judgment. Just as a person who drinks in safety (which is not even true) is more likely to drink in an unsafe manner. people who practice homosexuality is safe circumstances (assuming this can even be true) are more likely to do so even when not in the environment.
3. As I have pointed out at least in men the practice can be very very destructive even in the "safest environment" in ways that are not disease related but not excusive to that.

#2 Is not apparent or factual.

Heterosexual men and women can be very destructive in their behavior as well, a point which you keep ignoring which kinda ruins your argument that gay people are promiscuous and self-destructive by nature.

 

[1robin]

You never answered my question … When did you choose to be heterosexual? Why do you think sexual orientation is a choice?

Actually while homosexuality is not my forte I do believe my argument in this case is absolute. The reason choice is at least a heavy component in orientation is that vast numbers of either said have chosen to adopt the opposite. I personally am aware of quite a few Christians who were former homosexuals but have put that completely behind them and would tell you they did what they did based on choice and their former choice was wrong.

Then you believe wrong. Sexual orientation and/or sexual identity are the result of the combination of genetics, biology, prenatal, postnatal and environmental factors, as most things are.

There is no doubt that choice would also be influenced by those very things. If there is an argument against the fact that many have simply chosen to switch sides I have no idea what it could be. BTW I do not rule out biology being an influence but not IMO the determining factor. I think maybe this argument stems from the modern and increasingly common tactic of blaming anything and everything but our choices for things. I am an Indian and if I bought into it I would have used biology as an excuse to claim (when I was drinking heavily many years ago) that I had no choice but I didn't. These days society, biology, racism, economics, and everything and anything is at fault but we never are. I was going to throw my very accurate poem on modern morality at you again but figured I would spare you.

 

[1robin]

I can’t believe anyone can even say this with a straight face. It simply is not true, in any sense of the word that such a thing has been exhaustively demonstrated. More like the opposite.

First of all, homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder by any mainstream scientific organization. Therefore, there is no need to “cure” homosexuals of anything. In fact, most mainstream psychologists will tell you that “conversion therapies” (which are unregulated and not subject to any professional standards, by the way) are ineffective, unethical and even harmful, resulting in increased anxiety, depression, self-hatred and suicidality among those “treated” for something that isn’t even a mental disorder in the first place. In fact, there is/was a civil suit in New Jersey where 4 former patients of some kind of conversion therapy group (JONAH) sued the organization because they still have same-sex attraction and they’ve had to seek actual therapy to overcome the damage done by the “conversion therapy.”

Studies show that these so-called “conversion therapies” actually do more harm than good. In 2009 a task force within the American Psychological Association reviewed all studies carried out between 1960 and 2007 and found that the vast majority of those studies found that “conversion therapies” don’t have any evidence to back them up. The best quality studies found in this review which focused on subjective experience of people undergoing such “therapies” indicated that enduring change to an individual’s sexual orientation is uncommon and that people with same-sex attractions before the “therapy” weren’t significantly more attracted to the opposite sex after the “therapy.” The same review also indicated that “conversion therapies” can be harmful, as I mentioned above.

There was one single study that was conducted by Robert Spitzer and published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in which he initially reported that interviews with “conversion therapy” patients suggested that some people could change their sexual orientation, turned out to be scientifically unsound and Spitzer later wrote to the editor of Archives of Sexual Behavior saying, “I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy.”

So no, it has been demonstrated exhaustively that the practice of homosexuality can be resisted and left behind by people of every race and origin.

And if you don’t believe me, then here are some statements from some groups who probably know what they’re talking about a little better than you do:

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
“Therapy directed at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety, while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/92/4/631.full.pdf

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION and AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION
“Our AMA … opposes the use of ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.”
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-people/member-groups-sections/glbt-advisory-committee/ama-policy-regarding-sexual-orientation.page#__utma=149406063.1468176648.1373918236.1373918236.1373922202.2&__utmb=149406063.1.10.1373922202&__utmc=149406063&__utmx=-&__utmz=149406063.1373922202.2.2.utmcsr=google|utmccn=(organic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=studies%20gay%20conversion%20therapy&__utmv=-&__utmk=170693920

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPY
“The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy takes the position that same-sex orientation is not a mental disorder. Therefore, we do not believe that sexual orientation in and of itself requires treatment or intervention.”
http://www.aamft.org/iMIS15/AAMFT/MFT_Resources/MFT_Resources/Content/Resources/Position_On_Couples.aspx#__utma=149406063.1468176648.1373918236.1373918236.1373922202.2&__utmb=149406063.2.10.1373922202&__utmc=149406063&__utmx=-&__utmz=149406063.1373922202.2.2.utmcsr=google|utmccn=(organic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=studies%20gay%20conversion%20therapy&__utmv=-&__utmk=237803136

PAN AMERICAN HEALTH ORGANIZATION (a branch of WHO)
“Besides the lack of medical indication, there is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of sexual re-orientation efforts. While some persons manage to limit the expression of their sexual orientation in terms of conduct, the orientation itself generally appears as an integral personal characteristic that cannot be changed. At the same time, testimonies abound about harms to mental and physical health resulting from the repression of a person’s sexual orientation. In 2009, the American Psychological Association conducted a review of 83 cases of people who had been subject to “conversion” interventions. 5 Not only was it impossible to demonstrate changes in subjects’ sexual orientation, in addition the study found that the intention to change sexual orientation was linked to depression, anxiety, insomnia, feelings of guilt and shame, and even suicidal ideation and behaviors. In light of this evidence, suggesting to patients that they suffer from a “defect” and that they ought to change constitutes a violation of the first principle of medical ethics: “first, do no harm.”
http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=17703

AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION
"Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or 'repair' homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, "reparative" therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, [the American Psychiatric Association] recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.

The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.

Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation."

Cont'd below ...

Before I invest the hour to comb through this let me make sure you are actually claiming that thousands of people have not left their former sexual orientation behind them? I must be missing something here. There are entire ministries run by former homosexuals all over the world just in Christianity alone. This is either true or false and can't imagine the role all your argumentation has in it.

 

[1robin]

AMERICAN PSYCHOANALYTIC ASSOCIATION
“Same-gender sexual orientation cannot be assumed to represent a deficit in personality development or the expression of psychopathology. As with any societal prejudice, anti-homosexual bias negatively affects mental health, contributing to an enduring sense of stigma and pervasive self-criticism in people of same-gender sexual orientation through the internalization of such prejudice.
As in all psychoanalytic treatments, the goal of analysis with homosexual patients is understanding. Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful efforts to "convert" or "repair" an individual's sexual orientation. Such directed efforts are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized homophobic attitudes."
http://www.apsa.org/About_APsaA/Position_Statements/Reparative_Therapy.aspx#__utma=149406063.1468176648.1373918236.1373918236.1373922202.2&__utmb=149406063.5.10.1373922202&__utmc=149406063&__utmx=-&__utmz=149406063.1373922202.2.2.utmcsr=google|utmccn=(organic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=studies%20gay%20conversion%20therapy&__utmv=-&__utmk=201617809

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
"People seek mental health services for many reasons. Accordingly, it is fair to assert that lesbians and gay men seek therapy for the same reasons that heterosexual people do. However, the increase in media campaigns, often coupled with coercive messages from family and community members, has created an environment in which lesbians and gay men often are pressured to seek reparative or conversion therapies, which cannot and will not change sexual orientation. Aligned with the American Psychological Association's (1997) position, NCLGB [NASW's National Committee on Lesbian and Gay Issues] believes that such treatment potentially can lead to severe emotional damage. Specifically, transformational ministries are fueled by stigmatization of lesbians and gay men, which in turn produces the social climate that pressures some people to seek change in sexual orientation. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful."
http://www.naswdc.org/diversity/lgb/reparative.asp#__utma=149406063.1468176648.1373918236.1373918236.1373922202.2&__utmb=149406063.6.10.1373922202&__utmc=149406063&__utmx=-&__utmz=149406063.1373922202.2.2.utmcsr=google|utmccn=(organic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=studies%20gay%20conversion%20therapy&__utmv=-&__utmk=268736881

So there we have it. The people who know what they’re talking about on this subject, disagree with your opinion.

I admit to not have read your posts research yet. That much time must be justified first. What are you contending? My claims are that:

1. Biology may very well contribute to orientation but does not mandate it and choice has a very significant role.
2. That many many people have by choice have ceased their homosexual practices without regret or significant cost.

Is all that info supposed to challenge these claims? Do the people I know and mentioned not exist?

Umm, because human beings are part of the animal kingdom?

This in no way had any effect on what it was in response to. My statement still stands even if we are merely animals.

#2 Is not apparent or factual.

Now that I have your opinion what am I supposed to do with it? I do not think you are contending what I stated. The practice of anything (good or bad) increases the probability of repetition. The practice of it in safe circumstances (even if t hat exists) would increase the chances it will be repeated even when circumstances are not safe.

Heterosexual men and women can be very destructive in their behavior as well, a point which you keep ignoring which kinda ruins your argument that gay people are promiscuous and self-destructive by nature.

The inherent increase of promiscuity in the homosexual community is not even disputable. It was actually used as a defense (though a poor one) by the other person who is defending homosexuality in this thread. I was not even aware of the fact until given by them. Even if every heterosexual on earth drank themselves to death that has nothing to do with what I claimed. I claimed homosexuality produces increased suffering it's self. I did not claim homosexuals were more self destructive in any other way but I believe the other person mentioned did though I have no idea why. I also contend that sex of any kind can be sinful outside of it's intended context but homosexuality is more so.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually while homosexuality is not my forte I do believe my argument in this case is absolute. The reason choice is at least a heavy component in orientation is that vast numbers of either said have chosen to adopt the opposite. I personally am aware of quite a few Christians who were former homosexuals but have put that completely behind them and would tell you they did what they did based on choice and their former choice was wrong.

Sorry but anecdotal stories don't cut it here. "Choosing" to "adopt the opposite" because someone tells you it's a sin to be gay, or because you feel ashamed or marginalized from society is not the same thing as biological sexual orientation (and in fact it's very harmful). I was trying to illustrate this to you with my question, but I guess you missed it. I didn't choose to be heterosexual, I just am. At some point in my life I realized I was attracted to the opposite sex, just like you and most other actual heterosexual people in this world. Why would you assume it's any different for homosexuals?

There is no doubt that choice would also be influenced by those very things.

How so? You don’t choose your genetics. You don’t choose your biological makeup. You don’t choose what prenatal factors are going to occur when you’re in utero. You don’t choose your environmental factors. So where’s the choice?

If there is an argument against the fact that many have simply chosen to switch sides I have no idea what it could be.

They haven’t actually switched sides.

If you don’t agree with this, then go ahead and pretend you’re homosexual for a day. Let us know how that worked out for you, and if you were really a homosexual for that one day.


Furthermore, given a "choice" in the matter, would you choose to be ostracized, marginalized by society, stigmatized, called names, seen as nothing more than an animal that can't control itself, disowned by your family or written off as a sinful, promiscuous, harmful, sicko by religious people, just so you could act like a gay person? Think about it.

BTW I do not rule out biology being an influence but not IMO the determining factor. I think maybe this argument stems from the modern and increasingly common tactic of blaming anything and everything but our choices for things.

Uh no. It comes from recognizing the fact that most of what human beings are made up of relies on a variety of factors including genetics, environment, biology, etc. This comes from careful study of human beings. All of these things determine whether we’re going to be heterosexual or homosexual, whether we’re going to be right-handed or left-handed; whether we’re going to be schizophrenic or not; and on and on and on.

No offense, but it doesn’t really matter what your opinion is on this.

I am an Indian and if I bought into it I would have used biology as an excuse to claim (when I was drinking heavily many years ago) that I had no choice but I didn't. These days society, biology, racism, economics, and everything and anything is at fault but we never are.

Some people are predisposed to certain things like addiction, and others are not. Of course, predisposition to something doesn’t guarantee you will exhibit it, but in correlation with other factors like prenatal and postnatal environment or brain irregularities, the risk is increased. This isn’t some excuse to blame society or racism or whatever for it, it’s just the fact of the matter. And at the point where you are heavily addicted to something your brain has been rewired to only experience pleasure from the addictive substance. So at that point, you really don’t have much choice in the matter. I.e. It doesn’t matter whether you want to be addicted or not, you have changed your brain in such a way that you are addicted. Seeking treatment to treat the addiction, however, is definitely a choice.

I was going to throw my very accurate poem on modern morality at you again but figured I would spare you.

There is a god!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Before I invest the hour to comb through this let me make sure you are actually claiming that thousands of people have not left their former sexual orientation behind them? I must be missing something here. There are entire ministries run by former homosexuals all over the world just in Christianity alone. This is either true or false and can't imagine the role all your argumentation has in it.

I just ask that you read it, that's all. It comes from people who know what they're talking about on the subject.

I am claiming that you cannot change your biological sexual orientation. You can choose not to act on it, but that doesn't change anything.

Those ministries you refer to are cheating people out of their money and carrying out "therapies" that are not regulated nor do they follow any standards set by any professional organizations who actually know what they're talking about. And even worse than that, they are harming people in the process. As you can see, every single organization that deals with psychology, medicine or psychiatry (aka the experts) will tell you that these "conversion therapies" you speak of are not only ineffective and unproven, but they are harmful to people.

You can't imagine the role my argumentation has in it? Surely you aren't serious.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I admit to not have read your posts research yet. That much time must be justified first.

You could just read the words I put on the page for you. What's the big deal?

What are you contending? My claims are that:

1. Biology may very well contribute to orientation but does not mandate it and choice has a very significant role.
2. That many many people have by choice have ceased their homosexual practices without regret or significant cost.

My contention is that you're wrong.

Is all that info supposed to challenge these claims? Do the people I know and mentioned not exist?

It directly challenges your claims that homosexuality is a choice and that "conversion therapies" are effective in converting people to heterosexuality. Maybe that's why you don't want to read it?

 

[Agnostic75]

Biology may very well contribute to orientation.......

Consider the following:

New Insight into the (Epi)Genetic Roots of Homosexuality | TIME.com

Sexual preference may not be written in our genes, but rather in how our genes are expressed

For an evolutionary biologist, homosexuality is something of a puzzle. It’s a common trait, found in up to 10% of the population. It appears to be run in families, suggesting that it is hereditary, at least in part. And yet it defies the very reason why traits are passed on from generation to generation. How could something that hinders childbearing be passed down so frequently from parents to children?
Researchers at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) think they may have an answer. It’s not in written in our DNA sequence itself, they suggest, which explains why scientists have failed so far to find “gay genes,” despite intensive investigations. Instead, it’s written in how our genes are expressed: that is, in certain modifications to how and when DNA is activated. These changes can have environmental roots, so are not normally permanent enough to be passed from parent to child. But occasionally, they are.

“It’s not genetics. It’s not DNA. It’s not pieces of DNA. It’s epigenetics,” says Sergey Gavrilets, a NIMBioS researcher and an author on the paper that outlines the new theory of homosexuality, published in The Quarterly Review of Biology. “The hypothesis we put forward is based on epigenetic marks,” he says.

To be specific, the new theory suggests that homosexuality is caused by epigenetic marks, or “epi-marks,” related to sensitivity to hormones in the womb. These are compounds that sit on DNA and regulate how active, or inactive certain genes are, and also control when during development these genes are most prolific. Gavrilets and his colleagues believe that gene expression may regulate how a fetus responds to testosterone, the all-important male sex hormone. They further argue that epi-marks may help to buffer a female fetus from high levels of testosterone by suppressing receptors that respond to testosterone, for example, (thus ensuring normal fetal development even in the presence of a lot of testosterone) or to buffer a male fetus from low levels of testosterone by upregulating receptors that bind to the hormone (ensuring normal fetal development even in the absence of high levels of testosterone). Normally, these epi-marks are erased after they are activated, but if those marks are passed down to the next generation, the same epi-marks that protected a man in utero may cause oversensitivity to testosterone among his daughters, and the epi-marks that protected a woman in utero may lead to undersensitivity to testosterone among her sons.

Gavrilets says that some scientists have already expressed “strong interest” in new experiments that will test the hypothesis, attempting to estimate how often such epi-marks may arise among men and women, and how often they are saved from one generation to the next. The work might also explain the extent to which epi-marks can influence sexual behavior. While experimental evidence is lacking for now, Gavrilets says he is reasonably confident that the theory is sound.

“It’s compatible with the [existing] data. Plus it’s supported by mathematical modeling,” he says.

The new theory is important because it synthesizes well-tested and well-developed evolutionary principles with cutting-edge research in molecular biology and biological computation. Epigenetics is not a new concept exactly, but the field has exploded within the past decade. Where once it seemed that genes and environment were distinct, or that nature and nurture were distinct, now it seems clear that environment itself may change the ways in which our genes function – even though the genes themselves are essentially fixed over time, barring occasional mutations, and conserved across generations.

As the article says, “It’s compatible with the [existing] data. Plus it’s supported by mathematical modeling.”

.......

but does not mandate it, and choice has a very significant role.

Choice has a significant role in what, certainly not regarding sexual identity?

That many many people have by choice have ceased their homosexual practices without regret or significant cost.

Statistics please.

You still do not have any valid arguments against the millions of monogamous homosexuals around the world. In addition, you still do not have any valid arguments against lesbians since they are slightly less promiscuous than heterosexual women are.

It is promiscuous homosexuals that mainly account for the spread of STDs, not monogamous homosexuals. The means that if monogamous homosexuals practiced abstinence, that would do very little to lower the spread of STDs.

Having sex is normal. Long term abstinence is abnormal.

Having safe sex provides proven benefits. Long term abstinence has proven health risks. If you would like to discuss those issues, please participate in my thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...nce-life-all-homosexuals-good-solution-5.html.

Reparative therapy is a proven failure. Even the past president of the recently disbanded Exodus International admitted that.

All major medical associations say that sexual identity cannot be changed. The fact that some homosexuals, mainly religiously motivated homosexuals, have been able to avoid engaging in same-sex behavior, and in a few cases have been able to have children, does not make a clinical, scientific case that homosexuals can generally expect to have reasonable states of physical and mental health if they practice long term abstinence.

Sexual identity is not a choice. Homosexuals can only do the best that they can do. The best that they can do is to have monogamous same-sex relationships, and millions do, and are healthy, and happy, and are not harming anyone.

 

[1robin]

Sorry but anecdotal stories don't cut it here. "Choosing" to "adopt the opposite" because someone tells you it's a sin to be gay, or because you feel ashamed or marginalized from society is not the same thing as biological sexual orientation (and in fact it's very harmful).

Are you suggesting these people do not exist? That is also a genetic fallacy (I think). If they changed their minds about homosexuality and found they did not miss it, had any urges in that direction, and suffered no loss who cares why they decided to change their mind. I did not say they quit but struggled with it the rest of their lives. I said they left it behind.

I was trying to illustrate this to you with my question, but I guess you missed it. I didn't choose to be heterosexual, I just am. At some point in my life I realized I was attracted to the opposite sex, just like you and most other actual heterosexual people in this world. Why would you assume it's any different for homosexuals?

If heterosexuals was all God made would not all heterosexuals not choose it (they just would be that). That does not make homosexuality not a choice.

How so? You don’t choose your genetics. You don’t choose your biological makeup. You don’t choose what prenatal factors are going to occur when you’re in utero. You don’t choose your environmental factors. So where’s the choice?

I believe all humans have impulses to do a very wide range of sexual activities. Every single one is actualized by choice. Even the data that suggests that Indians are genetically disposed to become addicted to (alcohol in this case). I stopped drinking and have no desire what so ever to have another one by choice. It seem everyday I hear how our genes make us do this or that yet I know I choose everything I do. It is all part of what the Bible calls a spiritual blindness IMO. That is what makes studies and data hard for me to have confidence in. Obama can produce mountains of data on how his health care is great for us (even though even they I believe see it is a disaster at this point, even the unions turned on him), and conservatives can produce studies and mountains of data showing it to be the worst idea in US history. Am I to adopt Obama's mountain of data, or you Mark Levin's side. Do you understand the mistrust a person can have these days for studies?

They haven’t actually switched sides.

Come off it. You do not know the people I do nor all those that have stopped being homosexual and can't know this. This kind of stuff kills credibility with me. Why do this?

If you don’t agree with this, then go ahead and pretend you’re homosexual for a day. Let us know how that worked out for you, and if you were really a homosexual for that one day.

I could tell you something here that would completely counter this argument but it is too personal. No I did not try it but it is just as absolute.

Furthermore, given a "choice" in the matter, would you choose to be ostracized, marginalized by society, stigmatized, called names, seen as nothing more than an animal that can't control itself, disowned by your family or written off as a sinful, promiscuous, harmful, sicko by religious people, just so you could act like a gay person? Think about it.

People completely sell out to being in the porn business, they sell out to whacky conspiracy theories, they adopt bizarre religions and suffer those things constantly. No argument can be made about what things people will not do. They will do anything.

Uh no. It comes from recognizing the fact that most of what human beings are made up of relies on a variety of factors including genetics, environment, biology, etc. This comes from careful study of human beings. All of these things determine whether we’re going to be heterosexual or homosexual, whether we’re going to be right-handed or left-handed; whether we’re going to be schizophrenic or not; and on and on and on.

Listing things we can't choose is no more proof that we can't choose our sexual appetites than a list of things we can choose. I am trying to think of biological method I will trust to decide this. I really think my claims that many have chosen to stop acting in homosexual ways and completely lost the appetite to be so is the best but I will think on it.

No offense, but it doesn’t really matter what your opinion is on this.

It does not affect the factual nature of it no, but then neither does yours.

Some people are predisposed to certain things like addiction, and others are not. Of course, predisposition to something doesn’t guarantee you will exhibit it, but in correlation with other factors like prenatal and postnatal environment or brain irregularities, the risk is increased. This isn’t some excuse to blame society or racism or whatever for it, it’s just the fact of the matter. And at the point where you are heavily addicted to something your brain has been rewired to only experience pleasure from the addictive substance. So at that point, you really don’t have much choice in the matter. I.e. It doesn’t matter whether you want to be addicted or not, you have changed your brain in such a way that you are addicted. Seeking treatment to treat the addiction, however, is definitely a choice.

It most certainly is used as a lame excuse, that does not mean there exists no truth to it. I hade every predisposition possible to use as an excuse to drink. I had a very demanding father, I watched my mother slowly die, I am a native American, all my friends did it, etc ad infintum. I could have adopted the academic position that the factors were just to great against me and gave in and died. I however met Christ and with much prayer completely lost any desire to do what I could not stop for years before hand. One of my best friends was a full blown alcoholic. He used to have seizures when trying to dry out, I took him to the ER many times for drugs as well, he drank and did drugs for a period of a few years from dusk till dawn. I finally gave up and took him to his Dad's. He found God and now says he has no desire for any false high what so ever. That last was a side note and probably didn't prove much.

There is a god!

Well if that is all it took I went the long way round the barn. When you ask me to read posts as long as you and Agnostic give on homosexuality I must:

1. Consider the time required versus the time available.
2. My interest in the issue.
3. The probability that I think the specific issue can settle any particular claim.
4. The other debates I have going on (lately, many).
5. My familiarity with the issue.
6. The relative trust I have in the type of info it is.

None of this is favorable in this case. I will if I can but make no promises. Another factor is that one day every other debate was dead so for the heck of it I made one post on homosexuality. Now I can't seem to get away from it. People even find me in other threads specifically to bring homosexuality up in any debate. It is like a debating tar baby. Once engaged there is no disengaging.

 

[1robin]

I just ask that you read it, that's all. It comes from people who know what they're talking about on the subject.

I am claiming that you cannot change your biological sexual orientation. You can choose not to act on it, but that doesn't change anything.

I will try.

Those ministries you refer to are cheating people out of their money and carrying out "therapies" that are not regulated nor do they follow any standards set by any professional organizations who actually know what they're talking about. And even worse than that, they are harming people in the process. As you can see, every single organization that deals with psychology, medicine or psychiatry (aka the experts) will tell you that these "conversion therapies" you speak of are not only ineffective and unproven, but they are harmful to people.

You can't possibly know this. I hate it when your side does this. It ruins my confidence in you. I know a great many Christians who actually know that say the exact opposite. I am one of them and have had the Church help fixing problems I could not in several areas. For crying out load the 12 step program is God based. How many millions are sober because of it. Even agnostic sais that Christianity has produced the bulk of "cured" homosexuals. She/he actually brought it up.

You can't imagine the role my argumentation has in it? Surely you aren't serious.

Short of interviewing every person who claims they have left homosexuality behind and omnisciently knowing the biological truth of their claims nothing you say affects their claims. They are the people most capable of knowing the truth of what they claim on the face of the Earth. Your claiming to know things you have no access to has no bearing on anything.

 

[1robin]

[/font][/color]

You could just read the words I put on the page for you. What's the big deal?

See previous post.

[/color]

My contention is that you're wrong.

[/color]

ok

It directly challenges your claims that homosexuality is a choice and that "conversion therapies" are effective in converting people to heterosexuality. Maybe that's why you don't want to read it?

If I find time to read all of what you posted I will examine it in that context.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my post #1491.

 

[Agnostic75]

Even agnostic says that Christianity has produced the bulk of "cured" homosexuals. She/he actually brought it up.

I am a he, and yes, I did say that, and it is true that the vast majority of homosexuals who give up homosexuality are religiously motivated, which leaves you with no valid secular arguments against homosexuals who are not religious, especially monogamous homosexuals, who have no need of practicing abstinence.

Some Christian health experts who oppose homosexuality admit that even the majority of religiously motivated homosexuals fail to give up homosexuality. That is quite natural since having sex is normal, and long term abstinence is abnormal.

Short of interviewing every person who claims they have left homosexuality behind and omnisciently knowing the biological truth of their claims nothing you say affects their claims.

Some recent research in epigenetics has provided excellent evidence, using mathematical models, that epigenetic factors in the womb are important factors that contribute to homosexuality. Consider the following:

Epigenetics may be a critical factor contributing to homosexuality, study suggests

December 11, 2012

Epigenetics -- how gene expression is regulated by temporary switches, called epi-marks -- appears to be a critical and overlooked factor contributing to the long-standing puzzle of why homosexuality occurs.

According to the study, published online today in The Quarterly Review of Biology, sex-specific epi-marks, which normally do not pass between generations and are thus "erased," can lead to homosexuality when they escape erasure and are transmitted from father to daughter or mother to son.

From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is a trait that would not be expected to develop and persist in the face of Darwinian natural selection. Homosexuality is nevertheless common for men and women in most cultures. Previous studies have shown that homosexuality runs in families, leading most researchers to presume a genetic underpinning of sexual preference. However, no major gene for homosexuality has been found despite numerous studies searching for a genetic connection.

In the current study, researchers from the Working Group on Intragenomic Conflict at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) integrated evolutionary theory with recent advances in the molecular regulation of gene expression and androgen-dependent sexual development to produce a biological and mathematical model that delineates the role of epigenetics in homosexuality.

Epi-marks constitute an extra layer of information attached to our genes' backbones that regulates their expression. While genes hold the instructions, epi-marks direct how those instructions are carried out -- when, where and how much a gene is expressed during development. Epi-marks are usually produced anew each generation, but recent evidence demonstrates that they sometimes carry over between generations and thus can contribute to similarity among relatives, resembling the effect of shared genes.

Sex-specific epi-marks produced in early fetal development protect each sex from the substantial natural variation in testosterone that occurs during later fetal development. Sex-specific epi-marks stop girl fetuses from being masculinized when they experience atypically high testosterone, and vice versa for boy fetuses. Different epi-marks protect different sex-specific traits from being masculinized or feminized -- some affect the genitals, others sexual identity, and yet others affect sexual partner preference. However, when these epi-marks are transmitted across generations from fathers to daughters or mothers to sons, they may cause reversed effects, such as the feminization of some traits in sons, such as sexual preference, and similarly a partial masculinization of daughters.

The study solves the evolutionary riddle of homosexuality, finding that "sexually antagonistic" epi-marks, which normally protect parents from natural variation in sex hormone levels during fetal development, sometimes carryover across generations and cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring. The mathematical modeling demonstrates that genes coding for these epi-marks can easily spread in the population because they always increase the fitness of the parent but only rarely escape erasure and reduce fitness in offspring.

"Transmission of sexually antagonistic epi-marks between generations is the most plausible evolutionary mechanism of the phenomenon of human homosexuality," said the study's co-author Sergey Gavrilets, NIMBioS' associate director for scientific activities and a professor at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville.

The paper's other authors are William Rice, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Urban Friberg, a professor at Uppsala University in Sweden.

You once claimed that homosexuality is not partly caused by genetics. You were wrong.

Homosexuality can be defined as same-sex sexual identity, or as same-sex actions.

 

[Agnostic75]

They are the people most capable of knowing the truth of what they claim on the face of the Earth. Your claiming to know things you have no access to has no bearing on anything.

But that does not mean that their sexual identity has been changed from homosexual to heterosexual, and that many attempts at abstinence did not fail. Many if not most homosexuals who have given up homosexuality admit that some of their same-sex urges are still strong, and are very frustrating.

Having sex has proven benefits. Long term abstinence has proven health risks.

Having sex is normal. Abstinence for life is abnormal.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Consider the following:

Sexual abstinence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexual abstinence diminishes the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases but prevents one from obtaining the health benefits of sex.

Queen's University Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal found that "men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed a death rate half that of the laggards". The report also cited other studies to show that having sex even a few times a week may be associated with the following: improved sense of smell; reduced risk of heart disease; weight loss and overall fitness; reduced depression; the relief or lessening of pain; less frequent colds and flu; better bladder control; and better teeth. The report cited a study published by the British Journal of Urology International which indicated that men in their 20s can reduce by a third their chance of getting prostate cancer by ejaculating more than five times a week.[5]

There have been numerous studies indicating that excessive repression of the sexual instinct leads to an increase in the overall level of aggression in a given society. Societies forbidding premarital sex are plagued by acts of rage and tend to have higher rates of crime and violence.[6] There may be a link between sexual repression and aggression, insensitivity, criminal behaviour, and a greater likelihood of killing and torturing enemies.[6]

http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature&featureID=1037

Article - Educational Achievement, Not Sexual Abstinence, Predicts Long-term Mental Health in Adolescent Girls

THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE.

If we confine ourselves to modern times and to fairly precise medical statements, we find in Schurig's Spermatologia (1720, pp. 274 et seq.), not only a discussion of the advantages of moderate sexual intercourse in a number of disorders, as witnessed by famous authorities, but also a list of results—including anorexia, insanity, impotence, epilepsy, even death—which were believed to have been due to sexual abstinence. This extreme view of the possible evils of sexual abstinence seems to have been part of the Renaissance traditions of medicine stiffened by a certain opposition between religion and science. It was still rigorously stated by Lallemand early in the nineteenth century. Subsequently, the medical statements of the evil results of sexual abstinence became more temperate and measured, though still often pronounced. Thus Gyurkovechky believes that these results may be as serious as those of sexual excess. Krafft-Ebing showed that sexual abstinence could produce a state of general nervous excitement (Jahrbuch für Psychiatrie, Bd. viii, Heft 1 and 2). Schrenck-Notzing regards sexual abstinence as a cause of extreme sexual hyperæsthesia and of various perversions (in a chapter on sexual abstinence in his Kriminalpsychologische und Psychopathologische Studien, 1902, pp. 174-178).

Pearce Gould, it may be added, finds that "excessive ungratified sexual desire" is one of the causes of acute orchitis. Remondino ("Some Observations on Continence as a Factor in Health and Disease," Pacific Medical Journal, Jan., 1900) records the case of a gentleman of nearly seventy who, during the prolonged illness of his wife, suffered from frequent and extreme priapism, causing insomnia. He was very certain that his troubles were not due to his continence, but all treatment failed and there were no spontaneous emissions. At last Remondino advised him to, as he expresses it, "imitate Solomon." He did so, and all the symptoms at once disappeared. This case is of special interest, because the symptoms were not accompanied by any conscious sexual desire.

The whole subject of sexual abstinence has been discussed at length by Nyström, of Stockholm, in Das Geschlechtsleben und seine Gesetze, Ch. III. He concludes that it is desirable that continence should be preserved as long as possible in order to strengthen the physical health and to develop the intelligence and character. The doctrine of permanent sexual abstinence, however, he regards as entirely false, except in the case of a small number of religious or philosophic persons. "Complete abstinence during a long period of years cannot be borne without producing serious results both on the body and the mind.......

Many advocates of sexual abstinence have attached importance to the fact that men of great genius have apparently been completely continent throughout life. This is certainly true (see ante, p. 173). But this fact can scarcely be invoked as an argument in favor of the advantages of sexual abstinence among the ordinary population. J. F. Scott selects Jesus, Newton, Beethoven, and Kant as "men of vigor and mental acumen who have lived chastely as bachelors." It cannot, however, be said that Dr. Scott has been happy in the four figures whom he has been able to select from the whole history of human genius as examples of life-long sexual abstinence. We know little with absolute certainty of Jesus, and even if we reject the diagnosis which Professor Binet-Sanglé (in his Folie de Jesus) has built up from a minute study of the Gospels, there are many reasons why we should refrain from emphasizing the example of his sexual abstinence; Newton, apart from his stupendous genius in a special field, was an incomplete and unsatisfactory human being who ultimately reached a condition very like insanity; Beethoven was a thoroughly morbid and diseased man, who led an intensely unhappy existence; Kant, from first to last, was a feeble valetudinarian. It would probably be difficult to find a healthy normal man who would voluntarily accept the life led by any of these four, even as the price of their fame. J. A. Godfrey (Science of Sex, pp. 139-147) discusses at length the question whether sexual abstinence is favorable to ordinary intellectual vigor, deciding that it is not, and that we cannot argue from the occasional sexual abstinence of men of genius, who are often abnormally constituted, and physically below the average, to the normally developed man. Sexual abstinence, it may be added, is by no means always a favorable sign, even in men who stand intellectually above the average.

Numerous distinguished gynæcologists have recorded their belief that sexual excitement is a remedy for various disorders of the sexual system in women, and that abstinence is a cause of such disorders.

Frequent ejaculation may protect against cancer - 06 April 2004 - New Scientist

newscientist.com][/B]

Frequent sexual intercourse and masturbation protects men against a common form of cancer, suggests the largest study of the issue to date yet.

The US study, which followed nearly 30,000 men over eight years, showed that those that ejaculated most frequently were significantly less likely to get prostate cancer. The results back the findings of a smaller Australian study revealed by New Scientist in July 2003 that asserted that masturbation was good for men.

Do you object to masturbation by homosexuals?

You are currently discussing homosexuality in two threads, neither of which was started to discuss homosexuality. Why don't you just go to a thread on homosexuality at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...7-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-76.html and discuss homosexuality there? That way, people who are interested in the topic of homosexuality will have an easier time finding discussions about homosexuality, and you will have the opportunity to share your arguments with more people.

 

[Agnostic75]

Even agnostic says that Christianity has produced the bulk of "cured" homosexuals. She/he actually brought it up.

I am a he, and yes, I did say that, and it is true that the vast majority of homosexuals who give up homosexuality are religiously motivated, which leaves you with no valid secular arguments against homosexuals who are not religious, especially monogamous homosexuals, who have no need of practicing abstinence.

Some Christian health experts who oppose homosexuality admit that even the majority of religiously motivated homosexuals fail to give up homosexuality. That is quite natural since having sex is normal, and long term abstinence is abnormal.

Short of interviewing every person who claims they have left homosexuality behind and omnisciently knowing the biological truth of their claims nothing you say affects their claims.

Some recent research in epigenetics has provided excellent evidence, using mathematical models, that epigenetic factors in the womb are important factors that contribute to homosexuality. Consider the following:

Epigenetics may be a critical factor contributing to homosexuality, study suggests

December 11, 2012

Epigenetics -- how gene expression is regulated by temporary switches, called epi-marks -- appears to be a critical and overlooked factor contributing to the long-standing puzzle of why homosexuality occurs.

According to the study, published online today in The Quarterly Review of Biology, sex-specific epi-marks, which normally do not pass between generations and are thus "erased," can lead to homosexuality when they escape erasure and are transmitted from father to daughter or mother to son.

From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is a trait that would not be expected to develop and persist in the face of Darwinian natural selection. Homosexuality is nevertheless common for men and women in most cultures. Previous studies have shown that homosexuality runs in families, leading most researchers to presume a genetic underpinning of sexual preference. However, no major gene for homosexuality has been found despite numerous studies searching for a genetic connection.

In the current study, researchers from the Working Group on Intragenomic Conflict at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) integrated evolutionary theory with recent advances in the molecular regulation of gene expression and androgen-dependent sexual development to produce a biological and mathematical model that delineates the role of epigenetics in homosexuality.

Epi-marks constitute an extra layer of information attached to our genes' backbones that regulates their expression. While genes hold the instructions, epi-marks direct how those instructions are carried out -- when, where and how much a gene is expressed during development. Epi-marks are usually produced anew each generation, but recent evidence demonstrates that they sometimes carry over between generations and thus can contribute to similarity among relatives, resembling the effect of shared genes.

Sex-specific epi-marks produced in early fetal development protect each sex from the substantial natural variation in testosterone that occurs during later fetal development. Sex-specific epi-marks stop girl fetuses from being masculinized when they experience atypically high testosterone, and vice versa for boy fetuses. Different epi-marks protect different sex-specific traits from being masculinized or feminized -- some affect the genitals, others sexual identity, and yet others affect sexual partner preference. However, when these epi-marks are transmitted across generations from fathers to daughters or mothers to sons, they may cause reversed effects, such as the feminization of some traits in sons, such as sexual preference, and similarly a partial masculinization of daughters.

The study solves the evolutionary riddle of homosexuality, finding that "sexually antagonistic" epi-marks, which normally protect parents from natural variation in sex hormone levels during fetal development, sometimes carryover across generations and cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring. The mathematical modeling demonstrates that genes coding for these epi-marks can easily spread in the population because they always increase the fitness of the parent but only rarely escape erasure and reduce fitness in offspring.

"Transmission of sexually antagonistic epi-marks between generations is the most plausible evolutionary mechanism of the phenomenon of human homosexuality," said the study's co-author Sergey Gavrilets, NIMBioS' associate director for scientific activities and a professor at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville.

The paper's other authors are William Rice, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Urban Friberg, a professor at Uppsala University in Sweden.

You once claimed that homosexuality is not significantly caused by genetics. You were wrong. When a baby is born, prior epigenetic factors that occurred in the womb will play a significant role in the child's eventual sexual identity regardless of the future environment of the child.

Homosexuality can be defined as same-sex sexual identity, or as same-sex actions.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please make a post in my thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151019-do-other-universes-exist.html.