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.
I know the answer and it wasn't a choice. Ask any gay person. Who needs scientific studies?
That isn't an valid assessment. If it is chemical, then it is an imbalance and you would feel as if it weren't a choice. So it isn't a reasonable means to measure.
There have been suggestions that child abusers are chemically imbalanced and many say they can't stop, that they have no choice.
Using the opinion of the subject in question is not a valid means of establishing the issue.
And why do we need science? Because it is the only way to properly establish the cause be it chemical, genetic, etc...
it may be, it may not be. There is no solid scientific evidence to suggest either. And yes, I am aware of the "studies" that claim otherwise, but I said "solid scientific" evidence, not assumptions based on studies to which lack appropriate controls.
It may be a chemical issue.
It may be genetic.
It may be socially influenced.
It may be choice.
It may be all of those combined or some combination of them between to which differs between person to person.
I don't know and anyone who claims they know isn't interested in the science, but rather pushing their opinion.
Most gays I know spent the first 20-30 years of their lives trying NOT to be gay, yet are as gay today as they discovered they were at the age of 5-10. That alone tells me it's not a choice.
Every Evangelical should read this. I've also studied the Bible in college from this historical context. When Evangelicals condemn homosexuality, they ignore these other sins such as rape, polygamy, adultery and slavery. They will rationalize arguments justifying those sins yet will not give the same benefit of the doubt regarding context and homosexuality. Your post essentially destroys any argument that an Evangelical provides regarding citing homosexuality as a sin in the Bible.
And yet you reason out of context to claim out of context. /shrug
Most gays I know spent the first 20-30 years of their lives trying NOT to be gay, yet are as gay today as they discovered they were at the age of 5-10. That alone tells me it's not a choice.
Well in the sense that it may be a possible imbalance that causes such, sure.
But then, if one finds the imbalance and is able to properly adjust it, then it would be a choice if it was continued in practice.
I said it may be a result of many things and combination's there of. Some, it may be a deliberate choice, others a condition of their imbalance or makeup. Only science will eventually determine such, not subjective opinions based on common sense analogy.
Well in the sense that it may be a possible imbalance that causes such, sure.
But then, if one finds the imbalance and is able to properly adjust it, then it would be a choice if it was continued in practice.
I said it may be a result of many things and combination's there of. Some, it may be a deliberate choice, others a condition of their imbalance or makeup. Only science will eventually determine such, not subjective opinions based on common sense analogy.
So it's okay to use context to justify those sins in the Bible such as slavery, adultery, polygamy and rape yet we are to ignore the context of those phrases that you use to justify that homosexuality is a sin. This argument is weak. You can't pick and choose when to apply context to the Bible. In your long diatribe above, you are simply stating one thing: "We should excuse those sins through application of context but choose not to apply this same reasoning to homosexuality" In short, you are simply choosing to define what you consider a sin as opposed to what is stated. If you interpret the Bible literally, then you also have to account for slavery, adultery, polygamy and rape. Sorry but you can't pick and choose. You can't say "Let's apply this literally, and apply this figuratively" That's what you are doing which essentially means you are manipulating the Bible to suit whatever beliefs you would like to hold.
Furthermore, you contradicted yourself. You claim the intent is meaningless when judging a sin (homosexuality). However, you are using that very same argument that you decried when defending the use of rape, adultery and polygamy.
This is why people ridicule Evangelicals. They don't apply sound logic, reasoning or evidence to base their claims.
I didn't say that. If you were reading my response, you would see that is not what I stated. False summary won't make your position correct, it simply makes you devious.
Well in the sense that it may be a possible imbalance that causes such, sure.
But then, if one finds the imbalance and is able to properly adjust it, then it would be a choice if it was continued in practice.
I said it may be a result of many things and combination's there of. Some, it may be a deliberate choice, others a condition of their imbalance or makeup. Only science will eventually determine such, not subjective opinions based on common sense analogy.
I give up! I'm finally convinced that you are just so bound and determined to believe that homosexuality is some sort of 'sickness' or disease that nothing anyone says will have an impression on you. Let me end by stating that I don't consider homosexuality any more a 'sickness' than I do heterosexuality. Nor do I consider it any kind of 'sin'. It is simply another part of life on this planet.
I give up! I'm finally convinced that you are just so bound and determined to believe that homosexuality is some sort of 'sickness' or disease that nothing anyone says will have an impression on you. Let me end by stating that I don't consider homosexuality any more a 'sickness' than I do heterosexuality. Nor do I consider it any kind of 'sin'. It is simply another part of life on this planet.
And you base such reasoning on your subjective opinion (in terms of it being an imbalance). Thats fine, as I said I make no such absolute statements, rather you do. I said I do not know why it occurs or what is the cause.
As for you giving up? I am unsure what you are giving up from? Were you under the illusion that you could force me to your subjective opinion? I made no such attempts to you. I simply stated the facts, added my opinion on those areas to which were subjective and left it at that. I have no need to convince you of anything, no need to require you to subject to my opinion on personal belief. You are an adult, you can choose as you like just as I am an adult and can accept or not if I like.
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.
