People Are Not Born Gay

[Skull Pilot]

Why does anyone care if being gay is a choice or not?

Either way it's none of your fucking business is it?

When gays asked the general public to support their cause it became everyone's buisness.

So...everyone's straight marriage is MY business?

Yup. If you think CA's blood test requirement is unjust, or if you want your state's age of consent to marry changed, etc, then you have every right to speak up about that even if you aren't married.

All that has nothing to do with the PEOPLE who get married only the process

 

[emilynghiem]

Okay so this explains why that website on "people can change"
is full of stories of people saying their conditions were related to "sex-related stress disorders"

People Can Change - An alternative healing response to unwanted homosexual desires.

So this is why Inevitable was saying this is not the same
as people born homosexual, Right?

Then we ARE talking about two totally unrelated types:
* homosexuality that has physical causes by birth (which you are saying
explains why some cannot change their orientation)
* homosexual attractions caused by "sex-related stress disorders"
that are NOT from birth and CAN possibly be changed.

Great!

Can we use this to argue that both sides are RIGHT:
some can change and some can't.

instead of both sides arguing ALL are born that way and NONE can change
vs. NONE are born that way and ALL can change. and thus both being WRONG.

The "type" you're talking about isn't homosexuality at all. You're talking about sex related stress disorders, not a sexual orientation. Therefore it's just you who are wrong as you're uneducated on the topic.

That's fine if you want to call it "sex-related stress disorders"

The point I'm trying to make is how to distinguish these two.
If you AGREE they are different, that's good enough.

Other people are lumping "all homosexuals as this sex-related stress disorder type"

And I am saying that's wrong to say all cases are the same.

I cannot help if people still call that homosexuality or not.

All I am trying to reach an agreement on is that
there are TWO DIFFERENT types of scenarios going on.

You can call it whatever language it takes to DISTINGUISH THEM.

That's fine, I'm not arguing with you about that.

But if THIS is what other people mean when they say they "changed their homosexual orientation"
I am also going to let THEM use THEIR language for "sex-related stress disorders"

If you don't like the term homosexuality used for both of these,
do you want to call it Type A and Type B?

So if some people call it all homosexuality
then we can still agree that Type A are the type that cannot change
and Type B are the type that can.

And you can say only Type A is homosexuality
and you call Type B "sex-related stress disorders"

But we still agree to SEPARATE Type A from Type B
and not say all homosexuality is "ONLY TYPE A"
or all homosexuality is "ONLY TYPE B"

That's what I am trying to distinguish right now.
Just even agreeing there is a DIFFERENCE
between people who CAN change and those who CANNOT.

If people cannot agree on language,
can we call these groups Type A and Type B.

Dear Inevitable:
Good to see you!

Can you please back track and look at
* Ellipsis msgs on "sex-related stress disorders"
* PratchettFan saying there is "nothing unnatural about homosexuality"
* Jake Starkey taking exception to what I said about unnatural homosexuality being healed.

Do you get my point, that instead of both sides arguing
either ALL homosexuality is unnatural or ALL is natural born and not a choice,
could we possible agree what to call the two different sets of experiences:
Those of people saying they changed, and those of people saying they couldn't.

What terms could we call these
to make it clearly Understood and AGREED these are NOT the same thing?

 

[JakeStarkey]

masochist: "(an ordained priest who said he felt he was born gay by God so he would not focus on family or relations but remain abstinent and focus on serving the church as his family)"

Maybe a bit sharp, I agree, but why can't we let folks be what they are, please?

 

[Ellipsis]

Well at least one priest I know might disagree with you.

Irrelevant.

 

[emilynghiem]

masochist: "(an ordained priest who said he felt he was born gay by God so he would not focus on family or relations but remain abstinent and focus on serving the church as his family)"

Maybe a bit sharp, I agree, but why can't we let folks be what they are, please?

Yes I am not trying to IMPOSE my way.
I'm just saying it IS possible for people, including gay priests or Christians
who SEE THEMSELVES as that born way for God's purposes.

I was responding to the Opposite assumption that NOBODY can be gay for God's reasons or purpose.
I disagree with that statement, if you can look at what I was REPLYING to:
Ellipsis: "Gays aren't gay for the sake of god so your passage doesn't apply."

Especially if the PERSON feels a spiritual connection and purpose
I believe that is legitimate. Only they know what is right for them.

[Also for you to post "Masochist"
when someone DESCRIBED THEMSELVES as being at peace with the ways and purpose God gave them,
aren't YOU not "letting folks be what they are"

If that's how he described how he made PEACE, yet you are assuming this is "masochistic"
and imposing that in contradiction of his own self-proclaimed identity and purpose in life.

???? were you just joking ????
that if you had to do what he did, it would be masochistic to you?
To him it was naturally spiritually. It was his calling, and he had no issues with it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Well at least one priest I know might disagree with you.

Irrelevant.

Again I think you are taking this too literally.

There are many ways that people can be born gay to serve God's purposes.
1. to cause people to look into this issue and learn how to talk about and address it
2. to teach and inspire forgiveness, understanding and letting go of conditions
3. for one person to be "used by God" to reach out and help other people understand
Example: When a Christian theology grad student Jill came to Rice to talk about her experiences as a gay Christian,
she changed the mind of someone who told me that she misunderstood homosexuality before the forum.
She thought it was based on unnatural "immoral lusts" that people were acting on without knowledge or discipline that ti was wrong. After this gay Christian explained that even after she prayed for healing, she didn't change, and finally
accepted the fact she was born gay for a reason, then she used that in her ministerial outreach to teach
fellow Christians that it WASN'T caused by some sin she hadn't renounced and wasn't her choice to remain gay
because she did pray to God htrough Christ to remove it and she remained as she was. So when she
shared this AS A FELLOW CHRISTIAN then it reached people who Otherwise would NOT believe it,
but would continue thinking it was just anti-christian propaganda. When you hear it from someone you
know is Christian and not some fake, trying to push "gay lifestyles or agenda on others" then it is taken seriously.

Sorry if you don't think that counts or is possible.

I know people who even after rape occurs, which is clearly NOT God's will as that is a crime,
they feel the BABY born is a gift from God. So even if the rape is wrongful and criminal, punished by law,
the BABY born of rape can still be part of God's purpose and send a message that love between a mother
and child is greater than the fear and shame of rape that is the fault of the father who committed a violent crime.

 

[Ellipsis]

Again I think you are taking this too literally.

That's just something you're programmed to say when you don't understand someone's counter argument.

What the bible says has no bearing on the nature of sexuality, what forms it, what can affect it, or how people behave regarding it. The rules on sexual behavior found in the bible only apply to Jews who are physically in Israel.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, my apologies. I misread.

Yes, God could do that for a person, and, yes, a person could be at peace with that.

The issue, of course, remains that we have spiritual terrorists trying to force others to be like them instead of letting people be authentically what they are - themselves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Again I think you are taking this too literally.

That's just something you're programmed to say when you don't understand someone's counter argument.

What the bible says has no bearing on the nature of sexuality, what forms it, what can affect it, or how people behave regarding it. The rules on sexual behavior found in the bible only apply to Jews who are physically in Israel.

To you maybe.

 

[emilynghiem]

Again I think you are taking this too literally.

That's just something you're programmed to say when you don't understand someone's counter argument.

What the bible says has no bearing on the nature of sexuality, what forms it, what can affect it, or how people behave regarding it. The rules on sexual behavior found in the bible only apply to Jews who are physically in Israel.

When I refer to the Bible,
I am talking about how it represents the process and spirit of the natural laws shaping humanity's path toward peace and justice.

You are talking literally about the Jewish law historically etc.

That's not what I'm talking about. We are talking about two different things.

I AGREE with you that if you and I WERE talking about the LOCAL JEWISH laws
that only applies to THAT CONTEXT. YES I get that's what YOU are talking about.

What I am talking about is the Universal spirit and content of the laws
that represents the process of ALL humanity in stages of GROWTH
and change (from retributive justice and letter of the law governance
in the Old Testament) to Restorative Justice by the Spirit of the Law in the New Testament.

Sorry I wasn't clear.

If you do not see the Bible as meaning or symbolizing
the PROCESS of man's knowledge of laws first,
then fulfilling them in the spirit as Christ Jesus as we mature,
then we are NOT talking about the same thing.

I am talking about how the Bible is used to facilitate and understand process of going from one stage to another,
like from where the Catholic church was with using and teaching for material control of the masses,
to the Reformation where people became liberated with knowledge of the MEANING of the laws
so they could live and govern DIRECTLY without having to go through Catholic authority as the means.

Today we are going through the same process but with the State laws
and the government that politicians have been abusing for material interests.

Now we are going through a similar Reformation of taking back authority
and having people LEARN the laws directly, in this case Constitutional and natural laws
on governance and democratic due process, to check govt the way the church had to be checked against abuses.

The COMMON process is
1. first people govern by the letter of the law
which gets legalistic and corrupted by greed.
the people WITH more knowledge of the law
monopolize it and hold it over those without access so the control is unbalanced and unchecked
this leads to death and destruction as in the OT where this fails
2. when people learn to govern by the SPIRIT of the law
then we can be equal under law, not monopolizing it by the letter as we still have now.

So this second stage is where we are, trying to reform and
restore the Spirit of the Laws that was lost to corruption and abuses.

this is the universal story and stages of humanity.

We are trying to break the negative cycles of the past
and restore Good Faith relations and equal justice under law.

So this is the same process symbolized in the Bible
where Jesus represents the coming of Justice to save all humanity
from strife and suffering, by breaking the cycle of retribution
with divine forgiveness and healing grace to correct all wrongs and restore all relations in good faith and good health.

If you do not see this when you refer to the Bible,
then NO we are NOT talking about the same things.

Sorry.

 

[Ellipsis]

When I refer to the Bible...

...you are going off-topic.

The bible has nothing to do with people being born gay or not. The bible is irrelevant.

 

[Ellipsis]

All that has nothing to do with the PEOPLE who get married only the process

Splitting hairs won't help you. The topic of marriage is open for public comment. If you don't like gay-marriage, don't marry a gay, and if you don't like opinions of gay-marriage, don't read them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

All that has nothing to do with the PEOPLE who get married only the process

Splitting hairs won't help you. The topic of marriage is open for public comment. If you don't like gay-marriage, don't marry a gay, and if you don't like opinions of gay-marriage, don't read them.

There really is nothing to discuss.

Marriage is nothing but a property contract.

It matters not who enters that contract as long as they are of legal age.

You are confusing religion and secular law if you think marriage is anything more than that

 

[Ellipsis]

All that has nothing to do with the PEOPLE who get married only the process

Splitting hairs won't help you. The topic of marriage is open for public comment. If you don't like gay-marriage, don't marry a gay, and if you don't like opinions of gay-marriage, don't read them.

There really is nothing to discuss.

Marriage is nothing but a property contract.

It matters not who enters that contract as long as they are of legal age.

You are confusing religion and secular law if you think marriage is anything more than that

What have I said which would give you that impression?

I had said that born-homosexuality (as distinguished from a sex-related stress disorder) is a neural birth defect caused by a hormone irregularity in the second trimester. As such, there's nothing a gay person can do to change their atractions and so the laws should accomidate gays to marry just as we alter buildings to accommodate other handicaps.

Where in that you got the idea that I think legal marriage is anything more than a buisnes contract, I cant decifer.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is nothing unnatural about homosexuality.

Dear PratchettFan does this description by Ellipsis
sound natural to you:

You're talking about correcting sex-related stress disorders, not homosexuality.

During the second trimester of pregnancy there are a few hormone surges which do or do not happen depending on the sex of the child. One of these is a testosterone surge which makes the child develop a male body. Irregularities in this hormone soup can cause an incomplete gender assignment...specifically, the thalamus interprets pheromones sensed by the
olfactory epithelium to be of the opposite sex, when in fact the pheromones are from the same-sex, thus causing same-sex attraction.

This is not correctable.

Ellipsis and I seem to agree that there is a "cureable type"
which Ellipsis refers to as "sex-related stress disorders" not homosexuality.

Can you please explain which you feel is natural or unnatural?

When I hear that someone had unwelcome attractions that weren't right for them,
and they had to work to overcome them, and after they did, they felt they were consistent with their natural self.

Then THOSE unwelcome attractions are what I mean by unnatural.
if the person themselves says that is NOT natural for them and they worked to restore what was natural.

So do you call that "sex related stress disorders"
and not real homosexuality?

We may be on to something here.

If we can agree WHAT to call the cases that people report of changing their orientation,
we CAN distinguish that from the cases where homosexuality cannot be changed.

This would HELP tremendously to separate these two to begin with.

Just like I distinguish Jihadist as a separate term and group of people
from Muslims so we can agree what we're even talking about to begin with.

Can we do that here?

Agree to have a term for the two different groups of people as a starting point.
Wouldn't that help to understand they don't all follow one way or the other, but both are going on
and these are totally different. They cannot be judged the same if one can change and the other cannot.

That is unfair and causing undue harm and distress to lump them all together as now.

Yes. That is natural. Natural is that which occurs in nature.

Okay so what term do we use to describe something like diseased tissue.

Diseases occur in natural. So if we say heads or body parts are naturally shaped a certain way,
what distinguishes a body part that is growing so large it is abnormal, by nature of a "diseased condition" occurring "in nature
by birth" that is "unnaturally large"

If you would not use the term unnatural, since this occurred by nature, what would you use?
Would you say abnormal or what?

is it only when it becomes dysfunctional or "unwelcome" that it is a problem to that person?
how do you distinguish a "diseased" condition that occurs in nature if you would still call it natural.

I would use the term "diseased tissue". If homosexuality is a disease, then so is heterosexuality.

I understand you wish to connect this up, but it is absurd. Who someone is attracted to, who they fall in love with, how they wish to live their lives harms no one except those who insist that everyone be like them. Frankly, if there is a disease process in play then that is it. If someone is uncomfortable with their sexual urges, then they need to come to grips with that. Personally, I think the best method is to embrace who they are and the rest of us should celebrate them doing so. If they want to try to fight it, then that is their right as well. But the bottom line is that so long as we have consenting adults, it is none of my or your business. It's their life to live as they choose.

 

[emilynghiem]

There is nothing unnatural about homosexuality.

Dear PratchettFan does this description by Ellipsis
sound natural to you:

You're talking about correcting sex-related stress disorders, not homosexuality.

During the second trimester of pregnancy there are a few hormone surges which do or do not happen depending on the sex of the child. One of these is a testosterone surge which makes the child develop a male body. Irregularities in this hormone soup can cause an incomplete gender assignment...specifically, the thalamus interprets pheromones sensed by the
olfactory epithelium to be of the opposite sex, when in fact the pheromones are from the same-sex, thus causing same-sex attraction.

This is not correctable.

Ellipsis and I seem to agree that there is a "cureable type"
which Ellipsis refers to as "sex-related stress disorders" not homosexuality.

Can you please explain which you feel is natural or unnatural?

When I hear that someone had unwelcome attractions that weren't right for them,
and they had to work to overcome them, and after they did, they felt they were consistent with their natural self.

Then THOSE unwelcome attractions are what I mean by unnatural.
if the person themselves says that is NOT natural for them and they worked to restore what was natural.

So do you call that "sex related stress disorders"
and not real homosexuality?

We may be on to something here.

If we can agree WHAT to call the cases that people report of changing their orientation,
we CAN distinguish that from the cases where homosexuality cannot be changed.

This would HELP tremendously to separate these two to begin with.

Just like I distinguish Jihadist as a separate term and group of people
from Muslims so we can agree what we're even talking about to begin with.

Can we do that here?

Agree to have a term for the two different groups of people as a starting point.
Wouldn't that help to understand they don't all follow one way or the other, but both are going on
and these are totally different. They cannot be judged the same if one can change and the other cannot.

That is unfair and causing undue harm and distress to lump them all together as now.

Yes. That is natural. Natural is that which occurs in nature.

Okay so what term do we use to describe something like diseased tissue.

Diseases occur in natural. So if we say heads or body parts are naturally shaped a certain way,
what distinguishes a body part that is growing so large it is abnormal, by nature of a "diseased condition" occurring "in nature
by birth" that is "unnaturally large"

If you would not use the term unnatural, since this occurred by nature, what would you use?
Would you say abnormal or what?

is it only when it becomes dysfunctional or "unwelcome" that it is a problem to that person?
how do you distinguish a "diseased" condition that occurs in nature if you would still call it natural.

I would use the term "diseased tissue". If homosexuality is a disease, then so is heterosexuality.

I understand you wish to connect this up, but it is absurd. Who someone is attracted to, who they fall in love with, how they wish to live their lives harms no one except those who insist that everyone be like them. Frankly, if there is a disease process in play then that is it. If someone is uncomfortable with their sexual urges, then they need to come to grips with that. Personally, I think the best method is to embrace who they are and the rest of us should celebrate them doing so. If they want to try to fight it, then that is their right as well. But the bottom line is that so long as we have consenting adults, it is none of my or your business. It's their life to live as they choose.

Hi PratchettFan: You are still talking about "the other case" where the relationships are spiritually natural for those people.

What I am trying to look into is agreed language for the cases where the attractions are NOT welcome.
The person reports this is NOT right for them, and they seek help to change.

So that clearly does not fall under the descriptions you provide.

Now Ellipsis offered to distinguish "sex-related stress disorders"

So how about Type A is the type of CONDITIONS (it can be orientation or gender identity, as long as it is reported by the person as something they don't want and are ABLE to change, so SURE if you want this to apply to unwanted heterosexual it can, or unwanted pressure to present as either male or female) that are caused by some kind of ABUSE or unnatural conditions that if healed allow the person to change to what they feel is right for them
and Type B is the type of CONDITIONS (again, can either be orientation or gender ID, and can be either way, heterosexual, homosexual etc) where the person reports they are BORN that way spiritually or whatever they call it, where it is who they are as a person, and they cannot change and/or are happy and at peace with it.

So REGARDLESS which way someone changes or doesn't change,
we can DISTINGUISH and recognize Type A cases are SEPARATE from Type B cases.

We can still argue and disagree, but at least we will AGREE to this distinction that not all cases are the same.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is nothing unnatural about homosexuality.

Dear PratchettFan does this description by Ellipsis
sound natural to you:

You're talking about correcting sex-related stress disorders, not homosexuality.

During the second trimester of pregnancy there are a few hormone surges which do or do not happen depending on the sex of the child. One of these is a testosterone surge which makes the child develop a male body. Irregularities in this hormone soup can cause an incomplete gender assignment...specifically, the thalamus interprets pheromones sensed by the
olfactory epithelium to be of the opposite sex, when in fact the pheromones are from the same-sex, thus causing same-sex attraction.

This is not correctable.

Ellipsis and I seem to agree that there is a "cureable type"
which Ellipsis refers to as "sex-related stress disorders" not homosexuality.

Can you please explain which you feel is natural or unnatural?

When I hear that someone had unwelcome attractions that weren't right for them,
and they had to work to overcome them, and after they did, they felt they were consistent with their natural self.

Then THOSE unwelcome attractions are what I mean by unnatural.
if the person themselves says that is NOT natural for them and they worked to restore what was natural.

So do you call that "sex related stress disorders"
and not real homosexuality?

We may be on to something here.

If we can agree WHAT to call the cases that people report of changing their orientation,
we CAN distinguish that from the cases where homosexuality cannot be changed.

This would HELP tremendously to separate these two to begin with.

Just like I distinguish Jihadist as a separate term and group of people
from Muslims so we can agree what we're even talking about to begin with.

Can we do that here?

Agree to have a term for the two different groups of people as a starting point.
Wouldn't that help to understand they don't all follow one way or the other, but both are going on
and these are totally different. They cannot be judged the same if one can change and the other cannot.

That is unfair and causing undue harm and distress to lump them all together as now.

Yes. That is natural. Natural is that which occurs in nature.

Okay so what term do we use to describe something like diseased tissue.

Diseases occur in natural. So if we say heads or body parts are naturally shaped a certain way,
what distinguishes a body part that is growing so large it is abnormal, by nature of a "diseased condition" occurring "in nature
by birth" that is "unnaturally large"

If you would not use the term unnatural, since this occurred by nature, what would you use?
Would you say abnormal or what?

is it only when it becomes dysfunctional or "unwelcome" that it is a problem to that person?
how do you distinguish a "diseased" condition that occurs in nature if you would still call it natural.

I would use the term "diseased tissue". If homosexuality is a disease, then so is heterosexuality.

I understand you wish to connect this up, but it is absurd. Who someone is attracted to, who they fall in love with, how they wish to live their lives harms no one except those who insist that everyone be like them. Frankly, if there is a disease process in play then that is it. If someone is uncomfortable with their sexual urges, then they need to come to grips with that. Personally, I think the best method is to embrace who they are and the rest of us should celebrate them doing so. If they want to try to fight it, then that is their right as well. But the bottom line is that so long as we have consenting adults, it is none of my or your business. It's their life to live as they choose.

Hi PratchettFan: You are still talking about "the other case" where the relationships are spiritually natural for those people.

What I am trying to look into is agreed language for the cases where the attractions are NOT welcome.
The person reports this is NOT right for them, and they seek help to change.

So that clearly does not fall under the descriptions you provide.

Now Ellipsis offered to distinguish "sex-related stress disorders"

So how about Type A is the type of CONDITIONS (it can be orientation or gender identity, as long as it is reported by the person as something they don't want and are ABLE to change, so SURE if you want this to apply to unwanted heterosexual it can, or unwanted pressure to present as either male or female) that are caused by some kind of ABUSE or unnatural conditions that if healed allow the person to change to what they feel is right for them
and Type B is the type of CONDITIONS (again, can either be orientation or gender ID, and can be either way, heterosexual, homosexual etc) where the person reports they are BORN that way spiritually or whatever they call it, where it is who they are as a person, and they cannot change and/or are happy and at peace with it.

So REGARDLESS which way someone changes or doesn't change,
we can DISTINGUISH and recognize Type A cases are SEPARATE from Type B cases.

We can still argue and disagree, but at least we will AGREE to this distinction that not all cases are the same.

I'm not a psychiatrist and thus am not qualified to judge medical diagnoses.