Homosexuality: Wrong or Right?

[MatthewG]

13 Years ago

 

[Wrangler]

I gave you a sound argument as to why the concept, as understood in our culture, is empty and meaningless outside the concept of sexuality. Try making your own argument if you can.

Brilliant.

A hallmark of evil is in attacking our capacity to think rationally and clearly. This explains the strong movement to shift to subordinate or jettison objective reality to subjective whim and emotion.

I love the concise expression, Gender affirming is sex denying. The idea that a medical doctor cannot determine if the baby is male or female is ludicrous. But this shows how insane our society is to suppose it's even debatable, such catering and disservice we do for those with mental problems.

Bob doesn't exist unless he has two parents, male and female. Bob isn't gay because his mother has a gay gene. Bob is gay because he suffered damage to his psyche during childhood.

And we end at the beginning. Homosexuality is not normal. Calling aberrant behavior "minority" is an attempt at white washing evil.

 

[Wrangler]

So, let the record show that you're now desperately trying to avoid giving evidence that what is referred to by LGBT ideology as "sexual orientation" is irrevocably fixed at birth.

If I may make a small correction. Sex and normal orientation is fixed by God at conception.

It is discovered at birth and many times, much earlier.

Thus, the weaponization of "assigned" sex AS IF it is arbitrary, capricious, and hateful, not taking into account people's feelings years later.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Brilliant.

A hallmark of evil is in attacking our capacity to think rationally and clearly. This explains the strong movement to shift to subordinate or jettison objective reality to subjective whim and emotion.

I love the concise expression, Gender affirming is sex denying. The idea that a medical doctor cannot determine if the baby is male or female is ludicrous. But this shows how insane our society is to suppose it's even debatable, such catering and disservice we do for those with mental problems.


And we end at the beginning. Homosexuality is not normal. Calling aberrant behavior "minority" is an attempt at white washing evil.

I wasn't making any up as you probably know. Until recent history, it was always understood by psychologists that homosexuality was a disease of the psyche. And everything I said about children's mental health was right out of my college classroom training in childhood development. (I would be a school teacher until the Lord led me in a different direction.) I can only imagine the extent of the damage being done to kids by the teaching that orientation is innate.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Yeah, I can tell by your

that you're just devastated.

I cast all my cares upon the Lord as per His instructions... so I am care free!

 

[Wrangler]

Until recent history, it was always understood by psychologists that homosexuality was a disease of the psyche. And everything I said about children's mental health was right out of my college classroom training in childhood development.

As Fauci said, the ‘science’ has changed and kids like @TinMan gobble it up as the Gospel truth - pun intended.

 

[Wrangler]

I wasn't making any up as you probably know.

I know you were not making any scientific statement up. At our age, we were educated.

For decades, the youth have been indoctrinated, radicalized into Cultural Marxism. Part of this indoctrination is to deny there even is such a thing as Cultural Marxism.

The importance of this is to establish in the victims mind that all of existence is subsumed by their radical Cultural Marxist ideology.

This explains @TinMan’s guard for us to ‘prove’ our non-Cultural Marxist statements. He reflexively blocks at the threshold of his mind, preventing their entry for introspection. Thereby, only Cultural Marxist approved ideas are deemed valid by default.

Our society is doomed.

 

[TinMan]

Can you quote the post where I said that hate and violence were deserved?

‘experiencing hate and discrimination’ as you call it, tends to happen when you do something EVIL.

Sinners do evil against sinners.

you are the one who said he succumbed to EVIL. (here is where you lied and said i was the one who called a murdered 8 year old EVIL)

sin is done to sinners.

You are denying the boy is evil.

You want to pretend the sin against the 8 year old was unprovoked by the evil of the 8 year old. This is untrue.

He provoked his abuser.

You know what he did. You just deny there is evil in it.

 

[TinMan]

I respectfully disagree. I think a fair reading of my arguments will prove them to be sound.

Once again, you missed the point entirely. Whether a trait is inherited through one parent or both parents, nothing at all is inherited apart from the activity of reproduction. Male-male bonding doesn't produce a child. Female-female bonding doesn't produce a child. Without reproduction, there is no evolutionary pressure that will increase the likelihood of a supposed mitochondrial DNA symbiosis. If the supposed symbiosis forms accidentally through mutation, the gene will not survive into the subsequent generations. The mother will not have a gene for her child to inherit.

The only way your theory works is if women who were supposedly oriented toward other women, mated with men contrary to their nature. And if this is true, the orientation is meaningless.

No it happens when the genes responsible are passed on through the mother.

Once again the genes do different things in the parent than in the offspring. In the mother the genes are responsible for making women more fertile.

Yes, I do. Human nature, behavior, and motives are not hard to discern for those willing to spend the time to listen and observe.

You can believe me or don't.

I don't

Well, if there is such a thing as "orientation," mine is correct. Healthy orientation is male-female adult orientation. All others are mental disorders.

that is bigotry not logic

Who is pretending? I gave you a sound argument as to why the concept, as understood in our culture, is empty and meaningless outside the concept of sexuality. Try making your own argument if you can.

No you gave an argument that ignored basic facts

The likelihood of fertility has nothing to do with it. Reproduction requires both a father and a mother. A male-male orientation doesn't involve a woman. A female-female orientation involves two women, neither of which can contribute sperm. Therefore, there is no biological advantage to a supposed mother-inherited trait associated with reproduction.

A trait that makes a woman more likely to conceive would he a biological advantage.

Bob doesn't exist unless he has two parents, male and female. Bob isn't gay because his mother has a gay gene. Bob is gay because he suffered damage to his psyche during childhood.

Like most homosexuals Bob had a happy childhood free of any sort of trauma.

 

[TinMan]

Being a minority does not bestow moral righteousness or allow immoral actions with impunity.

Denying they are a minority is an immoral action.

 

[TinMan]

Your typical incredulous questioning prompted my use of the word "suspect."

Don't blame me for the words you choose. Man up and own what you post.

 

[TinMan]

I wasn't making any up as you probably know. Until recent history, it was always understood by psychologists that homosexuality was a disease of the psyche.

That isn't true. It only became listed in the DSM II in 1968 due to political pressure. It was immediately challenged on the basis of the lack of evidence to support the claim that it was a mental illness.

"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation. It cannot be classified as an illness; We consider it to be a variation of the sexual function" Sigmund Freud personal correspondence
1935

 

[BarneyFife]

Don't blame me for the words you choose. Man up and own what you post.

I don't blame you or anyone for my choices. I wouldn't change my choice of words if I had it to do over again. I don't indulge in A-to-C thinking. I don't believe that activating events lead directly to emotional consequences.

You asked me what kind of evidence would meet with better than out-of-hand dismissal and I suggested something with a source that wouldn't immediately arouse suspicion.

Then, of course, ensued the usual TinMan dance around the main point of discussion.

So, again: I'm sure you'd like nothing better than to portray that I don't know the difference between the words "suspect" and "invalid." It looks like you've already succeeded to some degree.

But you're not fooling me. I know by now that there is no word you won't stoop to weaponize.

That everyone must give evidence for their claims is key to your 3-point campaign platform.

Everyone but you, that is.

So, let the record show that you're now desperately trying to avoid giving evidence that what is referred to by LGBT ideology as "sexual orientation" is irrevocably fixed at birth.

Unless, since we now seem to be playing games, you'd like to ante up or fold at this time.

.

 

[TinMan]

I don't blame you or anyone for my choices. I wouldn't change my choice of words if I had it to do over again. I don't indulge in A-to-C thinking. I don't believe that activating events lead directly to emotional consequences.

You asked me what kind of evidence would meet with better than out-of-hand dismissal and I suggested something with a source that wouldn't immediately arouse suspicion.

Then, of course, ensued the usual TinMan dance around the main point of discussion.

So, again: I'm sure you'd like nothing better than to portray that I don't know the difference between the words "suspect" and "invalid." It looks like you've already succeeded to some degree.

But you're not fooling me. I know by now that there is no word you won't stoop to weaponize.

That everyone must give evidence for their claims is key to your 3-point campaign platform.

Everyone but you, that is.

So, let the record show that you're now desperately trying to avoid giving evidence that what is referred to by LGBT ideology as "sexual orientation" is irrevocably fixed at birth.

Unless, since we now seem to be playing games, you'd like to ante up or fold at this time.

.

If you want to play childish games fine.

We can start with a rather study, from 30 years ago, no where near the oldest showing your claims that such research is in its infancy to be so much hot air. Hamer DH, Hu S, Magnuson VL, Hu N, Pattatucci AM. A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science. 1993
"The role of genetics in male sexual orientation was investigated by pedigree and linkage analyses on 114 families of homosexual men. Increased rates of same-sex orientation were found in the maternal uncles and male cousins of these subjects, but not in their fathers or paternal relatives," and found: "correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome"

At the time the finding was controversial and many groups tried very hard to discredit it but the findings have been confirms by at least 15 subsequent studies: For example Hu S, Pattatucci AM, Patterson C, Li L, Fulker DW, Cherny SS, Kruglyak L, Hamer DH. Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females. Nat Genet. 1995

Following improvements in genetic mapping confirmed the Xq28 link Sanders, A., Martin, E., Beecham, G., et al, Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation. Psychological Medicine, 2015 "We conducted a genome-wide linkage scan on 409 independent pairs of homosexual brothers (908 analyzed individuals in 384 families), by far the largest study of its kind to date." The confirmed the role of Xq28 and showed it to be a larger influence than previously thought and they also found a second linkage on Chromosome 8.

A Ganna et al. Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior. Science 2019 analyzed the DNA of nearly half a million people from the U.S. and the U.K. They focused on "five autosomal loci were significantly associated with same-sex sexual behavior." These 5 account for about 25% of genetic influence leading to homosexuality. The authors note that there are over 100 other loci that have yet to be analyzed. "Same-sex sexual behavior is influenced by not one or a few genes but many. Overlap with genetic influences on other traits provides insights into the underlying biology of same-sex sexual behavior,"

Looking briefly at the environmental influence one of the interesting studies that show a lack of environmental influence is Reiner WG. Psychosexual development in genetic males assigned female: the cloacal exstrophy experience. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2004 Genetic males who, through accidents, or being born without penises, were subjected to sex change and raised as girls. As adults these all men attracted to women and more than half identified as transexual. The fact that you cannot make a genetic male sexually attracted to another male by raising him as a girl makes any social or environmental claim out the window.


Do I expect you to honestly look at all this? No, of course not. As far as the studies to I would expect you to latch onto some imagined study flaw and dismiss them or you will engage in juvenal word games involving claims of "conclusive" evidence even knowing that there is no such thing as conclusive evidence.

On a personal level i expect you to respond as you always do with insults, name calling, and belittlement.

 

[St. SteVen]

New topic available. (shameless self-promotion)

Is the ability to procreate the only requirement for the "model" marriage?

/

 

[CadyandZoe]

No it happens when the genes responsible are passed on through the mother.

Again, none of this matters with respect to the point I was making.

Once again the genes do different things in the parent than in the offspring. In the mother the genes are responsible for making women more fertile.

Again, fertility has nothing to do with it.

that is bigotry not logic

How is it bigotry? I think you misunderstand. I say that my orientation is correct in the sense that it is fitting for the purpose and design for reproduction. There is only one orientation suitable for reproduction: male-female. All other so-called orientations violate the created order and are contrary to reason, which is why they are wrong.

If you are in New York and aim to drive to San Francisco, the only orientation possible is westerly. Common sense. Yes?

No you gave an argument that ignored basic facts

I acknowledge that in my previous argument, I may have disregarded scientific conclusions. However, I have always based my arguments on factual evidence. I also argued that scientists' conclusions reflect their worldview, which includes a set of beliefs, values, assumptions, and perspectives. This worldview shapes how they see reality and gives meaning to their lives. Therefore, a scientist's work must conform to the dominant paradigm regarding the origin and purpose of human existence to get published.

As Christians, we hold a distinct view of reality, the purpose of existence, the sources of knowledge and truth, moral principles, and our goals for the future that differ from the dominant paradigm. Therefore, any paper that presents a worldview other than the Biblical worldview, I dismiss. I hold the freedom to disagree with scientific conclusions since they are not matters of fact but matters of philosophy.

I encourage you to consider this next time you read a scientific paper concerning psychology or sociology.

A trait that makes a woman more likely to conceive would he a biological advantage.

It is only an advantage to her, not to her progeny.

Like most homosexuals Bob had a happy childhood free of any sort of trauma.

In your dream world. If that were true, your argument that minority stress is the cause of substance abuse is defeated. Either Bob was happy or he wasn't. You can't have it both ways.

 

[CadyandZoe]

That isn't true. It only became listed in the DSM II in 1968 due to political pressure. It was immediately challenged on the basis of the lack of evidence to support the claim that it was a mental illness.

"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation. It cannot be classified as an illness; We consider it to be a variation of the sexual function" Sigmund Freud personal correspondence
1935

So you admit that science is subject to political pressure.

 

[TinMan]

Again, none of this matters with respect to the point I was making.

Again, fertility has nothing to do with it.

Blanket denials don't change reality

How is it bigotry? I think you misunderstand. I say that my orientation is correct in the sense that it is fitting for the purpose and design for reproduction. There is only one orientation suitable for reproduction: male-female. All other so-called orientations violate the created order and are contrary to reason, which is why they are wrong.

Your orientation is correct for you. not for everyone. just as you skin color is correct for you but not for everyone.

If you are in New York and aim to drive to San Francisco, the only orientation possible is westerly. Common sense. Yes?

What does a direction you are facing have to do with how you romantically love?

I acknowledge that in my previous argument, I may have disregarded scientific conclusions. However, I have always based my arguments on factual evidence.

Fact. homosexuality is not a mental illness. It fails to meet even the broadest definition of mental illness
Fact. Geans can and are posses on only through one parent
Fact. Everyone's orientation is inborn
Fact. Legitimate scientific research has innumerable checks to ensure that researcher bias does not figure into that research

I also argued that scientists' conclusions reflect their worldview, which includes a set of beliefs, values, assumptions, and perspectives.

Can is not the same as does. If you want to claim that a piece of research is biased based on the belief of the researcher then you need to demonstrate that for that research.

This worldview shapes how they see reality and gives meaning to their lives. Therefore, a scientist's work must conform to the dominant paradigm regarding the origin and purpose of human existence to get published.

That is no fact at all. The opposite is true. Scientists love finding things that break the dominant understanding of a subject. Doing opens up new routs of investigation and new paradigmens of thinking.

As Christians, we hold a distinct view of reality, the purpose of existence, the sources of knowledge and truth, moral principles, and our goals for the future that differ from the dominant paradigm. Therefore, any paper that presents a worldview other than the Biblical worldview, I dismiss.

Demonstrating that what you are presenting is not based in fact but on YOUR worldviews.

I hold the freedom to disagree with scientific conclusions since they are not matters of fact but matters of philosophy.

they are matters of fact and it's dishonest to say otherwise

It is only an advantage to her, not to her progeny.

Passing on the gene means her daughters will have higher fertility so yes it is an advantage

In your dream world. If that were true, your argument that minority stress is the cause of substance abuse is defeated. Either Bob was happy or he wasn't. You can't have it both ways.

The fictional Bob appeared to illustrate how genetics and sickle cell anemia work. You later tried to claim "Bob is gay because he suffered damage to his psyche during childhood." Which is a construct of your personal prejudice not fact.

 

[TinMan]

So you admit that science is subject to political pressure.

Scientists immediately rejected the inclusion of the lie that it is a mental illness.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Scientists immediately rejected the inclusion of the lie that it is a mental illness.

I know they did. That was during the 1960's yes? What was happening then?