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

[Quantum Windbag]

Your comments are based on your belief that everyone else is wrong.

Life doesn't work that way, some of the Bible is actually history.

Not much but let's focus on the New Testament especially The Act of the Apostles by Luke which you brought up. There is way too much to go over every detail and we would be arguing it for years but here is a good sumarization from wiki.

Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stephen is not mentioned in either Passages consistent with the historical background or Passages of disputed historical accuracy. The only primary source for information about Stephen is the New Testament book Acts of the Apostles. There is nothing else to confirm the authenticity of the story of Stephen.

As I said before, there are plenty of historical sources that are unique It seems that the only ones you categorically reject is the Bible. That is a personal bias on your part, and I don't see you exercising any rational judgement about it at all. In fact, you seem to be ignoring all the evidence that counters your assertions, and insisting on focusing on events that are unique to the Bible to prove that the Bible is fiction.

The way real scholars approach the subject is to weigh all the historical evidence for the accuracy of a document, and judge it as a whole. They don't pick one event as an excuse to ignore everything else, even if they cannot find evidence of that event anywhere else. If they did that we would ignore the works of Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, and all the other historians of that period because they all mention things that are not mentioned anywhere else.

By the way, all of those historical people that I mentioned mention events and/or people mentioned in the New Testament. There are many others that don't, but they weren't writing about the Middle East. That doesn't prove that the New Testament is true, but it does destroy your claim that none of the biblical stories are mentioned outside the New Testament.

 

[Tuatara]

Your comments are based on your belief that everyone else is wrong.

Life doesn't work that way, some of the Bible is actually history.

Not much but let's focus on the New Testament especially The Act of the Apostles by Luke which you brought up. There is way too much to go over every detail and we would be arguing it for years but here is a good sumarization from wiki.

Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stephen is not mentioned in either Passages consistent with the historical background or Passages of disputed historical accuracy. The only primary source for information about Stephen is the New Testament book Acts of the Apostles. There is nothing else to confirm the authenticity of the story of Stephen.

As I said before, there are plenty of historical sources that are unique It seems that the only ones you categorically reject is the Bible.

If other historical sources had ridiculous stories like worldwide floods and talking snakes I would reject everything associated with that source. See how that works.

That is a personal bias on your part, and I don't see you exercising any rational judgement about it at all.

No it is not. Many stories in the bible were plagerized from other folklore and religions. Also some of the stories would be considered very important historical events yet no other historical source even mentioned it.

In fact, you seem to be ignoring all the evidence that counters your assertions, and insisting on focusing on events that are unique to the Bible to prove that the Bible is fiction.

I'm reading a Stephen King novel right now. It mentions historical figures like Bush and Obama. It mentions cities I know exist like Chicago and New York. Just because somone puts in accurate figures and places in a book does not make the story true.

The way real scholars approach the subject is to weigh all the historical evidence for the accuracy of a document, and judge it as a whole. They don't pick one event as an excuse to ignore everything else, even if they cannot find evidence of that event anywhere else

I'm not picking one event. There are many many falsehoods within the stories. Even the manusrcipts differ from each other. Even maximalists argue with each other pertaining to what is true and what is not.

If they did that we would ignore the works of Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, and all the other historians of that period because they all mention things that are not mentioned anywhere else.

I;m not familiar with every historic writer in history but I know Tacitus used the acta senatus, the official sources of the Roman State along with the acta diurna populi Romani, which were official daily Roman notices. His works are also mentioned by Cluvius Rufus, Fabius Rusticus and Pliny the Elder.

By the way, all of those historical people that I mentioned mention events and/or people mentioned in the New Testament. There are many others that don't, but they weren't writing about the Middle East. That doesn't prove that the New Testament is true, but it does destroy your claim that none of the biblical stories are mentioned outside the New Testament.

Like I said, the bible does not have any creedance with me for historical accuracy.

Also we should get back on topic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not much but let's focus on the New Testament especially The Act of the Apostles by Luke which you brought up. There is way too much to go over every detail and we would be arguing it for years but here is a good sumarization from wiki.

Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stephen is not mentioned in either Passages consistent with the historical background or Passages of disputed historical accuracy. The only primary source for information about Stephen is the New Testament book Acts of the Apostles. There is nothing else to confirm the authenticity of the story of Stephen.

As I said before, there are plenty of historical sources that are unique It seems that the only ones you categorically reject is the Bible.

If other historical sources had ridiculous stories like worldwide floods and talking snakes I would reject everything associated with that source. See how that works.

Funny, I thought we were talking about the historical accuracy of acts. I guess you thought we were talking about the entire Bible.

One of us is in desperate need of counseling, and it isn't me. Can you stick to the actual subject we are discs sung, or are you going to pretend that I am saying things I am not and prove me wrong when I refuse to rise to the bait?

No it is not. Many stories in the bible were plagerized from other folklore and religions. Also some of the stories would be considered very important historical events yet no other historical source even mentioned it.

We are not talking about the Bible, we are discussing the Book of Acts. The fact that you have to resort to deflections is evidence that you cannot refute my arguments.

I'm reading a Stephen King novel right now. It mentions historical figures like Bush and Obama. It mentions cities I know exist like Chicago and New York. Just because somone puts in accurate figures and places in a book does not make the story true.

And this bears on our discussion because...

I'm not picking one event. There are many many falsehoods within the stories. Even the manusrcipts differ from each other. Even maximalists argue with each other pertaining to what is true and what is not.

Which explains why you totally ignored the argument I am making about a specific author of a specific book and resorted to attacking a position I never stated.

Good for you.

By the way, there are discrepancies in the copies of every historical record from that period. There are even parts that were obvious added to them after the author wrote them. The reason for that would be obvious to any thinking person, people make mistakes, copyists have an agenda, and everything was done by hand. That is why scholars developed the field of textual criticism. Maybe you should do some studying in it before you try and prove how smart you are for pointing out the obvious.

If they did that we would ignore the works of Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, and all the other historians of that period because they all mention things that are not mentioned anywhere else.

I;m not familiar with every historic writer in history but I know Tacitus used the acta senatus, the official sources of the Roman State along with the acta diurna populi Romani, which were official daily Roman notices. His works are also mentioned by Cluvius Rufus, Fabius Rusticus and Pliny the Elder.

Good for you. Are you aware of all the discrepancies in the copies of their work, or does your knowledge of that only extend to the bible?

By the way, all of those historical people that I mentioned mention events and/or people mentioned in the New Testament. There are many others that don't, but they weren't writing about the Middle East. That doesn't prove that the New Testament is true, but it does destroy your claim that none of the biblical stories are mentioned outside the New Testament.

Like I said, the bible does not have any creedance with me for historical accuracy.

Also we should get back on topic.

That is because you refuse to actually examine the evidence, which you just proved with this post. That means you have a closed mind, which I cannot fix.

 

[DriftingSand]

We're all born with a sin nature. Whether or not we choose to follow our lusts and sinful nature is a choice.

Everybody chooses to follow their lusts unless they choose celibacy.

Nevertheless, homosexuality is a choice.

 

[Inevitable]

We're all born with a sin nature. Whether or not we choose to follow our lusts and sinful nature is a choice.

Everybody chooses to follow their lusts unless they choose celibacy.

Nevertheless, homosexuality is a choice.

Claiming something without proof is logical fallacy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Everybody chooses to follow their lusts unless they choose celibacy.

Nevertheless, homosexuality is a choice.

Claiming something without proof is logical fallacy.

No it is not. A logical fallacy is an logical flaw in an argument that renders it false.

 

[DriftingSand]

Everybody chooses to follow their lusts unless they choose celibacy.

Nevertheless, homosexuality is a choice.

Claiming something without proof is logical fallacy.

That works both ways. You can claim that you "have no choice" but you can't prove it. The living fact of the matter is that we all make choices day in and day out. Like it or not I don't have to "prove" that you can make choices because I already know that you do. You can literally choose to be with a woman, a man, an animal, or nobody at all. How you choose is up to you but regardless of how you choose doesn't change the fact that you chose.

 

[RKMBrown]

Nevertheless, homosexuality is a choice.

Claiming something without proof is logical fallacy.

That works both ways. You can claim that you "have no choice" but you can't prove it. The living fact of the matter is that we all make choices day in and day out. Like it or not I don't have to "prove" that you can make choices because I already know that you do. You can literally choose to be with a woman, a man, an animal, or nobody at all. How you choose is up to you but regardless of how you choose doesn't change the fact that you chose.

If homosexuality is a choice.. so is heterosexuality. What's your point? That we can choose to kill ourselves? That we can choose to jump off a cliff? That we can vote for a marxist to run this country? A guy who claimed he was gonna fix this gay marriage thing to get elected then does squat about it?

 

[Inevitable]

Nevertheless, homosexuality is a choice.

Claiming something without proof is logical fallacy.

That works both ways. You can claim that you "have no choice" but you can't prove it. The living fact of the matter is that we all make choices day in and day out. Like it or not I don't have to "prove" that you can make choices because I already know that you do. You can literally choose to be with a woman, a man, an animal, or nobody at all. How you choose is up to you but regardless of how you choose doesn't change the fact that you chose.

Choosing to be with a woman wouldn't make me straight. It would make me a liar.

I think I know myself better than you know me, and I don't recall making any decision to be attracted to the same sex. I have internal knowledge that you do not.

You made the claim, I did not. My claim is that I don't know. I don't claim it to be genetic, I don't claim to be born this way, I don't know, I don't remember my birth. But I tried to not be homosexual for many years.

The burden of proof is on you, you made the claim. I did not. Shifting the burden to me to prove your claim wrong isn't how logic works.

If it's your opinion, that's cool, you have the right to that. But it isn't fact untilyou prove it.

 

[Inevitable]

Nevertheless, homosexuality is a choice.

Claiming something without proof is logical fallacy.

No it is not. A logical fallacy is an logical flaw in an argument that renders it false.

I don't think you should talk about logic until you understand it completely. A flaw in logic doesn't render the argument false unless the opposition has a logically flawless argument.

You just made the fallacy fallacy, look it up.

 

[warwulf]

You do realize you contradicted yourself I hope? People don't choose mental illness. If it was a mental illness it wouldn't be a perverted lifestyle.

What a moron! HOW do you explain that last sentence of yours? What? Like the retards can't live a disgusting, perverted lifestyle because they're retarded? So basically, you're making excuses for the faggots.
That is expected, considering you have a fag for your avatar.

 

[Noomi]

You do realize you contradicted yourself I hope? People don't choose mental illness. If it was a mental illness it wouldn't be a perverted lifestyle.

What a moron! HOW do you explain that last sentence of yours? What? Like the retards can't live a disgusting, perverted lifestyle because they're retarded? So basically, you're making excuses for the faggots.
That is expected, considering you have a fag for your avatar.

You need to remember that this is the Clean Debate Zone and no personal insults are accepted.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You do realize you contradicted yourself I hope? People don't choose mental illness. If it was a mental illness it wouldn't be a perverted lifestyle.

What a moron! HOW do you explain that last sentence of yours? What? Like the retards can't live a disgusting, perverted lifestyle because they're retarded? So basically, you're making excuses for the faggots.
That is expected, considering you have a fag for your avatar.

You need to remember that this is the Clean Debate Zone and no personal insults are accepted.

To be fair, personal insults are all most conservatives have, since facts and the truth are rarely on their side; otherwise they wouldn't be able to participate at all.

 

[Inevitable]

What a moron! HOW do you explain that last sentence of yours? What? Like the retards can't live a disgusting, perverted lifestyle because they're retarded? So basically, you're making excuses for the faggots.
That is expected, considering you have a fag for your avatar.

You need to remember that this is the Clean Debate Zone and no personal insults are accepted.

To be fair, personal insults are all most conservatives have, since facts and the truth are rarely on their side; otherwise they wouldn't be able to participate at all.

Some people aren't worthy of a response from me.

I don't think anybody should respond to them, it might just help the forum.

 

[RKMBrown]

You need to remember that this is the Clean Debate Zone and no personal insults are accepted.

To be fair, personal insults are all most conservatives have, since facts and the truth are rarely on their side; otherwise they wouldn't be able to participate at all.

Some people aren't worthy of a response from me.

I don't think anybody should respond to them, it might just help the forum.

A decade back, I was pro-civil unions only while striking the term marriage from government regulations as the solution. Now I see that won't work. I changed my mind only through active conversation and understanding of just how divisive, bigoted and heartless many people are when it comes to authoritarian tyranny over smaller groups.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Claiming something without proof is logical fallacy.

No it is not. A logical fallacy is an logical flaw in an argument that renders it false.

I don't think you should talk about logic until you understand it completely. A flaw in logic doesn't render the argument false unless the opposition has a logically flawless argument.

You just made the fallacy fallacy, look it up.

Seriously?

Are you saying that if both sides use a fallacy neither side is using a fallacy? How does that work in your world?

By the way, I took your advice and looked up fallacy fallacy just to be sure I remembered it right, it turns out I did.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Since I never actually claimed that your argument was false just because you used a fallacy, I didn't commit a fallacy fallacy.

All I did was point out that your definition of fallacy was wrong.

 

[Mathbud1]

No it is not. A logical fallacy is an logical flaw in an argument that renders it false.

I don't think you should talk about logic until you understand it completely. A flaw in logic doesn't render the argument false unless the opposition has a logically flawless argument.

You just made the fallacy fallacy, look it up.

Seriously?

Are you saying that if both sides use a fallacy neither side is using a fallacy? How does that work in your world?

By the way, I took your advice and looked up fallacy fallacy just to be sure I remembered it right, it turns out I did.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Since I never actually claimed that your argument was false just because you used a fallacy, I didn't commit a fallacy fallacy.

All I did was point out that your definition of fallacy was wrong.

Hold on, did inevitable just commit a fallacy fallacy fallacy or only misapply the fallacy fallacy. (I'm really hoping for the fallacy fallacy fallacy just because I think that would be something worth seeing.)

Lol.

 

[Ibentoken]

Yes, homosexuality is a choice. Homo sapiens are heterosexual by nature.

 

[Inevitable]

Yes, homosexuality is a choice. Homo sapiens are heterosexual by nature.

So what?

Are you saying something it's right because it's natural?

 

[Marie888]

I believe 100% that it is a choice, because one can "live without it" or rather that it is not a bare necessity at all, (food, shelter, etc) therefore it is a choice coming from the mind. I believe a person may "struggle" with it as I also believe it is a form a lust and lust is definitely a choice also which can also become a temptation, just as there are many "lust/fleshly" choices including fornication. (sex before holy matrimony)

Please know that my reply is not to put down or attack any homosexuals personally, as the Good Lord knows I've struggled and struggle with my own things I've done wrong or sinned. Daily I ask Him for forgiveness even in my mind, as we all fall short.

But overall, I believe it's a choice and goes directly along with these verses in The Bible and that it is a sin against God/how He created us to be and He wants to restore us from things like this:

Romans 1
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

When one reads all these verses very carefully, even asking God for help to read them if needed, it becomes clear that it's a "lust" which is a "choice".



.

[MENTION=25198]Marie888[/MENTION]
What makes homosexuality lust?

Please see the verses, especially verses 27. His Word talks specifically about it.."burned in their lust one toward another;"