Gay at birth?

Joeseph

@just_sayin

If its the case that change is a choice how come the throughly debunked practice of " conversion " therapy is such a dreadful failure?

It's truly tragic the lengths individuals like you will go to defend primitive religious dictates ......



HRC

Some right-wing religious groups promote the concept that an individual can change their sexual orientation or gender identity, either through prayer or other religious efforts, or through so-called "reparative" or "conversion" therapy. The research on such efforts has disproven their efficacy, and also has indicated that they are affirmatively harmful. Beyond studies focused solely on reparative therapy, broader research clearly demonstrates the significant harm that societal prejudice and family rejection has on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) people, particularly youth. Furthermore, there is significant anecdotal evidence of harm to LGBTQ+ people resulting from attempts to change their sexual orientation and gender identity. Based on this body of evidence, every major medical and mental health organization in the United States has issued a statement condemning the use of conversion therapy.

Psychiatrist Dr. L. Spitzer, who once offered a flawed study on reparative therapy, has since denounced the study and has apologized for endorsing the practice.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

Sexual identity fluidity, identity management stress, and depression among sexual minority adolescents

In the sample, 40% of SMA reported at least one change in sexual identity over 18-month period. Greater number of cisgender females reported sexual identity fluidity compared to their male counterparts (46.9% vs. 26.6%). 

At least one in five teenagers reports some change in sexual orientation during adolescence, according to new research from North Carolina State University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Pittsburgh.

If you look at the list of sexual identities there (Table 1), you will see that a lot of them are about perspective, not actual observable behaviors/traits. For example, there is "Bisexual" and "Pansexual" - what is the difference between the two? I have never gotten a clear answer from anyone identifying as either, yet generally "Pansexual" is seen as somehow more open-minded. Similarly, some people who have identified as "Straight" for a long time will switch to some other identity just to express their openness to the possibility of liking someone else, even though nothing changed in their actual preferences.

I recently learned, for example, that I am what is called "Demisexual", meaning that I do not experience sexual attraction to someone outside of the context of their personality. Well, if I was crazy about all these billions of categories, I could say, "Okay, I am no longer Straight: now I am Demisexual". While in reality nothing at all changed, I just learned a new label. Yet my statement would contribute to the positive statistics of these studies.

From reading your comments it would seem that your issue is that sexual orientation is defined by 4 aspects - attraction, behavior, identity, and group affiliation.  These allow for variation and change.  Are you arguing that people are born gay?  If so, what evidence do you have for that belief?

just_sayin

Joeseph said:

@just_sayin

If its the case that change is a choice how come the throughly debunked practice of " conversion " therapy is such a dreadful failure?

It's truly tragic the lengths individuals like you will go to defend primitive religious dictates ......



HRC

Some right-wing religious groups promote the concept that an individual can change their sexual orientation or gender identity, either through prayer or other religious efforts, or through so-called "reparative" or "conversion" therapy. The research on such efforts has disproven their efficacy, and also has indicated that they are affirmatively harmful. Beyond studies focused solely on reparative therapy, broader research clearly demonstrates the significant harm that societal prejudice and family rejection has on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) people, particularly youth. Furthermore, there is significant anecdotal evidence of harm to LGBTQ+ people resulting from attempts to change their sexual orientation and gender identity. Based on this body of evidence, every major medical and mental health organization in the United States has issued a statement condemning the use of conversion therapy.

Psychiatrist Dr. L. Spitzer, who once offered a flawed study on reparative therapy, has since denounced the study and has apologized for endorsing the practice.

SOCE is a topic beyond if a person is born gay and is incredibly nuanced.  So, rather than letting you change the topic to a discussion of SOCE, I will just take a quick moment and state that your claims are false according to the APA (American Psychological Association) report on SOCE.  

Former participants in SOCE reported diverse evaluations of their experiences: Some individuals perceived that they had benefited from SOCE, . . . [These] individuals reported that SOCE was helpful—for example, it helped them live in a manner consistent with their faith. Some individuals described finding a sense of community through religious SOCE and valued having others with whom they could identify. These effects are similar to those provided by mutual support groups for a range of problems, and the positive benefits reported by participants in SOCE, such as reduction of isolation, alterations in how problems are viewed, and stress reduction, are consistent with the findings of the general mutual support group literature.

^Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, August 2009), 3, https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf.

Nicholas A. Cummings a former president of the American Psychological Association said “of the patients I oversaw who sought to change their orientation, hundreds were successful” USA Today

 Individual’s goals
They generally sought therapy for one of three reasons: to come to grips with their gay identity, to resolve relationship issues or to change their sexual orientation. We would always inform patients in the third group that change was not easily accomplished. With clinical experience, my staff and I learned to assess the probability of change in those who wished to become heterosexual. Of the roughly 18,000 gay and lesbian patients whom we treated over 25 years through Kaiser, I believe that most had satisfactory outcomes. The majority were able to attain a happier and more stable homosexual lifestyle. Of the patients I oversaw who sought to change their orientation, hundreds were successful. I believe that our rate of success with reorientation was relatively high because we were selective in recommending therapeutic change efforts only to those who identified themselves as highly motivated and were clinically assessed as having a high probability of success.

Nicholas A. Cummings, “Sexual reorientation therapy not unethical: Column,” USA Today, July 30, 2013, accessed May 18, 2018, https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/30/sexual-reorientation-therapy-not-unethicalcolumn/2601159/.

 APA admits that there is no “valid causal evidence” that SOCE is harmful: 

RECENT STUDIES 
Although the recent studies do not provide valid causal evidence of the efficacy of SOCE or of its harm, some recent studies document that there are people who perceive that they have been harmed through SOCE . . . , just as other recent studies document that there are people who perceive that they have benefited from it . . . . . . . 

Summary We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. 

Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, August 2009), 42, https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf.

While I would love to call you out for your bigotry and desire to keep people from making their own personal mental and health decisions for themselves, I will refrain from doing so because it is outside the scope of the discussion - which is whether people are born gay.

Hey, you claimed people are are born gay - where's your evidence?  I keep asking.  And you, because you know you can't, answer the question, have provided no evidence that people are born gay.  I accept your lack of providing evidence that people are born gay, as admission that you have no valid argument.

RickeyHoltsclaw

No one is "gay" at birth...LGBTQ is demonic in origin and manifests in a life that compromises with the pathways opening the demonic to the soul.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

From reading your comments it would seem that your issue is that sexual orientation is defined by 4 aspects - attraction, behavior, identity, and group affiliation.  These allow for variation and change.  Are you arguing that people are born gay?  If so, what evidence do you have for that belief?

In the first paragraph of my first comment here I wrote this: "Even if homosexuality was purely environmental (which it very well might be)..." My point is simply that the evidence you are citing does not contribute to your argument. That I can choose to start calling myself Demisexual in place of Heterosexual does not imply that I can change what sex I am attracted to.

Joeseph

@just_sayin

ARGUMENT TOPIC : Just Lying is caught yet again only posting up part of the story on  the disgraced charlatan Nicholas .A Cummings .......

In 2015, at the age of 91, Dr. Cummings stated that his views on sexual orientation change efforts had been distorted and that he believed that the use of such “therapy” to “cure homosexuality” was unethical and a basic violation of human rights. He stated that he believed patients should have the right to choose their own treatment goals.

ZING 


Cummings in his own words ........

Success was not measured by whether a client changed sexual orientation. In fact, the number of clients who changed was relatively low. However, Dr. Cummings recalls that the majority of homosexual clients had positive results

ZING 

Nicholas Cummings was the president of the American Psychological Association from 1979 - 1980, but he now believes the organization he once led has been taken hostage by “ultraliberals” beholden to the “gay rights movement,” at the expense of "scientific objectivity." The people Cummings is describing here sometimes go by the title "licensed therapists" and "accredited medical associations that disagree with Nicholas Cummings."

You see, Cummings is a proponent and former practitioner of ex-gay therapy, a discredited (except, that is, among right-wing Christian organizations and "ex-gay" practitioners) pseudo-therapeutic practice that seeks to "cure" gay people.

ZING 

While I would love to call you out for your bigotry and desire to keep people from making their own personal mental and health decisions for themselves

But I never made any such arguments , the only bigot here is you who sees homosexuals as mentally sick sinners , so as usual you accuse others of your faults .

, I will refrain from doing so because it is outside the scope of the discussion - which is whether people are born gay.

We are all still waiting on you to prove homosexuality is a choice.

Hey, you claimed people are are born gay - where's your evidence?

The scientific  evidence has been posted to you by me and others several times pretending it hasn't just demonstrates how foolishly childish you are

I  know you can't, answer the question, have provided no evidence that people are born gay.  I accept your lack of providing evidence that people are born gay, as admission that you have no valid argument.

Again pretending you weren't presented with the facts is clear evidence of your continuous dishonesty .

We are all still waiting for you to prove that homosexuality is a choice , your buddy and poster boy the charlatan Cummings disagrees with you.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; LGBTQ is mental and spiritual illness. One "chooses" take another man's penis into his mouth.

jack

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

LGBTQ is mental and spiritual illness. One "chooses" take another man's penis into his mouth.

Hello Rickey:

Yeah, one mans spiritual illness is another mans boner.  Why do you hate freedom so??

excon

RickeyHoltsclaw

@jack Queerdom is a choice made by those who serve the demonic and lack wisdom, discernment, self-respect, honor, dignity.

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

LGBTQ is mental and spiritual illness.

Is it indeed , what would you call a grown man who believes in talking snakes , a zombie messiah and virgin births?


One "chooses" take another man's penis into his mouth.

Well OK if that's your thing 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; I believe it is the spiritually ignorant that believes Satan was a "snake" in Eden and denies that our Creator can manifest in flesh should He so choose to do so.

just_sayin

jack said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

LGBTQ is mental and spiritual illness. One "chooses" take another man's penis into his mouth.

Hello Rickey:

Yeah, one mans spiritual illness is another mans boner.  Why do you hate freedom so??

excon

Jack,

If you have been following the discussion it is people like @Joeseph, @Factfinder, @MayCaesar, and @ZeusAres42 that seem to claim that sexual orientation is immutable and that if someone wants to change their sexual orientation they should not be allowed to try or get help in changing.  I don't remember you asking why they hate freedom so much.  

Again, the evidence shows that people are not born gay - that there is no gay gene, so-called genetic markers are not genetically determinate, that there is fluidity in sexual orientation with between 10- 20% of the population having changed their sexual orientation.  

Factfinder

@just_sayin

If you have been following the discussion it is people like @Joeseph, @Factfinder, @MayCaesar, and @ZeusAres42 that seem to claim that sexual orientation is immutable and that if someone wants to change their sexual orientation they should not be allowed to try or get help in changing.  I don't remember you asking why they hate freedom so much. 

Fact: If you must out right lie to keep arguing you've already lost. Please post the specific comments by the exact people from their post or posts that made this argument.

Can you prove you chose to like girls before your orientation developed into what it is? Or was sexual preference bestowed upon you during your developmental years? Remember, each lie you tell like the one above, is another nail in the coffin of your faith. See, (?) it's not just the debate you've lost, each lie works against your faith as well.

jack

just_sayin said:

jack said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

LGBTQ is mental and spiritual illness. One "chooses" take another man's penis into his mouth.

Hello Rickey:

Yeah, one mans spiritual illness is another mans boner.  Why do you hate freedom so??

excon

Jack,

If you have been following the discussion it is people like @Joeseph, @Factfinder, @MayCaesar, and @ZeusAres42 that seem to claim that sexual orientation is immutable and that if someone wants to change their sexual orientation they should not be allowed to try or get help in changing.  I don't remember you asking why they hate freedom so much. .  

Hello j:

You didn't hear me addressing them cause I was addressing Rickey.  Irrespective of my belief that sexual orientation is immutable, I would never suggest that people who didn't believe as I do, weren't free to seek any remedy to any perceived problem that they choose. 

Ain't freedom grand?

excon

ZeusAres42

just_sayin said:

jack said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

LGBTQ is mental and spiritual illness. One "chooses" take another man's penis into his mouth.

Hello Rickey:

Yeah, one mans spiritual illness is another mans boner.  Why do you hate freedom so??

excon

Jack,

If you have been following the discussion it is people like @Joeseph, @Factfinder, @MayCaesar, and @ZeusAres42 that seem to claim that sexual orientation is immutable and that if someone wants to change their sexual orientation they should not be allowed to try or get help in changing.  I don't remember you asking why they hate freedom so much.  

Again, the evidence shows that people are not born gay - that there is no gay gene, so-called genetic markers are not genetically determinate, that there is fluidity in sexual orientation with between 10- 20% of the population having changed their sexual orientation.  

I also encourage you to read the discussion too and you fully read and take it in you will find that not one the people mentioned have made any such argument that someone is born to gay or that there is a gay gene. We don't have to provide evidence for arguments we don't make.

You will find however, someone making the argument here that someone can  physically choose to be physically attracted to on person on one day and then choose to be physically attracted to another person the next day. Of course, there is no evidence for this, it's nowhere to be seen in update literature including the outdated ones he references, and it's not even a topic that is discussed these days by contemporary scientists as it's archaic, 
and to mention how nonsensical it is. @jack

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

Jack,

If you have been following the discussion it is people like @Joeseph, @Factfinder, @MayCaesar, and @ZeusAres42 that seem to claim that sexual orientation is immutable and that if someone wants to change their sexual orientation they should not be allowed to try or get help in changing.  I don't remember you asking why they hate freedom so much.  

Again, the evidence shows that people are not born gay - that there is no gay gene, so-called genetic markers are not genetically determinate, that there is fluidity in sexual orientation with between 10- 20% of the population having changed their sexual orientation.  

I think what you have demonstrated with this comment is that you have not been following the discussion.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

If you have been following the discussion it is people like @Joeseph, @Factfinder, @MayCaesar, and @ZeusAres42 that seem to claim that sexual orientation is immutable and that if someone wants to change their sexual orientation they should not be allowed to try or get help in changing.  I don't remember you asking why they hate freedom so much. 

Fact: If you must out right lie to keep arguing you've already lost. Please post the specific comments by the exact people from their post or post that made this argument.

Can you prove you chose to like girls before your orientation developed into what it is? Or was sexual preference bestowed upon you during your developmental years? Remember, each lie you tell like the one above, is another nail in the coffin of your faith. See, (?) it's not just the debate you've lost, each lie works against your faith as well.

I have posted numerous studies that show that sexual orientation is fluid.  Let me post some more:

Here's a quote from the New Zealand 2023 National study

Over seven years, 5.7% of participants changed sexual identities at least once. Change was bi-directional (i.e. toward and away from LGB+ identities) and most common in people who initially reported a plurisexual identity. Although women reported higher rates of plurisexuality than men, they were not more fluid in their identities, contradicting the notion of male fixedness and female plasticity in sexuality. Moreover, openness to experience was associated with increased odds of changing from a heterosexual to a plurisexual identity, while political liberalism and lower conscientiousness were associated with increased odds of changing from a heterosexual to a plurisexual identity and more identity changes over time. Overall, our study shows that sexual identity can be fluid into adulthood and has implications for how we understand contemporary human sexuality.

US national study (includes most recent 5 studies):

Overall, about 1 in 11 American adults changed sexual identities over five annual surveys, including 6% of cisgender men, 11% of cisgender women, and 35% of gender minorities. Fluidity was particularly pronounced among young adults and among those who had ever identified as bisexual or “something else.”

Sexuality continues to change and develop well into adulthood, finds study

The study, published in the Journal of Sex Research, analysed surveys from around 12,000 students, and found that substantial changes in attractions, partners, and sexual identity are common from late adolescence to the early 20s, and from the early 20s to the late 20s—indicating that sexual orientation development continues long past adolescence into adulthood. The results also show distinct development pathways for men and women, with female sexuality being more fluid over time.

UK national study:

Almost 7% of people in UK changed sexual identity in six years, study suggests

One in 15 people – almost 7% of the UK population – changed their sexual identity over a six-year period, a new study suggests.

Almost 23,000 individuals were observed twice over six years by researchers from Lancaster University, using data from the United Kingdom household longitudinal study.
...
Researchers found that a significant minority (6.6%) of the cohort had changed their reported sexual identity over that period. The study’s main findings show:
Sexual identity mobility is higher among young people aged 16–24 (7.9%) and older adults aged 65 and over (7.4%), compared with those aged 25–64 (5.0%–6.2%).
Sexual identity mobility is 10% less likely among men (5.7%) than women (6.3%).
Sexual identity mobility is three times more likely among non-white minority ethnic individuals (15.5%) than among white people (5.0%).
Sexual identity mobility is more likely among less educated people.
The rates of moving into and out of heterosexual identities are comparable.

I will point this out for the 6th time - the definition of sexual orientation encompasses attractions, behaviors, identity, and group affiliation.  That means that they also measured attractions, as well as behaviors and identity.  

YOU have claimed that people do not change and that they never make a choice in changing.  Yet, you have not explained how attractions, behaviors, identity, or group affiliation changes without ever making a choice.  What causes people to change sexual orientations, some over 5 times in 5 years, as the studies show, if there is never a choice ever employed?  How does one change behaviors without a choice?  

jack

ZeusAres42 said:

I also encourage you to read the discussion too and you fully read and take it in you will find that not one the people mentioned have made any such argument that someone is born to gay or that there is a gay gene. We don't have to provide evidence for arguments we don't make.

You will find however, someone making the argument here that someone can  physically choose to be physically attracted to on person on one day and then choose to be physically attracted to another person the next day. Of course, there is no evidence for this, it's nowhere to be seen in update literature

Hello Z:

Well, then..  Good thing I happened along..  I'll make that argument..  Oh, not that there's a gay gene, but there are some people who have a propensity to be gay..  I dunno why.  One cannot doubt their existence.

Plus, in the real world, there are bi-sexual people who enjoy sex with everybody..  I dunno why this is either, but there's no doubt that these people are amongst us.  I don't think these people made a decision to be gay any more than I chose to be straight.  The only evidence I have is that I didn't choose, and in that regard, I think everybody is like me.

excon

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

If you have been following the discussion it is people like @Joeseph, @Factfinder, @MayCaesar, and @ZeusAres42 that seem to claim that sexual orientation is immutable and that if someone wants to change their sexual orientation they should not be allowed to try or get help in changing.  I don't remember you asking why they hate freedom so much. 

Fact: If you must out right lie to keep arguing you've already lost. Please post the specific comments by the exact people from their post or post that made this argument.

Can you prove you chose to like girls before your orientation developed into what it is? Or was sexual preference bestowed upon you during your developmental years? Remember, each lie you tell like the one above, is another nail in the coffin of your faith. See, (?) it's not just the debate you've lost, each lie works against your faith as well.

I have posted numerous studies that show that sexual orientation is fluid.  Let me post some more:

Here's a quote from the New Zealand 2023 National study

Over seven years, 5.7% of participants changed sexual identities at least once. Change was bi-directional (i.e. toward and away from LGB+ identities) and most common in people who initially reported a plurisexual identity. Although women reported higher rates of plurisexuality than men, they were not more fluid in their identities, contradicting the notion of male fixedness and female plasticity in sexuality. Moreover, openness to experience was associated with increased odds of changing from a heterosexual to a plurisexual identity, while political liberalism and lower conscientiousness were associated with increased odds of changing from a heterosexual to a plurisexual identity and more identity changes over time. Overall, our study shows that sexual identity can be fluid into adulthood and has implications for how we understand contemporary human sexuality.

US national study (includes most recent 5 studies):

Overall, about 1 in 11 American adults changed sexual identities over five annual surveys, including 6% of cisgender men, 11% of cisgender women, and 35% of gender minorities. Fluidity was particularly pronounced among young adults and among those who had ever identified as bisexual or “something else.”

Sexuality continues to change and develop well into adulthood, finds study

The study, published in the Journal of Sex Research, analysed surveys from around 12,000 students, and found that substantial changes in attractions, partners, and sexual identity are common from late adolescence to the early 20s, and from the early 20s to the late 20s—indicating that sexual orientation development continues long past adolescence into adulthood. The results also show distinct development pathways for men and women, with female sexuality being more fluid over time.

UK national study:

Almost 7% of people in UK changed sexual identity in six years, study suggests

One in 15 people – almost 7% of the UK population – changed their sexual identity over a six-year period, a new study suggests.

Almost 23,000 individuals were observed twice over six years by researchers from Lancaster University, using data from the United Kingdom household longitudinal study.
...
Researchers found that a significant minority (6.6%) of the cohort had changed their reported sexual identity over that period. The study’s main findings show:
Sexual identity mobility is higher among young people aged 16–24 (7.9%) and older adults aged 65 and over (7.4%), compared with those aged 25–64 (5.0%–6.2%).
Sexual identity mobility is 10% less likely among men (5.7%) than women (6.3%).
Sexual identity mobility is three times more likely among non-white minority ethnic individuals (15.5%) than among white people (5.0%).
Sexual identity mobility is more likely among less educated people.
The rates of moving into and out of heterosexual identities are comparable.

I will point this out for the 6th time - the definition of sexual orientation encompasses attractions, behaviors, identity, and group affiliation.  That means that they also measured attractions, as well as behaviors and identity.  

YOU have claimed that people do not change and that they never make a choice in changing.  Yet, you have not explained how attractions, behaviors, identity, or group affiliation changes without ever making a choice.  What causes people to change sexual orientations, some over 5 times in 5 years, as the studies show, if there is never a choice ever employed?  How does one change behaviors without a choice?  

No matter how many times you point out red herrings, you haven't proven I or anyone else made this argument you falsely accused...

If you have been following the discussion it is people like @Joeseph, @Factfinder, @MayCaesar, and @ZeusAres42 that seem to claim that sexual orientation is immutable and that if someone wants to change their sexual orientation they should not be allowed to try or get help in changing.  I don't remember you asking why they hate freedom so much. 

Can you not read? I said, "The thing is no one argued sexual orientation can't be changed. The point of contention concerns before any possible change occurs."

Now with that fresh in your mind care to try responding in quick pro quo fashion instead of bull crap? To this again...

Fact: If you must out right lie to keep arguing you've already lost. Please post the specific comments by the exact people from their post or post that made this argument.

Can you prove you chose to like girls before your orientation developed into what it is? Or was sexual preference bestowed upon you during your developmental years? Remember, each lie you tell like the one above, is another nail in the coffin of your faith. See, (?) it's not just the debate you've lost, each lie works against your faith as well.

just_sayin

jack said:

just_sayin said:

jack said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

LGBTQ is mental and spiritual illness. One "chooses" take another man's penis into his mouth.

Hello Rickey:

Yeah, one mans spiritual illness is another mans boner.  Why do you hate freedom so??

excon

Jack,

If you have been following the discussion it is people like @Joeseph, @Factfinder, @MayCaesar, and @ZeusAres42 that seem to claim that sexual orientation is immutable and that if someone wants to change their sexual orientation they should not be allowed to try or get help in changing.  I don't remember you asking why they hate freedom so much. .  

Hello j:

You didn't hear me addressing them cause I was addressing Rickey.  Irrespective of my belief that sexual orientation is immutable, I would never suggest that people who didn't believe as I do, weren't free to seek any remedy to any perceived problem that they choose. 

Ain't freedom grand?

excon

Jack,  on the point of allowing others the freedom to choose the sexual orientation they wish or having the freedom to seek a SOCE we agree.  

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Yes you believe a lot of very strange bizarre things I agree

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; I believe what is written in the Holy Scriptures and I believe without Jesus as your Messiah you will die in Hell.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@just_sayin ; If you desire to choose a demonic form of sexual expression and experience...keep it to yourself and stuff it in the closet...don't force upon others and don't seek to demonize our children with your perverse filth.

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Yes I know you believe in a god that approves of slavery , I hold myself to higher moral standards 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; You're a slave to Satan; I'm a slave to Jesus....get over it.

just_sayin

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@just_sayin ; If you desire to choose a demonic form of sexual expression and experience...keep it to yourself and stuff it in the closet...don't force upon others and don't seek to demonize our children with your perverse filth.

Don't confuse the fact that I think an adult should be able to choose their sexual orientation, which apparently you and @ZuesAres42 don't think they should have that right, with condoning behaviors that the Bible calls sin.  I think homosexuality is a sin and an unhealthy lifestyle, but I think adults should have the right to decide for themselves how they will live their lives.  I believe gluttony is a sin, but I don't force fat kids to go to fat camp and put locks on their refrigerators.  Tell me, have you ever shut down a church potluck because it was contributing to gluttony or obesity?  

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

You're a slave to Satan; I'm a slave to Jesus....get over it.


I don't believe is Satan or God .......you worship a God that approves of slavery 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; You are a slave...slavery has been an institution for 6000-years....man wanted slavery....Elohim worked around and through...your facade of arrogance and superiority over Elohim's sovereignty won't buy your way out of Hell. Only Jesus is the Door to Life. You are Satan's fo-ol.

 

ZeusAres42

@MayCaesar

One thing I am confused by what you said is that orientation may very well be purely environmental. Surely you can't be suggesting that biology plays no part in physical attraction?  I'm not saying you are saying this. I am just asking for clarification. 

I mean there might be some outlier cases where sexual orientation seems to be very much environmentally influenced but that doesn't negate any biological influence here and wouldn't make any sense to suggest that since you need biological underpinnings in the first place for biological organisms to be influenced by their environmental factors.

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

@MayCaesar

One thing I am confused by what you said is that orientation may very well be purely environmental. Surely you can't be suggesting that biology plays no part in physical attraction?  I'm not saying you are saying this. I am just asking for clarification. 

I mean there might be some outlier cases where sexual orientation seems to be very much environmentally influenced but that doesn't negate any biological influence here and wouldn't make any sense to suggest that since you need biological underpinnings in the first place for biological organisms to be influenced by their environmental factors.

ZuesAres42, Just a question of clarification.  The half a million participant study found no gay genetic markers in over 60% of self-identified non-heterosexuals.  What evidence of biological factors are you claiming there is evidence for, for this group?  

ZeusAres42

@just_sayin

I am talking now with MayCaesar. Our discussions are not your discussion. And I have no idea who you are arguing with, but it certainly isn't me or any of the other people you referenced earlier. 

ZeusAres42

@just_sayin

One thing I do have for you, though, is a challenge: Find someone to whom you are not physically (it doesn't matter what sex) attracted and then choose to be physically attracted to them for a week. Then, choose to be physically no longer attracted to them. 

Remember, this isn't about engaging in behaviour but physical attraction. Since you see these two concepts as the same thing anyway, this challenge shouldn't be too hard for you. 

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

You are a slave..

Ehh , no I'm not but you are a slave to your immoral g9d 


.slavery has been an institution for 6000-years....man wanted slavery

So did your god as he totally approved of it.

....Elohim worked around and through

Your god approved of women being sold as sex slaves 

...your facade of arrogance and superiority over Elohim's sovereignty won't buy your way out of Hell

I'm superior to your immoral god 


. Only Jesus is the Door to Life. You are Satan's fo-ol.

Jesus approved of slavery ......there is still no god or Satan you raging loon 

MayCaesar

ZeusAres42 said:

@MayCaesar

One thing I am confused by what you said is that orientation may very well be purely environmental. Surely you can't be suggesting that biology plays no part in physical attraction?  I'm not saying you are saying this. I am just asking for clarification. 

I mean there might be some outlier cases where sexual orientation seems to be very much environmentally influenced but that doesn't negate any biological influence here and wouldn't make any sense to suggest that since you need biological underpinnings in the first place for biological organisms to be influenced by their environmental factors.

This is a good question. Technically speaking, everything is biologically influenced to some extent. We interact with our environment, our organism reacts to that interaction in the way determined by biology, and the biology shifts as a consequence. For this process to be launched in the first place, some biological imprint has to be there.

However, the question arises: are people with two different biological imprints, yet subjected to the same environmental factors, going to develop their sexuality independently? How strong is the overlap? It is possible that it is 0%, but it is also possible that it is 100%. Our biological imprints may differ significantly, yet the differences might be quite irrelevant when it comes to development of this particular trait. This possibility is what I was suggesting.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; Jesus allowed society to choose its way and called those who belong to Him to live in accordance with the Father's will. Slavery is man's institution, not Elohim's though He allows man to "choose" to enslave and dominate due the fallen nature via the Adamic curse. You are a blind servant of Satan headed to death in Hell in your servitude and enslavement to him...

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@MayCaesar

One thing I am confused by what you said is that orientation may very well be purely environmental. Surely you can't be suggesting that biology plays no part in physical attraction?  I'm not saying you are saying this. I am just asking for clarification. 

I mean there might be some outlier cases where sexual orientation seems to be very much environmentally influenced but that doesn't negate any biological influence here and wouldn't make any sense to suggest that since you need biological underpinnings in the first place for biological organisms to be influenced by their environmental factors.

This is a good question. Technically speaking, everything is biologically influenced to some extent. We interact with our environment, our organism reacts to that interaction in the way determined by biology, and the biology shifts as a consequence. For this process to be launched in the first place, some biological imprint has to be there.

However, the question arises: are people with two different biological imprints, yet subjected to the same environmental factors, going to develop their sexuality independently? How strong is the overlap? It is possible that it is 0%, but it is also possible that it is 100%. Our biological imprints may differ significantly, yet the differences might be quite irrelevant when it comes to development of this particular trait. This possibility is what I was suggesting.

Not butting in but I just wanted to let you know May the rhetoricals you bring up is a major reason why I say the science is inconclusive to date.

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

One thing I do have for you, though, is a challenge: Find someone to whom you are not physically (it doesn't matter what sex) attracted and then choose to be physically attracted to them for a week. Then, choose to be physically no longer attracted to them. 

Remember, this isn't about engaging in behaviour but physical attraction. Since you see these two concepts as the same thing anyway, this challenge shouldn't be too hard for you. 

The research I pointed to included specific details about how attraction is fluid as well as the other 3 aspects of sexual orientation.  

I am always interested in debating, but I just don't have any interest in being personally attacked. 

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

One thing I do have for you, though, is a challenge: Find someone to whom you are not physically (it doesn't matter what sex) attracted and then choose to be physically attracted to them for a week. Then, choose to be physically no longer attracted to them. 

Remember, this isn't about engaging in behaviour but physical attraction. Since you see these two concepts as the same thing anyway, this challenge shouldn't be too hard for you. 

The research I pointed to included specific details about how attraction is fluid as well as the other 3 aspects of sexual orientation.  

I am always interested in debating, but I just don't have any interest in being personally attacked. 

So you can't change? How is asking you to personally demonstrate your claims as true a personal attack?

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@MayCaesar

One thing I am confused by what you said is that orientation may very well be purely environmental. Surely you can't be suggesting that biology plays no part in physical attraction?  I'm not saying you are saying this. I am just asking for clarification. 

I mean there might be some outlier cases where sexual orientation seems to be very much environmentally influenced but that doesn't negate any biological influence here and wouldn't make any sense to suggest that since you need biological underpinnings in the first place for biological organisms to be influenced by their environmental factors.

This is a good question. Technically speaking, everything is biologically influenced to some extent. We interact with our environment, our organism reacts to that interaction in the way determined by biology, and the biology shifts as a consequence. For this process to be launched in the first place, some biological imprint has to be there.

However, the question arises: are people with two different biological imprints, yet subjected to the same environmental factors, going to develop their sexuality independently? How strong is the overlap? It is possible that it is 0%, but it is also possible that it is 100%. Our biological imprints may differ significantly, yet the differences might be quite irrelevant when it comes to development of this particular trait. This possibility is what I was suggesting.

However, the question arises: are people with two different biological imprints, yet subjected to the same environmental factors, going to develop their sexuality independently? How strong is the overlap? It is possible that it is 0%, but it is also possible that it is 100%. Our biological imprints may differ significantly, yet the differences might be quite irrelevant when it comes to development of this particular trait. This possibility is what I was suggesting.

This seems pretty much on par with a chapter I recently came back to from the book called "Reason: Book I & II: A Critical Thinking- Reason-and Science-based Approach to Issues That Matter (Dr Bos Critical Thinking Series). 

Without potentially infringing too much on copyright, I will say that there is a bit in this section where the Author says that even if a trait is a certain percentage, that doesn't necessarily mean that when forced upon by environmental factors, the result will be the same percentage of an expression of those genes. 

@MayCaesar

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Jesus allowed society to choose its way and called those who belong to Him to live in accordance with the Father's will. Slavery is man's institution, not Elohim's though He allows man to "choose" to enslave and dominate due the fallen nature via the Adamic curse. You are a blind servant of Satan headed to death in Hell in your servitude and enslavement to him...





Incorrect , you really need to open a bible some day .......

Exodus 21:20-21New International Version

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Straight from your gods mouth slavery totally approved of.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; Yep....slavery was a thing...as was indentured servitude....your objections to a 5000-year old institution observed around the World will not suffice as an excuse for your rejection of Jesus as Messiah while standing in Judgment.

ZeusAres42

@just_sayin

I didn't personally attack you. I proposed a challenge for you to choose to be physically attracted to someone you have no physical attraction to. That isn't a personal attack. That is a challenging proposal based on the predication of your argument. 

If physical attraction is related to wilful shifts, this can be demonstrated via experimentation, right?  Isn't that what you mean when you talk about sexual fluidity? All you need to do is go out, pick a person who you find completely unattractive and willfully choose to be physically attracted to that person for one week. 

Perhaps, though, one week is not enough. Probably with enough effort and determination, maybe even with the help of some conversion therapy, you could find yourself physically attracted to that person, say, in a few months perhaps?

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw ;

; Yep....slavery was a thing.

Yep....... and approved by your god.

..as was indentured servitude

Which is not the following .......

Exodus 21:20-21New International Version

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

....your objections to a 5000-year old institution observed around the World will not suffice as an excuse for your rejection of Jesus as Messiah while standing in Judgment.


A 5000 year old institution approved by your god 

Why would I worship a god that approves of slavery , the beating of slaves and the selling of slaves , I''ve more moralty in my little finger than the god you crawl to .

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; Elohim would have preferred that slavery not exist...but it did and it does...and Elohim commanded that the refugees of war and poverty and famine be brought into the fold of Israel's theocracy and treated humanely and offered freedom subsequent a set time of servitude....your obfuscation will not find traction at judgment.

just_sayin

Joeseph said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw ;

; Yep....slavery was a thing.

Yep....... and approved by your god.

..as was indentured servitude

Which is not the following .......

Exodus 21:20-21New International Version

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

....your objections to a 5000-year old institution observed around the World will not suffice as an excuse for your rejection of Jesus as Messiah while standing in Judgment.


A 5000 year old institution approved by your god 

Why would I worship a god that approves of slavery , the beating of slaves and the selling of slaves , I''ve more moralty in my little finger than the god you crawl to .

You've brought this issue up several times now.  It's not really appropriate for this discussion, but I tell you what, I'll create a new debate about it and we can talk there.

PorfirioDiaz

The only species to have self awareness?. Like the way Orcas share information between pods, elephant behavior with humans, or a fox's awareness to nest around human homes to protect cubs. The list goes on, humans are not the only species with self awareness i can assure you that. We are the most capable species but not the most self aware.

When it comes to being born gay and the claims brought forward by the scientific community stating there is no evidence to back such claims in human genes. It is impossible in this day and age with the technological research at hand to confirm whether or not it is a valid. People born with peanut allergies has no specific answer as to other closely related debates such as the one of being born gay. It is all speculation and all i could say from the rare interactions ive had with people claiming to be gay whether  male or female is that for men, it is highly probable that some are born female but in a males body and some are born male but in a females body. How this is possible i dont know.

But being born gay is definately not a choice. That is like a straight man forced to get it by another man i. The butt and be told that is normal.


Human genetic  error at its core.

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Jesus allowed society to choose its way and called those who belong to Him to live in accordance with the Father's will.

The fathers will was slavery is just fine.


Slavery is man's institution, not Elohim's

Yet god set up the law and dictates for owning people as property.


 though He allows man to "choose" to enslave and dominate due the fallen nature via the Adamic curse

Yes I know god approves of slavery as clearly stated in the bible, so why are you arguing if you agree?

. You are a blind servant of Satan headed to death in Hell in your servitude and enslavement to him...

Yet I don't approve of slavery you and your god do  , if there was a Hell Jesus and God would roast for approving of owning people as property

Joeseph

@just_sayin

Great ,look forward to it.

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Elohim would have preferred that slavery not exist.

The all powerful God couldn't prevent it? Show me from the bible where he said he'd prefer there was no slavery? Why are you lying?


..but it did and it does...and Elohim commanded that the refugees of war and poverty and famine be brought into the fold of Israel's theocracy and treated humanely and offered freedom subsequent a set time of servitude

Your god clearly stated the slaves could be bought and sold from the nations around one , he also said Hebrew slaves could be released after 7 years others could be held for life and inherited, God also said his own people should never be treated this way , he also said slaves were your inheritance and could be bought , sold , beaten as they were your property.


....your obfuscation will not find traction at judgment.

My " obfuscation " , i'm sorry simply worded statements confuse you but I firmly believe this is another piss poor attempt by you to deflect from admitting your god is by any standards a scumbag  which makes you as him a fellow scum bag.

Your god has as much right to judge me as Hitler did the Jews ......none 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; @Factfincer @21CenturyIConoclast Elohim places "free will" as paramount in His creation narrative as void that free will, intimacy with Him cannot exist with authenticity and validity. Elohim desires love, peace, holiness, unity, but tolerates the sin-nature of the beast and of man in order that His perfect eschatological will and divine example of the horrors of sin be made manifest to His faithful and holy angels. You don't understand because you don't understand our reason for being and you have "chosen" spiritual ignorance and personal arrogance as you clamor for Hell and death and suffering in your own life...you are a lost, vulgar, demonically influenced, useless, soul as are 99% of the participants in this forum...this, by your own corrupted free will.