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

[payak]

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

I answered that already, I said they should embrace it.

little trouble reading every page today are you.

 

[Agnostic75]

I answered that already, I said they should embrace it.

Good, then there is nothing else for use to discuss.

 

[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.

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.

If aliens abducted all of the homosexuals from the world, that would only reduce health care costs by less than 5%, and global warming would still be the greatest threat to human life, and well-being in human history by far. If homosexuality did not exist, it is probable that eventually, heterosexuals will eventually destroy most, or all, human life, or make life far more difficult than it is now.

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. In addition, there is little, if any risk for heterosexuals who eat harmful foods, and do not get enough exercise, if they change their poor lifestyle habits, unlike homosexuals who have risks if they practice long term abstinence.

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 (let's call them Group A) practiced abstinence, that would not affect the behavior of homosexuals who get STDs (let's call them Group B), so nothing practical would be gained if Group A practiced abstinence. That is a fact even though Group A do not know who they are.

Over the next 100 years, when Group A die, they will not have caused any more harm per capita than hundreds of millions, or billions of heterosexuals did per capita. If you were alive 100 years from now, what would you say about members of Group A who had died? You could claim that they should not have played the game, but billions of heterosexuals who caused more harm per capita than Group A did would be much more at fault than Group A.

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 health risks of long term abstinence, and their trust in themselves will have been justified. It is certainly reasonable for trustworthy people to trust in themselves.

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?

Homosexuals do generally have more health problems than heterosexuals do, but not nearly to the extent that you believe. Your post #304 has lot of lies, misleading claims, and poorly documented claims. You said that you doubt that very many of those claims are wrong, but your are so poorly informed that you are not in a position to make such a claim. I could easily back up what I said, and you cannot back up much of that post.

I have provided lots of documented evidence that reasonably proves that genetics is an important part of sexual identity. What documented evidence do you have that genetics is not an important part of sexual identity?

 

[desideraht]

Orgies are fine. Gay sex is fine. Twincest with midgets is fine. Have whatever sex you wish, whatever fetishes you desire, so long as it does not involve anyone who does not wish to be involved.

Now to weigh into the current debate.

Homosexuality is no longer considered a medical condition. It was previously listed in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It has since been removed. So do not call it a birth defect. Medical professionals have deemed it a natural variance in humans. It is not a defect because whom does it harm? No one. Do not claim they cannot reproduce—homosexuals can, and often do. Do not shame childfree persons—nothing is "defective" about choosing a life without children. Don't pretend like you have respect for homosexuals when you turn around and say they have a medical problem.

 

[nash8]

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.

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

While I agree with you that there is a genetic disposition for homosexuality, I also believe that in least some cases there is some manner of choice in the matter. For example if someone is heterosexual for the majority of their life, then at a later age they decided that they were homosexual, would you argue that that person was actually homosexual their entire life and just didn't admit it? Would somebody that was homosexual be aroused by someone of the opposite sex, then not be at another point? If a person was actually bisexual, and decided that they preffered the same sex later in life, would they be considered homosexual or bisexual? Is bisexuality considered the same thing is homosexuality?

The reason I ask these questions is because my Uncle is gay, but he has two kids and was married for 20 something years, but decided around age 60 or so that he was gay. I have a friend whose dad did the same thing around age 40. Would you consider these people to be homosexual, bisexual, and based on that would you consider it a choice or purely biological disposition.

In any regard, I definitely don't consider homosexuality to be a defect. My Uncle is one of the most amazing men I have ever met, and I can only hope that my life is half as successful, interesting, and diverse as his.

Orgies are fine. Gay sex is fine. Twincest with midgets is fine. Have whatever sex you wish, whatever fetishes you desire, so long as it does not involve anyone who does not wish to be involved.

LOL, humor and deep observation and one post. You definitely need to be a writer.

Homosexuality is no longer considered a medical condition. It was previously listed in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It has since been removed. So do not call it a birth defect. Medical professionals have deemed it a natural variance in humans. It is not a defect because whom does it harm? No one. Do not claim they cannot reproduce—homosexuals can, and often do. Do not shame childfree persons—nothing is "defective" about choosing a life without children. Don't pretend like you have respect for homosexuals when you turn around and say they have a medical problem.

Indeed, and I pose the same question to you that I posed to the two previous posts.

 

[philbo]

While I agree with you that there is a genetic disposition for homosexuality, I also believe that in least some cases there is some manner of choice in the matter.

In some cases, there may be - in others, there isn't. Offhand I can't think of any of my gay friends who would say they made a choice to be.

For example if someone is heterosexual for the majority of their life, then at a later age they decided that they were homosexual, would you argue that that person was actually homosexual their entire life and just didn't admit it?

Again, I hesitate to make generalizations, but given the stigma that some large sections of society seem to put on being homosexual, not wanting to believe oneself so is perfectly understandable if brought up in that environment. The only chap I've had any kind of in-depth discussion with about this would say that he knew he was homosexual from a young age, and found it almost impossible to admit to himself, let alone to anyone else. He didn't come out until after his parents had died.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

While I agree with you that there is a genetic disposition for homosexuality, I also believe that in least some cases there is some manner of choice in the matter. For example if someone is heterosexual for the majority of their life, then at a later age they decided that they were homosexual, would you argue that that person was actually homosexual their entire life and just didn't admit it? Would somebody that was homosexual be aroused by someone of the opposite sex, then not be at another point? If a person was actually bisexual, and decided that they preffered the same sex later in life, would they be considered homosexual or bisexual? Is bisexuality considered the same thing is homosexuality?

The reason I ask these questions is because my Uncle is gay, but he has two kids and was married for 20 something years, but decided around age 60 or so that he was gay. I have a friend whose dad did the same thing around age 40. Would you consider these people to be homosexual, bisexual, and based on that would you consider it a choice or purely biological disposition.

There remains a plethura of reasons to attempt to avoid the social stigma of being gay. If these men who now claim to be homosexual claim to have been heterosexual then I have a feeling either they are lying or there is something else afoot.

Have you talked to them about it? Did they say they "decided" they were gay? Or did they say they were always gay and stopped trying to hide it?

Bisexuality is part of the GLBTQ community but it is not homosexuality but neither is it heterosexuality. Bisexuality is a real thing and it is also a very real possiblity for those that have only produced heterosexual patterns but suddenly change. The best way is to ask them. Many bisexuals ignore half of their sexuality to attempt to appear strait. Its simply easier on them than having to face the harsh backlash of comming out. But now GLBTQ people are at a better place in our history than any other time for our country.

 

[desideraht]

To answer your questions:

For example if someone is heterosexual for the majority of their life, then at a later age they decided that they were homosexual, would you argue that that person was actually homosexual their entire life and just didn't admit it?

No. Sexuality can, and DOES change, but it changes beyond our control. Although, some homosexuals who were "straight" before were simply repressing their homosexuality. But that is not always the case. Sometimes a person's attraction actually changes, but this cannot be forced. It simply happens.

Would somebody that was homosexual be aroused by someone of the opposite sex, then not be at another point?

That entirely depends on the individual.

If a person was actually bisexual, and decided that they preffered the same sex later in life, would they be considered homosexual or bisexual?

Probably bisexual, homoromantic? As in they are emotionally interested in the same gender, but they are aroused by both sexes. They would still likely acll themselves gay.

Is bisexuality considered the same thing is homosexuality?

No.

The reason I ask these questions is because my Uncle is gay, but he has two kids and was married for 20 something years, but decided around age 60 or so that he was gay. I have a friend whose dad did the same thing around age 40. Would you consider these people to be homosexual, bisexual, and based on that would you consider it a choice or purely biological disposition.

His sexuality may have changed, or, them ay have discovered or after many years of denial finally accepted that he was gay. In older generations, being gay was so taboo that people had to convince themselves that they weren't gay to survive. Now that we are in a world where it is more acceptable, people are discovering their true selves more.

 

[Agnostic75]

While I agree with you that there is a genetic disposition for homosexuality, I also believe that in least some cases there is some manner of choice in the matter. For example if someone is heterosexual for the majority of their life, then at a later age they decided that they were homosexual, would you argue that that person was actually homosexual their entire life and just didn't admit it? Would somebody that was homosexual be aroused by someone of the opposite sex, then not be at another point?

Sexual preference obviously sometimes changes, but the majority of the time it does not change, and when it does change dramatically, it is usually not a choice, just like initial sexual identity is usually not a choice. Alan Chambers, the founder, and former president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International, which was the largest organization of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and said that 99.9% of homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. Even some conservative Christian experts who strongly oppose homosexuality have admitted that the majority of the time, even religiously motivated homosexuals fail to change their sexual identity.

 

[voice crying]

*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.

Still Ev isn't provable. It is&will always be just a theory. The"facts"prove something but it isnt Ev. Its either Darwin's cell geniuses or an IDr created it all. Cells designing&creating millions of extremely diverse species is no more possible than giving a six month old baby many tools&expecting him to design&build the Empire State building. Again, none of these organisms existed before. Cells have way less intelligence than even a six month old baby. This makes clear that Ev is an impossible, slight of hand, snake oil theory toted as fact, when in fact it is not.

When you add to that the many things that had to take place even before life began for it to survive you get yet another list of facts that seriously call into question all that Ev claims as being valid. With all the things that must be in place for life to succeed(especially for higher life-forms)it would be an extremely rare case if even one earth-like planet can exist anywhere else in the universe.

Regarding God: For more than 46 yrs I have studied the whole Bible, parts many times. This I can attest to: Only one eternal truth can exist. It only exists in the Bible. Only one God can occupy infinity. That God is the God of Israel. Infinity is the only place no cause needed can exist. It is the only place one can declare the end from the beginning for anything they create outside themselves(they set the borders&barriers). By outside I mean like any artist, what you create is separate from you even if you have to move out of the way for your creation to exist. Only a spirit has the capability of occupying infinity, undetected&can move through the universe w/o being part of it. Everything else is measurable=it has finite properties.

God's infinite existence is only provable b/c Jesus is the Son of God&He wasn't talking out 2 nor 1000s of sides of His mouth=no confusion. Jesus couldn't do whats in the NT w/o knowing&understanding the entire OT(impossible unless God was with Him&the NT[explains OT]didn't exist yet). The Apostles couldn't write the NT unless Jesus made them remember all He did. Jesus is the only one in History who said He is the way, the truth&the life&no one knows God w/o Him(Jn 14:6; Act4:12)=more evidence for the real IDr of all Creation.

 

[philbo]

Still Ev isn't provable. It is&will always be just a theory. The"facts"prove something but it isnt Ev. Its either Darwin's cell geniuses or an IDr created it all. Cells designing&creating millions of extremely diverse species is no more possible than giving a six month old baby many tools&expecting him to design&build the Empire State building. Again, none of these organisms existed before. Cells have way less intelligence than even a six month old baby. This makes clear that Ev is an impossible, slight of hand, snake oil theory toted as fact, when in fact it is not.

To summarize: "I don't understand evolution (no, make that 'I haven't even the faintest shadow of a clue what I'm talking about'), therefore it's wrong"

Regarding God: For more than 46 yrs I have studied the whole Bible, parts many times.

Maybe that's your problem: if you'd spent your time studying something worthwhile, you might be able to form an opinion based in observable facts rather than mythology.

It's a shame a brain has been so wasted.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Still Ev isn't provable. It is&will always be just a theory. The"facts"prove something but it isnt Ev. Its either Darwin's cell geniuses or an IDr created it all. Cells designing&creating millions of extremely diverse species is no more possible than giving a six month old baby many tools&expecting him to design&build the Empire State building. Again, none of these organisms existed before. Cells have way less intelligence than even a six month old baby. This makes clear that Ev is an impossible, slight of hand, snake oil theory toted as fact, when in fact it is not.

You quite clearly haven't the faintest idea how evolution works, do you?

 

[Agnostic75]

Still Ev isn't provable. It is&will always be just a theory. The"facts"prove something but it isnt Ev. It's either Darwin's cell geniuses or an IDr created it all. Cells designing&creating millions of extremely diverse species is no more possible than giving a six month old baby many tools&expecting him to design&build the Empire State building. Again, none of these organisms existed before. Cells have way less intelligence than even a six month old baby. This makes clear that Ev is an impossible, slight of hand, snake oil theory toted as fact, when in fact it is not.

When you add to that the many things that had to take place even before life began for it to survive you get yet another list of facts that seriously call into question all that Ev claims as being valid. With all the things that must be in place for life to succeed(especially for higher life-forms)it would be an extremely rare case if even one earth-like planet can exist anywhere else in the universe.

But evolution does not have anything to do with how life began, only with how life has changed. Millions of Christians accept theistic evolution, including the majority of Christian biologists.

Regarding God: For more than 46 yrs I have studied the whole Bible, parts many times.

But even if a God inspired the original Bible, no one knows everything that the originals said. The Bible contains at least some errors, interpolations, and forgeries. The originals might not have said anything about same-sex behavior. Even if we had all of the originals, it would be impossible to reasonably prove that God inspired all of them.

No supernatural event in the Old Testament is reasonably provable.

The formation of the New Testament canon is questionable. Dr. Richard Carrier has an article about that at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html. Surely you are not aware of much of what the article says.

In your opinion, does God give everyone an equal opportunity to become saved, and is God able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him?

Are you aware that chance, and circumstance largely determine what people believe. Research has shown that geography, family, gender, and age are important factors that influence what people believe. The century that a person is born in is also important.

If all Christians living today had been raised by Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries, there is no doubt that some of them, probably the majority of them, would have become Muslims, and even if they knew a good deal about the Bible.

 

[voice crying]

But evolution does not have anything to do with how life began, only with how life has changed. Millions of Christians accept theistic evolution, including the majority of Christian biologists. --- But even if a God inspired the original Bible, no one knows everything that the originals said. The Bible contains at least some errors, interpolations, and forgeries. The originals might not have said anything about same-sex behavior. Even if we had all of the originals, it would be impossible to reasonably prove that God inspired all of them. --- No supernatural event in the Old Testament is reasonably provable. --- The formation of the New Testament canon is questionable. Dr. Richard Carrier has an article about that at The Formation of the New Testament Canon. Surely you are not aware of much of what the article says. --- In your opinion, does God give everyone an equal opportunity to become saved, and is God able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him? --- Are you aware that chance, and circumstance largely determine what people believe. Research has shown that geography, family, gender, and age are important factors that influence what people believe. The century that a person is born in is also important. --- If all Christians living today had been raised by Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries, there is no doubt that some of them, probably the majority of them, would have become Muslims, and even if they knew a good deal about the Bible.

Rather than answer each response separately I'll answer it all in one. First, I studied many things(other than the Bible)over 46+yrs. This includes but is not limited to: Physics(& related fields), Electrical Theory&installation, Biology, Evolution, Electromechanical Engineering(machinery design&safety), Heat Exchanger Technology, jet engines, air planes&basic rocketry, air conditioning, refrigeration&heating, Blueprints, carpentry, plumbing, welding, etc.

The point is I didn't pull my statements out of the air. The fact is that the beginning of the universe, Abiogenensis&Evolution(Ev) are interconnected by at the very least "cause&effect" basis. If one of the three(&related issues)is wrong or not proved neither can the other be. The simple fact is they are regarding billions of yrs old COLD case&we did not see it take place. W/o UNCUT(&only if its fully verified, which it can't be&as we all know we will never have such a film)film starting from before the universe began to today not 1 theory regarding the beginning of our universe, life nor Ev can ever be any more than a theory no matter what we put forward for a theory. Until such an uncut film materializes the appearance of one species parts&DNA in another are just more species.

It doesn't matter how many scientists(christian or other)accept Ev. There was a time when most accepted the earth as the center of the universe. Should we have continued to ignore opposition simply b/c a majority said otherwise? If there were only 2 or 3 body types with several variations there would be a chance for Ev. In the real world we have 100s of 1000s of completely different bodies, body parts&many different features. Again, either cells are the greatest geniuses ever or an IDr created everything. The right&left lung, kidney, eye, brain setup, arm, hand, leg, foot, etc. are full of parts that indicate it could not be done w/o an engineering feat beyond comprehension. Cells have so little intelligence that a 6 month old baby would be a genius far beyond their wildest dreams. Therefore, Ev is nothing but a very weak theory no matter how many people believe in it.

Since I discovered in the Bible that God of Israel occupies infinity I thought about how could an all powerful God not be able to protect His word? Then I discovered this: God always knew people would try to twist His word so He used an unchangeable system(in redundancy in several ways)to forever bind His foundation, structure, mindset&one true message to His OT&NT eternal truth. This means it doesn't matter whether we have the original scripture or not, although since the Dead Sea scrolls were unearthed we can be even more sure that the OT we have today is in fact very close to what was in place 3000 yrs ago. From my tedious study of the whole Bible I can attest to this: Just about every word in both the OT&NT(in standard Bibles, especially word for word method Bibles with right amount of Literal method interpretation)is exactly where it should be.

Any small difference are incidental when weighed against the whole Bible in total. As they are found they can be corrected with very little effect on God's one true message. There is only one God; one Jesus, only true Son of God-Prv30:4; one Holy Spirit, one eternal truth&one Bible. Therefore, only one true interpretation is possible&that you can take to the bank. The problem is that too many people don't carefully read the Bible. True interpretation requires that every word, verse, passage, chapter&book is carefully weighed against every part of the Bible or you will have a good chance of becoming a false teacher. For good reason the Bible says, "Be careful not to go beyond what is written."=do not add or omit things=1Cor4:6.

Too many assume too many things about the Bible, have depended too much on those who came before them or their contemporaries, pastors, ministers &/or priests, most of whom skipped over Jesus' specific directions on how to rightly approach knowing God. God outsmarted us: reading Bibles(religious/not)u cant find nor rightly know Jesus&the Bible w/o His directions-Jn 5:39/10:1,7/3:3,5(Jn 14:6/2Cor3:14/Is 29:11-12=Jewish ppl can't unveil OT w/o Jesus=all gentiles cant=its why many interpretations exist&its called fiction). I am aware of the article you mention but the Bible proves itself.

God does nothing w/o a purpose. He created Adam&Eve not Adam&Steve(At the beginning of the Bible&has always been in the Bible). Sleeping with or marrying the same sex is in effect sleeping with or marrying yourself=lover of self=abominations[valid reason=right vs wrong love]. It distorts, merges, blurs God's male&female creation characteristics/attributes/purpose-Lv 18:22/Rm1:26-32/1Pt 4:3-4/Gal5:19-21/1Cr6:18-20. Even 1 man&woman marriages can't be rightly put together w/o seeing God's purpose, reasons for the high divorce rates. Children are hurt by gay behavior. A child sees 2 men kissing, etc.&thinks its normal(especially since gay marriage is being accepted). They copy adults.

At the right time God will take all that are His regardless of the barriers(religious or not)now in place b/c false gospels have circulated around the world. Now is the time for all men to seek the truth regardless of what they have been taught from the past, peers or others. Jesus came to&did prove the OT is true. Since the OT is true then so is the NT(everything Jesus did came from His full knowledge of the OT). Only Jesus can show you this if you are willing to let Him. The devil was with God in the beginning&is aware of His plan. He never sleeps, meaning he has had plenty of time to play his games&is smarter than man. Will you fall for his lies? Theres no 3rd covenant. The truth is complete within the OT&NT pages.

 

[nash8]

In some cases, there may be - in others, there isn't. Offhand I can't think of any of my gay friends who would say they made a choice to be.


Again, I hesitate to make generalizations, but given the stigma that some large sections of society seem to put on being homosexual, not wanting to believe oneself so is perfectly understandable if brought up in that environment. The only chap I've had any kind of in-depth discussion with about this would say that he knew he was homosexual from a young age, and found it almost impossible to admit to himself, let alone to anyone else. He didn't come out until after his parents had died.

I totally agree. The social pressures are a large factor in the proccess. The reason I asked was specifically related to sexual arousal. If someone knew they were gay from a young age would they still be able to get sexually aroused from the opposite sex? And I only ask this because both people I know of have kids.

There remains a plethura of reasons to attempt to avoid the social stigma of being gay. If these men who now claim to be homosexual claim to have been heterosexual then I have a feeling either they are lying or there is something else afoot.

I totally understand the societal pressures of publicaly admitting homosexuality, my question is more along the lines of a physical question.

Have you talked to them about it? Did they say they "decided" they were gay? Or did they say they were always gay and stopped trying to hide it?

I rarely get to talk to my uncle that much, so I don't usually wan't to talk to him about this kind of stuff when I get to see him, and honestly it's not an important enough question for me to prod for an answer. Plus, my uncles is one, if not the most, interesting people I have ever met in my life so I usually have more pressing matters I discuss with him.

Bisexuality is part of the GLBTQ community but it is not homosexuality but neither is it heterosexuality. Bisexuality is a real thing and it is also a very real possiblity for those that have only produced heterosexual patterns but suddenly change. The best way is to ask them. Many bisexuals ignore half of their sexuality to attempt to appear strait. Its simply easier on them than having to face the harsh backlash of comming out. But now GLBTQ people are at a better place in our history than any other time for our country.

I know bisexuality is a real thing lol, give me a little credit. As I said before, my question is more from a physical arousal standpoint.

To answer your questions:
No. Sexuality can, and DOES change, but it changes beyond our control. Although, some homosexuals who were "straight" before were simply repressing their homosexuality. But that is not always the case. Sometimes a person's attraction actually changes, but this cannot be forced. It simply happens.

This is interesting. I've never really heard this point of view before. How, in your opinion, does this change occur, excluding severe emotional trauma.

Probably bisexual, homoromantic? As in they are emotionally interested in the same gender, but they are aroused by both sexes. They would still likely acll themselves gay.

This is the answer I personally came to. Someone was attracted to both sexes, but felt more emotionally attached to a particular sex. This would allow them to become physicall aroused by the opposite sex, and thus able to have kids. But at some point realized that they felt more emotionally attached to their own sex and chose to pursue what made them happier.

His sexuality may have changed, or, them ay have discovered or after many years of denial finally accepted that he was gay. In older generations, being gay was so taboo that people had to convince themselves that they weren't gay to survive. Now that we are in a world where it is more acceptable, people are discovering their true selves more.

Next time I see him, I might have to ask him. This conversation has intruiged my curiousity a bit more, and I know I will get an enlightening answer from him.

Sexual preference obviously sometimes changes, but the majority of the time it does not change, and when it does change dramatically, it is usually not a choice, just like initial sexual identity is usually not a choice. Alan Chambers, the founder, and former president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International, which was the largest organization of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and said that 99.9% of homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. Even some conservative Christian experts who strongly oppose homosexuality have admitted that the majority of the time, even religiously motivated homosexuals fail to change their sexual identity.

I would agree, but every gay person I have ever talked to has said that they knew they were gay since a young age, and if they denied it, it was because of social pressure. I have never met anyone that says there sexual preference changed during the course of their life, save for severe traumatical events, so I have no experience in this regard.

 

[nash8]

Still Ev isn't provable. It is&will always be just a theory. The"facts"prove something but it isnt Ev. Its either Darwin's cell geniuses or an IDr created it all. Cells designing&creating millions of extremely diverse species is no more possible than giving a six month old baby many tools&expecting him to design&build the Empire State building. Again, none of these organisms existed before. Cells have way less intelligence than even a six month old baby. This makes clear that Ev is an impossible, slight of hand, snake oil theory toted as fact, when in fact it is not.

Lol what do the "facts" prove? Cells mutate, thus they change.

When you add to that the many things that had to take place even before life began for it to survive you get yet another list of facts that seriously call into question all that Ev claims as being valid. With all the things that must be in place for life to succeed(especially for higher life-forms)it would be an extremely rare case if even one earth-like planet can exist anywhere else in the universe.

It is very rare, atleast statistically, that an earth like planet exists elsewhere in the universe, but it still happens.

Regarding God: For more than 46 yrs I have studied the whole Bible, parts many times. This I can attest to: Only one eternal truth can exist. It only exists in the Bible. Only one God can occupy infinity. That God is the God of Israel. Infinity is the only place no cause needed can exist. It is the only place one can declare the end from the beginning for anything they create outside themselves(they set the borders&barriers). By outside I mean like any artist, what you create is separate from you even if you have to move out of the way for your creation to exist. Only a spirit has the capability of occupying infinity, undetected&can move through the universe w/o being part of it. Everything else is measurable=it has finite properties.

So you worship YHWH? And actually many particles of quantum physics have idefinite properties and the only theory that accurately portrays their motion is the theory that they travel all possible paths simultaneously.

God's infinite existence is only provable b/c Jesus is the Son of God&He wasn't talking out 2 nor 1000s of sides of His mouth=no confusion. Jesus couldn't do whats in the NT w/o knowing&understanding the entire OT(impossible unless God was with Him&the NT[explains OT]didn't exist yet). The Apostles couldn't write the NT unless Jesus made them remember all He did. Jesus is the only one in History who said He is the way, the truth&the life&no one knows God w/o Him(Jn 14:6; Act4:12)=more evidence for the real IDr of all Creation.

You really do exist!!!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The point is I didn't pull my statements out of the air. The fact is that the beginning of the universe, Abiogenensis&Evolution(Ev) are interconnected by at the very least "cause&effect" basis. If one of the three(&related issues)is wrong or not proved neither can the other be.

Total and utter nonsense. It makes no difference how the Universe began, it doesn't affect how life began or changes; And life changes in the exact same way regardless of how life began. This doesn't just demonstrate your lack of understanding of science, but your lack of even basic logic.

The simple fact is they are regarding billions of yrs old COLD case&we did not see it take place.

Because, according to you, we cannot know anything scientifically unless we directly observe it? You do not understand how science works. There is something called "evidence".

W/o UNCUT(&only if its fully verified, which it can't be&as we all know we will never have such a film)film starting from before the universe began to today not 1 theory regarding the beginning of our universe, life nor Ev can ever be any more than a theory no matter what we put forward for a theory. Until such an uncut film materializes the appearance of one species parts&DNA in another are just more species.

You also have no idea what a "theory" is in science. Your ignorance of all the already available evidence in favor of your intentionally impossible standard shows a stubborn and troubling refusal to accept reality. What you are doing is like saying you refuse the accept the "theory" of the earth's distance to the sun unless someone gets a tape-measure and measures out the distance to the sun. If you had any notion of how reality works, and how facts can be grasped through study of phenomena and inference, you would not be making such a ridiculous statement. We have thousands upon thousands of individual pieces of evidence, as well as observable, repeatable scientific tests and predictions, to support our assertions about big bang cosmology and evolution. If these hold no weight to you, then you are not reasonable enough to have claimed to have studied science to any degree.

It doesn't matter how many scientists(christian or other)accept Ev. There was a time when most accepted the earth as the center of the universe. Should we have continued to ignore opposition simply b/c a majority said otherwise?

You're absolutely right - what matters is the evidence. And when the evidence is only ever rejected by those individuals who already possess a deep-seated bias against what that evidence demonstrates, it is clear that they are not entirely honest.

If there were only 2 or 3 body types with several variations there would be a chance for Ev. In the real world we have 100s of 1000s of completely different bodies, body parts&many different features. Again, either cells are the greatest geniuses ever or an IDr created everything.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Again, you clearly haven't the faintest idea what evolution is or how it works.

The right&left lung, kidney, eye, brain setup, arm, hand, leg, foot, etc. are full of parts that indicate it could not be done w/o an engineering feat beyond comprehension. Cells have so little intelligence that a 6 month old baby would be a genius far beyond their wildest dreams. Therefore, Ev is nothing but a very weak theory no matter how many people believe in it.

Again, you fail to grasp the simple concept that evolution is a non-conscious process. Cells didn't "decide" to mutate - mutation is not the result of intelligence. If you had studied biology, as you claimed you did, you would know that.

 

[philbo]

I totally agree. The social pressures are a large factor in the proccess. The reason I asked was specifically related to sexual arousal. If someone knew they were gay from a young age would they still be able to get sexually aroused from the opposite sex? And I only ask this because both people I know of have kids.

Most guys are fully capable of experiencing arousal and bringing themselves to orgasm even without someone they are explicitly aroused by in the room (if you see what I mean). I was about to say "it wouldn't be hard", but on consideration, it probably would be

 

[Agnostic75]

I would agree, but every gay person I have ever talked to has said that they knew they were gay since a young age, and if they denied it, it was because of social pressure. I have never met anyone that says there sexual preference changed during the course of their life, save for severe traumatical events, so I have no experience in this regard.

There are definitely cases of sexual identity changes, but they are rare, and are usually not a choice. I personally know a formerly married man who was married to a woman for over 15 years, and they had two children, and one day, his wife told him that through no choice of her own, she had become only sexually attracted to women.

 

[1robin]

There are definitely cases of sexual identity changes, but they are rare, and are usually not a choice. I personally know a formerly married man who was married to a woman for over 15 years, and they had two children, and one day, his wife told him that through no choice of her own, she had become only sexually attracted to women.

Hello Agnostic, you run in unusual circles. What is all this evolutionary stuff doing in this thread? If genetics determined homosexuality then how could your story be true?