why can't we have a relationship with other men?

[payak]

Ok, but is there a scientific reason, that was the question after all.

 

[Tiberius]

I can't think of a single scientific reason to claim it is wrong for two men to have a sexual relationship.

 

[Luke Morningstar]

correction: According to religion I meant.

Not any religion I know. In America there are a lot of people who claim that is religion, but I don't accept they are following religion. They are following a political ideaology. Religion is a practice of faith and compassion. They might be religious most days, but those times when they tell other people what to do, believe, and how to act, they are just being ********.

 

[1robin]

I can't think of a single scientific reason to claim it is wrong for two men to have a sexual relationship.

Apparently massively increasing the spread of STD's and other non sexual destructive effects without justifiable positives plus the billions spent by those who do not practice the behavior to treat those that do is not on your bad list. If not what is?

 

[payak]

So rather then twist my question, what scientifically makes someone gay, can't get an answer to this.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Apparently massively increasing the spread of STD's and other non sexual destructive effects without justifiable positives plus the billions spent by those who do not practice the behavior to treat those that do is not on your bad list. If not what is?

Heterosexuals crank out millions and millions of starving, diseased, dying babies every year.

That's not 'bad' in your book?

If not, what is?

 

[1robin]

Heterosexuals crank out millions and millions of starving, diseased, dying babies every year.

That's not 'bad' in your book?

If not, what is?

Yes it is but unlike homosexuality the human race depends on heterosexuality. If you had actually read just the few sentences I posted you could have saved wasting both your (and what is infinitely worse) my time here.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes it is but unlike homosexuality the human race depends on heterosexuality. If you had actually read just the few sentences I posted you could have saved wasting both your (and what is infinitely worse) my time here.

Oh, come on. Address it. If we oppose homosexuality based on the harm it does, then we should oppose heterosexuality a hundred times more.

We don't depend on heterosexuality. It's not like we're running out of people, and we have the technology to artificially inseminate only those people who could responsibly have children.

So you must be in favor of outlawing heterosexual sex, yes? Especially among the poor?

 

[1robin]

Oh, come on. Address it. If we oppose homosexuality based on the harm it does, then we should oppose heterosexuality a hundred times more.

Are you upset that unless you state what standards we must use (completely regardless of what is rational) you can't make you preferred views valid? The standards used in my claims are the most justifiable possible.

We don't depend on heterosexuality. It's not like we're running out of people, and we have the technology to artificially inseminate only those people who could responsibly have children.

I do not intend to explain the birds and bees to you. If you can't see the concepts I mentioned then maybe your not knowing about the birds and bees is best for humanity.

So you must be in favor of outlawing heterosexual sex, yes? Especially among the poor?

The law is a human institution and has very little to do with right and wrong. I do not intend to spend time trying to straighten a crooked stick that will not admit it is crooked or cares if it is. My responsibility is truth not what anyone does with it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Are you upset that unless you state what standards we must use (completely regardless of what is rational) you can't make you preferred views valid? The standards used in my claims are the most justifiable possible.

I do not intend to explain the birds and bees to you. If you can't see the concepts I mentioned then maybe your not knowing about the birds and bees is best for humanity.

The law is a human institution and has very little to do with right and wrong. I do not intend to spend time trying to straighten a crooked stick that will not admit it is crooked or cares if it is. My responsibility is truth not what anyone does with it.

OK, man. You are right and smart and don't have to lower yourself to addressing specific counterarguments and straightening all the crooked little sticks of the world. I understand. I have known you for an actual Prophet of God from the moment I first met you.

So many actual Prophets of God in this world. It's hard to keep up.

By the way: The standards used in my claims are the most justifiable possible. You are simply confused about your standards. Sorry.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

So rather then twist my question, what scientifically makes someone gay, can't get an answer to this.

It's been brought up many times before, but the wikipedia entry offers a sufficient starting point:

Science has looked at the causes of homosexuality, and more generically the causes of human sexual orientation, with the general conclusions being related to biological and environmental factors. The biological factors that have been researched are genetic and hormonal, particularly during the fetal developmental period, that influence the resulting brain structure, and other characteristics such as handedness. There are a wide range of environmental factors (sociological, psychological, or early uterine environment), and various biological factors, that may influence sexual orientation; though many researchers believe that it is caused by a complex interplay between nature and nurture, they favor biological models for the cause.

The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in Pediatrics in 2004:
“Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.”

The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers stated in 2006:
“Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual—including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents' sexual orientation. However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual.”

The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated in 2007:
“Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Do you believe that heterosexual women who are 45 years of age and over should practice abstinence? Consider the following:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...6A94TK20101110

For the few women who manage to get pregnant after age 45, both they and their babies have a higher risk of complications, Israeli researchers have found. For instance, they are about three times more likely than younger women to experience diabetes and high blood pressure during their pregnancies, the researchers report in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Older women also have higher rates of preterm births and placenta previa, in which the placenta blocks the opening to the birth canal.

"Increasing age leads to less (healthy) individuals, and less healthy individuals do have higher pregnancy risks," Dr. Maximilian Franz of the Medical University of Vienna, who did not participate in the study, told Reuters Health.

Do you believe that black Americans who live in black American communities should practice abstinence since they are a high risk group?

Do you believe that people who live in poverty should practice abstinence since they are a high risk group?

You have said that practicing long term abstinence is not very difficult. Research shows otherwise, but if you are right, it would not be difficult for the groups of people that I mentioned to practice abstinence, and lot of suffering, and health care costs could be prevented.

Do you believe that people who have preventable cases of heart disease, cancer, and obesity should take better care of their bodies? In 2010, about 15,000 Americans died from AIDS. In the same year, about 600,000 Americans died from heart disease alone, and the vast majority of them were heterosexuals. Heart disease is largely preventable.

If aliens abducted all of the homosexuals from the world, that would probably not reduce health care costs by much more than 5%, if that, and global warming would still be the greatest threat to human life, and well-being in human history by far.

Since heterosexuals are far more numerous than homosexuals are, and thus cause far more health care costs than homosexuals do, they are much more able to significantly reduce health care costs than homosexuals are.

You have claimed that homosexuals increase health care costs for other groups of people. That is true, but statistics show that heterosexuals' greatest health threat by far is themselves, not homosexuals. When heterosexuals get heart disease, cancer, or obesity, that is their own fault, not homosexuals' fault.

It is important to note that a good percentage of homosexuals who are alcoholics are not alcoholics because they are homosexuals, and would have become alcoholics even if they had become heterosexuals.

Even if homosexuals who will never get any STDs practiced abstinence, that would not affect the behavior of homosexuals who get STDs, so nothing practical would be gained if homosexuals who will never get any STDs practiced abstinence. Even if homosexuals who will never get any STDs should not play the game at this time, they will beat the odds, will enjoy many health benefits from having sex, will avoid the risks of long term abstinence, and their trust in themselves will have been justified.
Few healthy, monogamous homosexuals would be interested in practicing abstinence, but if all of them did practice it, surely many would be far worse off than they were before, and many of them would require expensive medical treatment, which would increase health care costs, not reduce them.

You said that homosexuals have health risks other than STDs. That is true, but the health of an unknown percentage of homosexuals compares favorably with the health of the majority of heterosexuals. Whatever percentage that is, over the next one hundred years, millions of homosexuals will die whose health compared favorably with the majority of heterosexuals. There are not any good reasons why they should practice abstinence, and there a good reasons why the other groups of people who I mentioned should practice abstinence, at least according to your philosophy.

You said that there is no need for heterosexuals who have been monogamous for at least one year to practice abstinence. Why should homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years practice abstinence?

 

[Agnostic75]

So rather then twist my question, what scientifically makes someone gay, can't get an answer to this?

Dr. Warren Throckmorton is a college professor of psychology, and is widely acknowledged as an expert on sexual identity. In an article at
J. Michael Bailey on twin research and sexual reorientation, he discusses a well-known gay twin study by J. Michael Bailey, who is one of the world's top experts on sexual research. Consider the following from the article:

Francis Collins made this same point when reacting to how Dean Byrd at NARTH quoted his book The Language of God:

"The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable."

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html

A new study of twins provides the strongest evidence yet that homosexuality has a genetic basis, researchers say, though they say other factors like social conditioning may be important.

The study, published in the December issue of The Archives of General Psychiatry, adds to evidence that sexual orientation does not result from a maladjustment or moral defect, one author said.

"We found 52 percent of identical twin brothers of gay men also were gay, compared with 22 percent of fraternal twins, compared with 11 percent of genetically unrelated brothers," said J. Michael Bailey, an assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern University in Evanston, "which is exactly the kind of pattern you would want to see if something genetic were going on." By "unrelated," Dr. Bailey was referring to brothers by adoption.

"The genetically most similar brothers were also the ones most likely to be gay, by a large margin," he added.

http://hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1993-homosexual-orientation-in-twins.html

University of Hawaii

Title: Homosexual Orientation in Twins: A Report on 61 Pairs and Three Triplet Sets

Authors: Frederick L. Whitam, Ph.D., Milton Diamond, Ph.D.,and James Martin, BA.

Published in: Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1993


Twin pairs in which at least one twin is homosexual were solicited through announcements in the gay press and personal referrals from 1980 to the present. An 18-page questionnaire on the “sexuality of twins” was filled out by one or both twins. Thirty-eight pairs of monozygotic twins (34 male pairs and 4 female pairs) were found to have a concordance rate of 65.8% for homosexual orientation. Twenty-three pairs of dizygotic twins were found to have a concordance rate of 30.4% for homosexual orientation. In addition, three sets of triplets were obtained. Two sets contained a pair of monozygotic twins concordant for sexual orientation with the third triplet dizygotic and discordant for homosexual orientation. A third triplet set was monozygotic with all three concordant for homosexual orientation. These findings are interpreted as supporting the argument for a biological basis in sexual orientation.

 

[payak]

So is it therefore a birth defect, like people born autistic or with down syndrome.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

So is it therefore a birth defect, like people born autistic or with down syndrome.

My link I provided offered the explanation that homosexuality is like lefthandedness. I agree with that contention, and that it is not considered a birth defect. Lefthandedness, red hair, etc. all point to variances that do not point to any defective condition.

Do you agree that your question was answered regarding scientific explanations of homosexuality now? There are many other sources out there that explain and provide evidence of the factors of what sets a sexual orientation with somebody. The vast majority of researchers all agree that homosexuality is not a choice. A quick google search will reveal the studies done.

There is nothing defective about homosexual or bisexual orientation.

 

[payak]

My link I provided offered the explanation that homosexuality is like lefthandedness. I agree with that contention, and that it is not considered a birth defect. Lefthandedness, red hair, etc. all point to variances that do not point to any defective condition.

Do you agree that your question was answered regarding scientific explanations of homosexuality now? There are many other sources out there that explain and provide evidence of the factors of what sets a sexual orientation with somebody. The vast majority of researchers all agree that homosexuality is not a choice. A quick google search will reveal the studies done.

There is nothing defective about homosexual or bisexual orientation.

I agree its not a choice,and they should embrace it, just believe their must be a reason for it.

 

[Tiberius]

Apparently massively increasing the spread of STD's and other non sexual destructive effects without justifiable positives plus the billions spent by those who do not practice the behavior to treat those that do is not on your bad list. If not what is?

Are you serious? You got some source to back up these claims?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It would be 1 thing if it was just 1or2 things but it took many things to get to the point that life could survive on earth:

1. Its in the right orbit,

2. Has the right speed around the sun,

3. The right axis,

4. The right spin speed,

5. It tilts so that the right hemisphere is facing the sun for the northern summer, which is at our farthest distance in our elliptical orbit around the sun(larger land masses are in the northern hemisphere&if earth's northern hemisphere faced the sun at our closest point to the sun it would be much hotter-large land mass absorbs much more heat than water),

6. Has the right amount of water vs land mass,

7. The right atmosphere,

8. The right gravity strength,

9. The right magnetic field&strength,

10. The right soil consistency,

11. The Van Allen belt&Ozone layer that helps protect earth from large energy bursts&radiation from the sun,

12. Earth has the right size moon with the right spin&orbit(helps keep earth's wobble stabilized), which provide tidal cycles which in turn provides life with needed environments to support its life&life cycles, helped many keep track of months for planting&seasons&lights the night sky, navigation,

13. The Solar System happens to be in a particular spot in an arm of our Galaxy,

14. The Primordial Soup theory brings up another set of events&Laws of Probability against them.

Just 1or2 small differences for orbits, speeds&environments&most likely life would be different, higher life-forms die in short time if it survived.

Many omit Laws of Probability. Each&every event has odds against it taking place, which are then compounded by the sheer number of events that must take place to get us to today's conditions. U can't live long enough to count that high even if you could stay awake 24hrs a day=can't happen on its own. &Chaos can't produce order.

Your statement that these things don't matter would be akin to finding a house&garden, deciding it doesn't matter how it got there&then moving in claiming it as your own. You just might find out it does matter but then it just might be too late&have great consequences. And, when you say I didn't know, the owner will reply, "I sent you messengers, why did you dismiss their warnings?"

*sigh.

Instead of going through and refuting everything you stated I'll make it short and say nearly everything you have stated is without propper cause. You seem to claim that you "used" to believe in evolution but not anymore as if this gives you any more weight on the subject or It somehow defends any attempt to say your position is religiously biased. It does not. Everything you have brought forth is either wrong or sever spectulation itself. You've made a ton of claims (per usual ID talking points) without any real evidence behind them. All you are trying to do is set up false parameters of unbaised claims trying to subvert evolution.

And you clearly do not understand what I meant by our earth having the perfect qualities being a non-issue. Did you know that its highly possible that there may be hundreds of other planets in the same situation as earth is right now in just our galaxy? Do you know the chances of there being another earth like planet anywhere else in the universe? Its very very very good. If there is life then it only follows that it will be in a place that can support life.

 

[Agnostic75]

So is it therefore a birth defect, like people born autistic or with down syndrome.

Since sexual identity is not a choice, what do you recommend that homosexuals do about their sexual identity, and having sex?

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.