Sexual Orientations---"Nature" or "Nurture?"

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by coldwine

This thread was started in 2008.

I have to question why the attention is being levied on the LGBT community right now.

Anyways, I voted nature. We'll likely never know, and I am not particularly interested one way or the other. I do care that one's sexual orientation does not lead to discrimination or harassment.

The group is now politically up for grabs is why. They traditionally looked to the state for protection . Now the Democratic party looks to have gotten in bed with Islam. Given that there is more tolerance for gays in general , they are now a swing vote.

[coldwine]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

The group is now politically up for grabs is why. They traditionally looked to the state for protection . Now the Democratic party looks to have gotten in bed with Islam. Given that there is more tolerance for gays in general , they are now a swing vote.

Aaah, so you assume that all gays are Democrats, all Democrats look to the state for protection, and because the Democratic Party is "in bed with Islam", the gay community will... join ISIL?

I will tell you that the vast majority of older gay men that I know are staunch Republicans, primarily because they are 1) Wealthy, and 2) Were raised in an era when you could be gay if you were white, but you just had to stay in the closet and vote the party line.

That demo is mostly gone, but not entirely.

To say the Democratic party is in bed with Islam is ridiculous, though, and I think you know that

I am a Democrat and we do not discriminate based on religion, so as a general principle we tend to accept everyone. This does include Muslims and practicing "Islamists", to use your word.

That does not include radical terrorist groups.

[chiluvr1228]

Originally Posted by bawac34618

I did conversion therapy twice so I can totally relate to where you are coming from. Conversion therapy is mostly about adhering to gender stereotypes and social norms. My therapist believed that if I would take up a sport and become part of a community of alpha-males, that the masculine affirmation would transform me to become heterosexual (because homosexuality is a result of being insecure with your gender, according to him). I tried taking up a sport, Ultimate Frisbee, and since I am not athletic I was laughed off the field. I actually contemplated suicide that day.

Truth is, most fundamentalists choose to believe these "family leaders" like Tony Perkins who promote these camps as opposed to people who actually have been through them and some who actually led them, like the ex-leader of Exodus International who now says that it all was a farce and never worked. There is no way to convince them otherwise.

A lot of moderate evangelicals are coming around to "you don't choose your orientation but you can choose whether or not to act on it." Basically that means if you are gay, you are condemned to a life of loneliness and isolation and it is in fact a requirement if you want to be a Christian. This conflicts with the teaching of salvation through faith alone that most of them believe. If you are straight, you are saved by faith in Christ. If you are gay, it's faith in Christ plus celibacy.

Excellent post!

[LS Jaun]

Originally Posted by coldwine

This thread was started in 2008.

I have to question why the attention is being levied on the LGBT community right now.

Anyways, I voted nature. We'll likely never know, and I am not particularly interested one way or the other. I do care that one's sexual orientation does not lead to discrimination or harassment.

Im fine with Homosexuality, but if a gay man had never seen Another man in his life and only had seen women, how would he know he was attracted to the male form? Unless he was attracted to himself.

I say a sliding scale from 0 - 100% nature combined with 100 - 0% nurture depending on the person.