Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The second column is percentage of identical twins the fourth column is percentage of non identical. If left to random choice, we would expect the second column to be roughly the same as the fourth. However, the monozygotes are higher...by a substantial amount.
I didn't add the first ones due to your bias against those studies. Again there is also epigenetics, birth order, and other factors that are included. I already explained that it may be a factor of genetic causes.
Of course, you probably did not read that part. Which is why you provided this link. However, when you do twin studies, you also compare MZ to DZ not just over the 50% threshold.
First of all, results from these studies are all over the road. If an absolute biological connection to homosexuality were in play, nearly 100% of monozygotical twins would be expected to have common sexuality and different studies would have similar results, but that is not the case. Moreover, that so many of these same identical twins do not share a common sexuality suggests other powerful factors are contributing to sexual orientation. To say biology plays no role in sexual identity would be an overstatement, but claiming biology trumps other factors or that one's DNA determines sexuality simply isn't supported by the evidence.
I've come to the conclusion and opinion that homosexual tendencies are something people are born with. But, therefore, it is out of the norm of human anatomy and physiology, thus giving it mental deficiency status.
Homosexuals argue that their sexual preference is not a choice. And I agree with them. I do however believe that if they had these tendencies from birth. That would then make these tendencies, which are out of the norm, a mental deficiency.
I think it is very relevent topic... especially since the way the question is worded.... tricky..
Sexual PREFERENCE is NOT a choice!! For us heterosexuals do ANY of us feel as though it was a choice to be attracted to the oppiset sex??? Of course NOT!! so how can any of us expect that homsexuality or the attraction to same sex partners is a choice either..
For all the bible thumpers they are talking about ENGAGING in homosexuality... that is a choice!!
I repped you and your comment is profound. I don't know how people still think this is still a choice! One of the reasons is that people think being Gay is solely about sex when it starts out simply being attracted to the same sex. Most young kids know at a very early age what sex they are attracted to and society forces them into a stereotype and this is why we end with people who commit suicide like that college kid did.
It's amazing how much homophobia still exists today.
If you're telling me I'm wrong for "judging" anyone, you are guilty of the same thing--as you are judging me and imposing your values. Funny how that works, huh? I'm willing to let you tell me I'm wrong...are you willing to do the same for me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
And they'd say you're wrong. Again, how can something like this be "absolute" (as you say) if Christians can't even agree on it?
Read it in context. It's not very difficult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
No. It does change. Or at least, man's interpretation of same changes.
For example, I doubt you read the bible in its original text. Most American protestant sects of Christianity read the KJV, commissioned by the famous bisexual, King James of England.
1. I think you're wrong--most Christian denominations tend to read an English Translation such as NASB, ESV, Duay-Rheims, etc. There are some that read the KJV. While the KJV isn't a horrible translation, the newer ones today are from a better, more reliable set of source documents.
I can read some Greek, but a good translation such as the NASB is almost word-for-word from the Greek. 1st year Greek students are known to use it as a guide for their translations of the NT documents. I don't read Hebrew, but as with Greek there are a myriad of good tools available to help with that. For example, Logos Bible program will allow me to mouse over any word and it will tell me the Hebrew word. By clicking on it, I can do a word study and see how it's used in every instance, etc.
Quote:
The bible has been used to decide when and if slavery is moral (HAS to be moral, the bible explicitly CALLS for slavery of some people),
1. The Bible recognizes it exists, but does not command it. It commands better treatment than any of the neighboring people groups at the time. You need to understand what slavery was at the time--it was less about skin color and more about prisoners of war. It was also something a person would/could willingly enter into.
Quote:
and whether or not one can eat shellfish.... wait, seafood lovers everywhere decry the "new covenant" with God... which on its face means that the bible changes and isn't absolute.
Considering that command was given to a bunch of guys living in tents in the desert, I can see how that might be a very good command to give. Of course, I'm not among that people group and it is not intended for me. Remember..context is everything. You'd do well to understand that, it might help with your understanding of slavery as well.
Quote:
And God knows (pun intended) how many books were "left out" of the bible's official final form by the early church!
I believe the necessary ones are there. Again, your lack of understanding and research shows up here. Really...do some research. You'd probably be surprised if you actually saw the truth.
Quote:
So no, Calvinist. Your bible isn't absolute.
It sure is. I have yet to see anything that leads me to believe otherwise. You certainly haven't shown me anything.
Quote:
It's not infallible, and your particular strand of belief is not the only strand.
It's the right "strand".
Quote:
You think you're right. Heck, you may KNOW in your "heart" you're right, but it doesn't mean you actually are, because most of the world does NOT subscribe to your particular sect of beliefs, meaning it is very likely you are wrong.
It's not about a personal emotional feeling. I'm not among those that are arguing from emotion on this thread.
Look...this thread asked for opinions. I gave mine. I don't believe it's a viable lifestyle, nor is it one that a person is unable to control or change. I don't think this is something a person should be mistreated for, and I do think they are people just like me. I have been friends with gay people the past and I currently know some gay people. They're normal people. I'm not just some guy looking to bash people.
I've come to the conclusion and opinion that homosexual tendencies are something people are born with. But, therefore, it is out of the norm of human anatomy and physiology, thus giving it mental deficiency status.
Homosexuals argue that their sexual preference is not a choice. And I agree with them. I do however believe that if they had these tendencies from birth. That would then make these tendencies, which are out of the norm, a mental deficiency.
They cannot have it both ways!
Human sexuality exists on a spectrum and always has done, as documented by history.
it is laughable that you demand others read the bible "in context" on issues that you want to skirt or wave away as being inconsistent with acceptable morality, yet REFUSE to even LOOK at the other "in context" examples that numerous people have posted on this thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calivinist
1. I think you're wrong--most Christian denominations tend to read an English Translation such as NASB, ESV, Duay-Rheims, etc. There are some that read the KJV. While the KJV isn't a horrible translation, the newer ones today are from a better, more reliable set of source documents.
What version do people prefer? As of 1997, those who read the Bible preferred the King James Version to the New International Version by a 5 to 1 margin.
Americans and the Bible (http://www.theologicalstudies.org/page/page/1572910.htm - broken link)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
1. The Bible recognizes it exists, but does not command it. It commands better treatment than any of the neighboring people groups at the time. You need to understand what slavery was at the time--it was less about skin color and more about prisoners of war. It was also something a person would/could willingly enter into.
Slavery is always IMMORAL. End of story. ANY circumstances in the bible justifying its use, prescribing its use, or regulating its use means that to God, slavery is a moral practice that just needs to be regulated. It would appear that either God, or the men who pretended to write FOR god, have more hangups about sex than violent acts like slavery. Not much has changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinst
Considering that command was given to a bunch of guys living in tents in the desert, I can see how that might be a very good command to give. Of course, I'm not among that people group and it is not intended for me. Remember..context is everything. You'd do well to understand that, it might help with your understanding of slavery as well.
Spin spin spin.
So do you enjoy shellfish or not? Clothing of mixed fibers, or not?
What was or is good for a bunch of people in the dessert may not have any place in modern society.... evolution of bible "absolutes"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calivinist
I believe the necessary ones are there. Again, your lack of understanding and research shows up here. Really...do some research. You'd probably be surprised if you actually saw the truth.
YOU "believe"... you "feel"... forgive me, but what YOU "feel" is sort of irrelevant, and I nor anyone else has enough confidence or your ego to take what you say as law or truth. We don't even know you, and lord knows you've enough inconsistencies and spin jobs on the subject of morality to make you sound like a white house press liaison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
It sure is. I have yet to see anything that leads me to believe otherwise. You certainly haven't shown me anything.
If it conflicted with your particular interpretation of a gazillion times translated book from a couple thousand years ago, you wouldn't be "convinced" by anything. What about all the people who believe the passages mean a proscription against male prostitutes, particularly the ones that operated in pagan temples around the time the bible was penned? What was that about context again? Oh, that's right. Context is only for SLAVERY and other uncomfortable subjects that the bible condones through its "regulation" of same!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
It's the right "strand".
Yeah, and everyone else has it wrong. I actually admire the ego it must take to be so absolutely sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
It's not about a personal emotional feeling. I'm not among those that are arguing from emotion on this thread.
Faith by definition is a FEELING. Since you have yet to posit any arguments based on logic or reasoning, and rely on ancient texts supposedly written by an omnipotent man who lives in the sky (why he would care about half the things Christians say he does is BEYOND comprehension for thinking people).
So no, Calvinsit. It IS all about your "feelings, because it's all about your "faith."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Look...this thread asked for opinions. I gave mine. I don't believe it's a viable lifestyle, nor is it one that a person is unable to control or change. I don't think this is something a person should be mistreated for, and I do think they are people just like me. I have been friends with gay people the past and I currently know some gay people. They're normal people. I'm not just some guy looking to bash people.
And others here who actually are gay or know gay people personally tell you every time one of these threads pop up that they are enjoying successful, healthy lives as gay individuals. Some have been with the same person for decades. Others have children that are thriving. And unless you personally "were gay" and "prayed away the gay," I don't see how you have ANY frame of reference to say that someone is or is not able to control or change their sexual orientation.
I always laugh at those who pretend they went from raging gay to totally straight. Let's see them spend a weekend at a gay resort. If the gay is "totally away," then no old thoughts or attraction would bubble to the surface. It would make a great reality show, to be honest.
Or it is that you think gay relationships are "Not viable in the eyes of (your) God?" Well Calvinist, you and countless other street side preachers before you have all professed a direct line to the true meaning and intentions of God, and it's all mixed messages.
You will forgive us, again, for respecting your RIGHT to an opinion, while not necessarily respecting the SUBSTANCE or BASIS of your opinion.
The point being that it's not up to either you or me or any other person in this life to judge any one else's morality or lack thereof. That's God's job. We are only to love one another as God has loved us. We are to concentrate on making sure our own lives follow the path we believe God has set before us. If someone else prefers to walk a different path, we might pray for their soul (without 'announcing' that to them!), but it's not up to us to "put them on the 'right' path."
I'm not sure Christians should be judging homosexuality as a mental illness considering they are not trained psychologists or psychiatrists. And trained psychologists and psychiatrists aren't even real doctors: they are people who practice pseudo-science: it's about as good as horoscope readings.
Christianity on the other hand is about saving your spirit from frying in the pits of hell. And making the pastor or priest rich as hell.
I'm not sure someone who isn't religious or believes in salvation should be preaching what religion is. Very few pastors are "rich as hell" and you obviously base your POV by what you've been told to believe.
Let me point out one of the unexpected consequences of gay marriage that has gone completely ignored. Catholic perishes make up the bulk of orphanages in the US. When gay marriage is legalized, they are forced to approve adoption by gay couples. This goes directly against their religious beliefs, forcing these orphanages to close. You can say whatever you'd like to make yourself feel better about this, but it's still the orphans who are screwed when they only have the state to care for them.
I'm not bashing anyone. I'm just pointing out one consequential fact. If you think religion is just a way for priests and pastors to get rich then you are sorely misguided.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, and everyone else has it wrong. I actually admire the ego it must take to be so absolutely sure.
