Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?

[AquaAthena]

This above all: To thine own-self, be true.

I think Shakespeare had it right.

Is this discussion turning into a Bible discussion? Is this what the OP had in mind?

 

[emilynghiem]

Isn't that between them and God? What is one person's interest in another person's damnation or salvation?

To learn forgiveness that such persons may also find salvation.

The first part does not make sense. Only God can forgive them for salvation purposes, so it still is between them and God. What is my interest in whether or not someone else is saved?

1. I am talking about the forgiveness of the person who is taking interest in another.
THAT person needs to understand forgiveness, instead of worrying about "another person's sin" --
this helps "learning by experience" how to forgive instead of project onto others.
(And to correct others by correcting oneself at the same time so any changes are mutual.)

2. because we receive forgiveness as we forgive others,
then "learning to put your interest in others" IN PERSPECTIVE
is part of your process of "working through your salvation with fear and trembling"

For example, if you, me or GISMYS cannot forgive the "sins of others" that we are focused on,
this process is REALLY about "you, me or GISMYS" learning forgiveness and not judging others outside of ourselves
We think it's about their salvation, but it's really about us coming to peace with our own through MUTUAL forgiveness and correction.

Does this make sense?
The person projecting judgment is learning about forgiveness for their own sake!
(or about how to communicate effectively so all people benefit from corrections shared between us)

3. See Matthew 19:12
Since we cannot always know which cases are natural, unnatural or for some other spiritual reason, this can also be a "lesson in letting go and letting God"

So your point about "this being between that person and God"
IS the lesson and purpose.

But the person "taking interest or projecting judgment" cannot always
understand this except "by experience." So the process of "projecting on others"
is part of their learning experience, to learn what does or does not achieve anything.

I think in the end, we end up practicing "removing the beam
from our own eyes while pointing out the splinter in our neighbors'
which is another lesson we learn from projecting on and correcting each other!

We learn the process is MUTUAL and all people end up influencing change for the better in each other so we all benefit.
Taking interest in our neighbor ends up benefiting our own knowledge and understanding of the process.

 

[emilynghiem]

This above all: To thine own-self, be true.

I think Shakespeare had it right.

Is this discussion turning into a Bible discussion? Is this what the OP had in mind?

Some ppl communicate that way as their primary language.
I could help GISMY interpret and translate into secular language
if he weren't so afraid I am some tool of Satan!

(The other verses I posted are also to help secular speakers
cite these sources when answering others who only understand using Bible terms.)

 

[Inevitable]

This above all: To thine own-self, be true.

I think Shakespeare had it right.

Is this discussion turning into a Bible discussion? Is this what the OP had in mind?

No, I wrote the op and this isn't supposed to be a bible chat.

 

[sameech]

This is off topic.

how so? the thread is about judging the root of homosexuality. questioning whether or not one should be making such judgments seems fairly on-topic to me at least.

 

[westwall]

The OP is not about Bible Study. If you wish to start your own OP in Religion have at it. Keep the religious arguments out of this one.

 

[Inevitable]

So sad all that drek and only one sentence with some mild argument value, extremely mild.

Gays make a consious choice based on subconsious factors

Prove it.

See I told you it was mild.

I guess you can't really come up with valid points when you are so busy attempting to insult me.

 

[emilynghiem]

This is off topic.

how so? the thread is about judging the root of homosexuality. questioning whether or not one should be making such judgments seems fairly on-topic to me at least.

I can see where the OP was not clear, but left it open to any personal response:

The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses. What do you think and why?

If some people explain "why" and "what they think" using the Bible, to them, they are answering the question. That is what they think and why.

Inevitable made it clear after that this is not what was wanted or intended.

It is clear from Inevitable replies that the real point was more scientific proof or
analysis of what constitutes a PATHOLOGY under the "APA" as "known causes"
like a "physical disease."

To that issue, I would bring up researched observations and case studies of
PAST LIFE karmic influences (or in Christianity, studies on GENERATIONAL healing
of past conditions "passed down" and experienced by other people).

This field is NOT fully researched and confirmed, but therapists have been pushing for this area to be taken seriously for formal medical studies.

It is interesting to me there are both BUDDHIST approaches using "past life regression" and CHRISTIAN spiritual healing, through deliverance prayer, that both address SPIRITUAL ROOTS of the phobias, addictions, or other physical/mental conditions or DISEASES which many clients/subjects have been documented as HEALING after therapy.

My understanding of this process as natural, is that the mind and body are designed to heal themselves; but when the spirit mind or body has an obstruction to the flow of life energy, then the healing and health is blocked.

So the common factor in these recovery methods is IDENTIFYING the root conflict (which Buddhists call karma or Christians call generational sins or curses) and praying/agreeing to remove that blockage by forgiveness or letting go, so that HEALING is received instead.

[MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION], some research has been done
You can cite in general the studies that show that "Unforgiveness" is related or correlated with over 80% of human illnesses.

If you want to see statistical research, compare all cases of people healing or not healing, and document the reports of forgiveness and unforgiveness.

The people who heal can tell you exactly which memories or concepts they had to forgive that otherwise blocked them and kept them sick or stuck.

So you could do further research to show that UNFORGIVENESS
is the cause of most human disease, in spirit mind body and relations, including social ills.

If it isn't the direct cause (like not forgiving parents as a teen, so you smoke and get cancer later) it can be the indirect cause of not healing normally.

Such as NOT forgiving Christians so you don't get the help you need to heal of religious abuses, and your body gets sick and you lose your health from the suppressed stress.

 

[PixieStix]

Much of it is indoctrination. The internet has been key

If you feel funny or strange at age 12 to 16. It must be because you are gay. That has been The argument by some. Oh the drama.

Like I said. The internet, the emo culture and political correctness is key to propagating these ideals

 

[emilynghiem]

[MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION] can you help research any cases of people who healed of homosexuality
because they traced it to things they didn't FORGIVE and choices they MADE; and
after they went back and FORGAVE those decisions, then they healed and changed?

Can a pattern of "forgiveness/unforgiveness" be shown to be a recurring theme
in cases where people healed of sexual behavior/abuse/addiction
whether this was homosexual or heterosexual, to show the common factors involved?

Note: Some cases involve actions and influences in this lifetime. I am also interested in cases where people report karma carried over from past generations. Can you help find research that would BACK UP what you are saying about conscious or unconscious choices?

Whether or not we choose these life influencing events,
we can choose later to FORGIVE THEM in order to receive healing.
Not all people change when they heal, but enough people to do to report a higher than average success rate.

Can you help find research that would meet Inevitable's standards of proof medically?

I never said that people choose their mental illness you freakin nitwit.

Lol yes you did. You even said it below I will point it out. There is no need to stop being a lady about it


Well if it is a mental illness statement belowis in contradiction. No therapy or medicine exists, and there is no pathology withhomosexuality.

And yes, being a faggot is a choice.....a pathetic choice.....but still a choice. ..


.

If it is a choice it isn't, a mental disorder.

That's a rather silly statement little fella - a choice is not always a consouis choice, there are a myriad of subconsious factors involved . Your knowledge of psychology is extremely limited it would appear .

Serial Killers make a consious choice based on subconsious factors - they are damaged goods psychologically-

Gays make a consious choice based on subconsious factors - they are damaged goods psychologically-

Are you damaged Goods ? It would appear so -

Can you control your Dementia / psychosis/ dysphoria ? - Yes , in mnay cases , but it requires professional help known as Reperative Therapy

Homosexual Serial Killers

 

[GreenBean]

[MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION] can you help research any cases of people who healed of homosexuality
because they traced it to things they didn't FORGIVE and choices they MADE; and
after they went back and FORGAVE those decisions, then they healed and changed?

Can a pattern of "forgiveness/unforgiveness" be shown to be a recurring theme
in cases where people healed of sexual behavior/abuse/addiction
whether this was homosexual or heterosexual, to show the common factors involved?

Note: Some cases involve actions and influences in this lifetime. I am also interested in cases where people report karma carried over from past generations. Can you help find research that would BACK UP what you are saying about conscious or unconscious choices?

Whether or not we choose these life influencing events,
we can choose later to FORGIVE THEM in order to receive healing.
Not all people change when they heal, but enough people to do to report a higher than average success rate.

Can you help find research that would meet Inevitable's standards of proof medically?

Lol yes you did. You even said it below I will point it out. There is no need to stop being a lady about it


Well if it is a mental illness statement belowis in contradiction. No therapy or medicine exists, and there is no pathology withhomosexuality.

If it is a choice it isn't, a mental disorder.

That's a rather silly statement little fella - a choice is not always a consouis choice, there are a myriad of subconsious factors involved . Your knowledge of psychology is extremely limited it would appear .

Serial Killers make a consious choice based on subconsious factors - they are damaged goods psychologically-

Gays make a consious choice based on subconsious factors - they are damaged goods psychologically-

Are you damaged Goods ? It would appear so -

Can you control your Dementia / psychosis/ dysphoria ? - Yes , in mnay cases , but it requires professional help known as Reperative Therapy

Homosexual Serial Killers

Karma is a powerful thing - I'm a strong believer - but it is faith based not science based - at least not yet anyway. Although I share your moral sense of duty I try to shy away from
faith based arguments on the net - that's a bit more personal as oppossed to the down and dirty internet debacles.

I still have your email address and will send anything I come across your way - but probably not right away.

 

[GreenBean]

So sad all that drek and only one sentence with some mild argument value, extremely mild.

Gays make a consious choice based on subconsious factors

Prove it.

See I told you it was mild.

I guess you can't really come up with valid points when you are so busy attempting to insult me.

Scroll back - [NO SILLY NOT WITH YOUR JOY STICK !!!!] - ONce again you are engaging in the Circle Jerk round house logic .

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Homosexuality is genetic.

That is the one thing anyone who pays attention knows it isn't.

My sister is lesbian. We knew she was lesbian by the time she was 10 years old. She is a man in every respect save her genitalia and has ALWAYS been so. She was the toughest kid in her school and regularly took on the bullies who were tormenting her friends.

She has been in a committed relationship with her wife for over 15 years. There is no doubt that she is lesbian and has always been one.

Likewise my daughters godmother. She too has always been a lesbian. She tried real hard to be "normal". She comes from a devout Catholic family and dated guys up into college. It was never comfortable for her. Never. She then was introduced to a lesbian from another college student and instantaneously she knew that it was the right thing for her.

I am sorry but you and those who think like you are simply wrong. You allow your religious training and upbringing to bias your thinking.

Good for her.

The science is actually irrefutable, being gay is not genetic. I actually have peer reviewed papers to back me up on that statement all you have is empty rhetoric and a false belief that you understand science. Feel free to look read through my posts and find the link.

Never mind, I know you don't actually care about the facts, so I will provide the link for you.

If you will note the paper actually contradicts my position that you are not born gay, so you can't accuse me of posting biased links.

Male and female homosexuality have substantial prevalence in humans. Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has substantial heritability in both sexes, yet concordance between identical twins is low and molecular studies have failed to find associated DNA markers. This paradoxical pattern calls for an explanation. We use published data on fetal androgen signaling and gene regulation via nongenetic changes in DNA packaging (epigenetics) to develop a new model for homosexuality.

Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wow, you actually properly understand the begging the question fallacy.

I am prettygood with logic.

I never said I wasn't assuming things, so pointing it out doesn't really change my argument. You asked for an explanation of why some people insist they are born that way if they actually made a choice, I provided the only one that makes sense to me.

You don't seem able to support it with facts, but if this isjust your opinionI don't believe it is necessary.

Factsthat prove it's a choice? Whatis the post number?



no need to apologize, I tend to take a very different position on thisthanmost people. And often times people automatically assume that I hold the position that is the opposite of theirs.

I didn't misuse the term, you admit that you were mistaken.


I didn't.I didn't misuse it. Youmisrepresented my position and thus my argument whether you were mistaken or not isn't really relevant.

It isn't a tactic, I used the term properly. You misunderstood my position then made one up, and than argued against it. I understand why you made the error, and it isn't your fault (completely) but it is apt.

Except I never actually misrepresented your position, I just asked a few questions that need to be answered. Asking questions is not a straw man. If you were actually good as you think you are at logic you would know that. If you want, I can provide you numerous examples of straw man arguments so that you understand the difference. Your insistence that it was a straw man after I admitted I made a mistake is the simplest proof that you do not understand the term. In order for it to be a straw man argument I have to intentionally set up a false argument, and then refute it, and then claim the fact that I refuted an argument you did not make is proof that I am right.

The fact that they are inconclusive supports my position completely.

What position is that?

You arecorrect I did assume that and I apologize for that assumption. I do have to tip my hat to you for being open minded.

See, we both made a mistake in this discussion.

That dexterity, barring loss of function of limbs, is learned.

There isn't any, just like there isn't any that it is inherited.

On the other hand, if you aver watch a really good handball player they have learned to use both hands equally well while playing, even if they aren't ambidextrous.

Have you done the research? And your evidence is inconclusive.

It is irrelevant to this discussion whether I did the research, but the answer is yes.

That said, why is my evidence inconclusive? Two editors of the DSM stated publicly that the editors developing the manual where intentionally ignoring evidence that contradicts the diagnostic guidelines they were setting out as the standard for the entire profession. If you think that is inconclusive evidence I would suggest that you are being dogmatic in your assumptions.

They aren't the ones here making claims.

Have you read the thread?

My position is completely validated by this. Claiming that no proof contrary to your position thus your position must be correct is logical fallacy.

There you go again.

I am not claiming that thre is no evidence that is contrary to my position. In fact, I actually posted a link to a paper that contradicts my position that it is a choice.

You really need to stop projecting your arguments on other people.

None of your facts prove your position they all prove mine.

Interesting.

How does the fact that free will exists validate your position, whatever it is? Are you just declaring victory because you refuse to actually take a position?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, it does.

No it doesn't.

You would appear more intelligent if you didn't make blanket statements about things you obviously are not familiar with.

You fussed at me for making assumptions about your position, but I did so without libelous comments. I know it never mentioned that homosexuality was an abomination.

That doesn't make GISMYS right, but it definitely makes you wrong.

Prove it.

Why? Why don't you prove your statement that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality? After all, you made the claim, and you insisted to me that making a claim place the burden on the person who made it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Seems logical to me that anyone who thinks homosexuality is a choice is someone who has to consciously choose heterosexuality (in other words, an in the closet homosexual).

I duno bout the rest of you - I don't choose to be heterosexual. I was born that way.

Anything that seems logical to you is suspect, especially when you use that logic to attack people based on their sexual preferences.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As a 42yo who's enjoyed sex with both males and females I don't believe x-sexuality as an orientation even exists. I think instead, we're just animals and are capable of having sex with whomever we desire at that moment. x-sexuality orientation is a relatively new concept. Until they were coined, people just had sex with no special delineation between gay or straight. It was such a non-issue in fact that most everyone we read about now in history books was by today's definitions bisexual. They married opposite sexed people, but for recreative or social bonding sex had such experiences with their own sex as well. No where is this more pronounced than in ancient Greek and Roman circles.

For ease of reference, I'm bisexual. Though I prefer to think of it as simply 'sexual.' I'm not automatically attracted to every man or every woman, and sexual attraction for me requires actually knowing someone personally. If I'm simply horny I masturbate. But before I involve another person's feelings and emotions I wanna make sure we're into each other beyond simply mutual desire to have a bit of fun. But the last thing on my mind is what sex they happen to be. Both are fun for different reasons, and in point of fact a lot of cross-over fun as well.

But we are unfortunately a label-obsessed society. I'm not sure why, but we distance ourselves throughout our experience into this or that labels. Liberal/conservative, black/white, gay/straight, rich/poor are some of the big ones. But as animals, I think in objective reality we're just human beings and what to most is a label difference between two people, is to me simply natural variation seen throughout nature. If people wanna break other people down into camps with labels that's their problem.

I mostly agree with you on your understanding of sexuality, though I tend to think of it as more of a spectrum. Some people keep to one side or the other and naturally do so. Few peopleexist in the middle.

Well sexual behaviours may well occur on a spectrum, but that doesn't then mean those behaviours EXIST on that spectrum. Merely they OCCUR on it. Objective reality is like things we observe among other animals. We are merely another species of primate this planet has given a shot at evolution (or conversely, even if you thump your Bible, another animal God created.) But be definition, anything other animals do is natural behaviour. Same-sex sexual behaviour in particular. Some 1500 other animals have been observed engaging in same-sex sexual behaviours but are those 'homosexual' animals? Probably not. Instead they're simply animals doing what animals do. So why should we be any different?

All the hetereo/homo/bisexual labels suggest we're special, but I don't beleive we are. We're just another primate blessed (or cursed) with advanced brains enabling us to complicate simple things.

Damn, I completely agree with you right now. Never thought I would see the day I pos repped you for an actual thoughtful post.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

God's word condemns Homosexuality AS AN ABOMINATION!!!

EXACTLY where, in your bible, does god say "homosexuality is an abomination"?

EXACTLY.

...Word 'homosexuality' didn't exist when the Torah was written. Thus, no Bible should say 'homosexuality' is...Anything.

Levticus 18:22 says 'men who lie with men, as men lie with women is an abomination.' In English anyway. Of course, more importantly is asking why if you don't identify as Jewish you're using a Jewish religious text? If you claim to be Christian, but are using the BIble to read about Godly things form, you're not a very good Christian since the first Christians didn't use what became the Bible centuries later. Instead they used single Gospels in circulation at the time, but entire OT+NT Bibles wouldn't exist for at least a thousand years.

Are you seriously going to base your argument on the fact that English didn't exist when the Bible was written?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I mostly agree with you on your understanding of sexuality, though I tend to think of it as more of a spectrum. Some people keep to one side or the other and naturally do so. Few peopleexist in the middle.

Well sexual behaviours may well occur on a spectrum, but that doesn't then mean those behaviours EXIST on that spectrum. Merely they OCCUR on it. Objective reality is like things we observe among other animals. We are merely another species of primate this planet has given a shot at evolution (or conversely, even if you thump your Bible, another animal God created.) But be definition, anything other animals do is natural behaviour. Same-sex sexual behaviour in particular. Some 1500 other animals have been observed engaging in same-sex sexual behaviours but are those 'homosexual' animals? Probably not. Instead they're simply animals doing what animals do. So why should we be any different?

All the hetereo/homo/bisexual labels suggest we're special, but I don't beleive we are. We're just another primate blessed (or cursed) with advanced brains enabling us to complicate simple things.

If one does believe in a god, a magical super being created us, then he/she also created homosexuals.

Is that god so imperfect that he/she screwed up on such a large minority? I mean, he/she screwed up the male human so badly that we have to chop off part of his penis to fix god's mistake.

What point do you think you are making here?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The OP is not about Bible Study. If you wish to start your own OP in Religion have at it. Keep the religious arguments out of this one.

Amen.