Why i focus on homosexuality

[OpenYourEyes]

Some members, like Danmark and even otseng, have questioned why i focus on homosexuality so much as if it's a bad thing for me to do. The reason I focus mainly on that issue and not as much on other topics is for two reasons: it is a big objection to Christianity that lots of times is ineffectively addressed, and secondly it's one of my strong areas (The bold font part addresses my strengths and their benefit).

Christians have been losing major ground to the LGBT, or really just the LGT, movement with the increasing acceptance of homosexuality in our culture. A lot of the Christian arguments tend to be biblically based with a narrow view on the history of marriage. So in my view, many Christian responses are ineffective and weak, which takes me to my next point on my strengths on the matter.

I believe one thing that can improve amy Christian response would be to become knowledgeable on sexual orientation, especially on some of the claims of gay advocates. I dont have a reasonable and effective Christian response but I am fairly knowledgeable on the subject since i wrote a research paper on it. So instead of using my strengths on the subject to argue the typical Christian responses, i instead counter some of the faulty claims of gay advocates that tend to mislead people. For instance, because of many interactions with gay advocates at school and online, i was led to believe that homosexuality was an innate and immutable trait. After i did my own research and listened to debates on BOTH sides, i found that some of the claims of gay advocates were untrue. I even found that some of their claims were purposely propagated to help get the issue more accepted by a wider (including Christian) audience.

So far, with the help of others I've had some success as shown in the data from 2 threads which i take to be a representative sample of the views of this forum on 2 key issues dealing w/ sexual orientation. I'll present the data from responses on the cause and immutability of homosexuality:

Debate question #1: Is it scientifically justified to say that homosexuality is caused by biology just like eye color, skin color, gender, etc?

My data shows 90% of forum members in the debate thread responded with " no". The "no" response means that homosexuality is not solely a product of biology.

1. Psychiatric Association? No!
2. American Psychological Association? No!
3. OpenYourEyes? No (post #34)
4. KenRU? No! (post #35)
5. Haven? No! (post #9)
6. bluethread? No! (post 174 and post #176)
7. ScioVeritas? No! (post #65)
8. MasterOfOnesOwnMind? No! (post #44)
9. RKO_? No! (post #84)
10. liamconnor? No! (post #14)
11. Hamsaka? No! (post #15)
12. ttruscott? No! (post #16)
13. Bust Nak? No! (post #33)
14. Hautey? No! (post #50)
15. H.sapiens? No! Late convert. (ppost # 181, last paragraph)
16. enviousintheeveafter? No! (post #252
17. Danmark? No! (post #255)
18. pshun2404? No! (post #283
19. instantc? No (post #308 and
post #312)

20. DanieltheDragon? Yes (post #29)
21. SailorCyclops? Yes.

22. JoeyKnothead? Apathetic or Agnostic (post #25)

Debate question #2: Is it scientifically justified to say that homosexuality is immutable for both men and women?
In other words does homosexuality remain fixed throughout a person's entire lifetime?

The responses show 100% of the participants who answered said "no" meaning that homosexuality is NOT immutable.

1. DanieltheDragon? No! (also refer to post #5)
2. enviousintheeverafter? No!
3.Clownboat? No!
4. Danmark? No!
5. Youkilledkenny? No!
6. Bust Nak? No!
7. Strider234? No!
8. OpenYourEyes? No!


9. Divine Insight? Apathetic

[Haven]

Some members, like Danmark and even otseng, have questioned why i focus on homosexuality so much as if it's a bad thing for me to do. The reason I focus mainly on that issue and not as much on other topics is for two reasons: it is a big objection to Christianity that lots of times is ineffectively addressed, and secondly it's one of my strong areas (The bold font part addresses my strengths and their benefit).

Christians have been losing major ground to the LGBT, or really just the LGT, movement with the increasing acceptance of homosexuality in our culture.

Good! Honestly, that anti-LGBT, hateful sect of heterosexual supremacist Christianity needs to go extinct ASAP. It's an absolute scourge to humanity. It's the moral equivalent of white supremacy and the "Christian Identity" and KKK movements that support it, and it directly leads to murders and suicides of LGBT people. It's absolutely putrid.

I believe one thing that can improve amy Christian response would be to become knowledgeable on sexual orientation, especially on some of the claims of gay advocates. I dont have a reasonable and effective Christian response but I am fairly knowledgeable on the subject since i wrote a research paper on it. So instead of using my strengths on the subject to argue the typical Christian responses, i instead counter some of the faulty claims of gay advocates that tend to mislead people. For instance, because of many interactions with gay advocates at school and online, i was led to believe that homosexuality was an innate and immutable trait. After i did my own research and listened to debates on BOTH sides, i found that some of the claims of gay advocates were untrue. I even found that some of their claims were purposely propagated to help get the issue more accepted by a wider (including Christian) audience.

So you admit that your "scientific" posts around here are anti-gay propaganda?

As many others have pointed out to you on this forum, there is strong evidence that homosexuality is immutable, and strong evidence that so-called reparative therapy does not work. What more do you want?

But of course, your objection to homosexuality is based in religious zealotry, not scientific reasoning.

Debate question #1: Is it scientifically justified to say that homosexuality is caused by biology just like eye color, skin color, gender, etc?

First many people on that list, myself included, have disputed your inclusion of our names on that list. You have twisted our positions and put words in our mouths, as many people on that thread have pointed out. This is a bad debating tactic and is intellectually dishonest.

[Divine Insight]

Christians have been losing major ground to the LGBT, or really just the LGT, movement with the increasing acceptance of homosexuality in our culture. A lot of the Christian arguments tend to be biblically based with a narrow view on the history of marriage. So in my view, many Christian responses are ineffective and weak, which takes me to my next point on my strengths on the matter.

I am certainly glad to see this open confession.

I would only like to point out that in America "Our Culture" is not a religious monarchy. Therefore the claim that Christians are losing ground in some sort of battle to take over America seems to me to be an admission of anarchy against the United States of America in general. Is that what Christianity has become? A religion that wants to overthrow the government of the United States of America?

As far as homosexuality is concerned, it doesn't matter to me whether homosexuality is a choice or not. In the USA people have the right to choose the lifestyle they desire. This is a large part of what America is all about.

Your attempt to pass judgement on gays by proclaiming that they have a choice doesn't fly anyway. Even if gays have a choice it doesn't mean that they need to cower down to the demands of a religion that worships an ancient homophobic God named Yahweh. It's not the agenda of the USA to force people to believe in Yahweh. Is that your ultimate goal? To convert the USA into a religious monarchy? I don't think that will ever fly.

Even if gays have a choice that doesn't vindicate Christianity to condemn them as 'sinners' especially via any official government supported laws. That would only be true in a Christian Monarchy, but this mindset has no validity or place in a FREE country like the USA.

So even if you could prove that homosexuality is a choice you wouldn't have vindicated religious bigotry anyway.

[Divine Insight]

Also I would like to point to an article from the APA that you yourself have pointed to repeatedly

APA Orientation PDF

From the APA article:


Is homosexuality a mental
disorder?
No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are
not disorders. Research has found no inherent
association between any of these sexual orientations
and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior
and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of
human sexuality. Both have been documented
in many different cultures and historical eras.
Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray
lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed,
several decades of research and clinical experience
have led all mainstream medical and mental
health organizations in this country to conclude
that these orientations represent normal forms
of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual
relationships are normal forms of human bonding.
Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago
abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a
mental disorder.

This demonstrates that science itself (the very institution you appeal to in an effort to condemn homosexuality as being a choice) has clearly proclaimed that homosexuality is not a disorder but a naturally occurring phenomenon that has no negative side affects itself.

Therefore, the only arguments that Christians can make against it is the claim that their God Yahweh doesn't approve of it. A purely religious ideal based on a totally invisible mythological God for which there exists absolutely NO EVIDENCE for.

Christians may as well be claiming to believe in fairies and condemning homosexuality because they claim their fairies don't like it.

[bluethread]

For me the issue is more of a philosophical than a scientific one, including the pseudo sciences of psychology and sociology. On the empirical side, western society tends to be hedonistic. On the mystical side, it tends to be romantic. Though Christianity has sought to hold the line against hedonism, because it is empirically based, it has embraced romanticism as a central doctrine, because it is mystical. This platonic approach is a fool's errand IMO, because it gives the appearance of moral superiority, while justifying one's own proclivities. Therefore, it provides no protection against sliding moral standards, because, as has been done by the LBGTQ... "community", all one needs to do is expand what one defines as romantic to include the letters one prefers.

[Haven]

For me the issue is more of a philosophical than a scientific one, including the pseudo sciences of psychology and sociology.

I know it's popular to hate on sociology, but it really is not a pseudo-science. While there is some sociological work out there that is, to put it kindly, pure bunk, most sociological research does apply the scientific method to empirical data, which is indistinguishable from proper science.

Yes, I'm biased--I'm a sociologist .

On the empirical side, western society tends to be hedonistic. On the mystical side, it tends to be romantic. Though Christianity has sought to hold the line against hedonism, because it is empirically based,

How is Christianity "empirically based?" Please explain. What empirical evidence is there for Christian claims?

It's also a sweeping generalization to say that Western society is mystical, romantic, and hedonistic. While these values are present in Western society to a greater extent than they are in, say, East Asian cultures, they are by no means pervasive.

it has embraced romanticism as a central doctrine, because it is mystical.

Doesn't modern science specifically reject romanticism and mysticism?

This platonic approach is a fool's errand IMO, because it gives the appearance of moral superiority, while justifying one's own proclivities. Therefore, it provides no protection against sliding moral standards, because, as has been done by the LBGTQ... "community", all one needs to do is expand what one defines as romantic to include the letters one prefers.

First of all, it's considered offensive to place "community" in quotation marks when referring to LGBTQIA people. You don't see LGBTQIA people placing Christian community in quotation marks. Please give us the same respect.

Next, my arguments for why queer sexualities and gender identities should be accepted is primarily empirically based. Empirically, there is no evidence that homosexuality or gender transition is harmful (either to oneself or others), so therefore there is no rational reason to prohibit it. Arguments about love and family are emotional appeals that attempt to get opponents of queer sexualities and gender identities to see LGBTQIA people as fellow human beings, and they're useful to that end, but really they're the "icing on the cake" of empirical arguments.

[OpenYourEyes]

I believe one thing that can improve amy Christian response would be to become knowledgeable on sexual orientation, especially on some of the claims of gay advocates. I dont have a reasonable and effective Christian response but I am fairly knowledgeable on the subject since i wrote a research paper on it. So instead of using my strengths on the subject to argue the typical Christian responses, i instead counter some of the faulty claims of gay advocates that tend to mislead people. For instance, because of many interactions with gay advocates at school and online, i was led to believe that homosexuality was an innate and immutable trait. After i did my own research and listened to debates on BOTH sides, i found that some of the claims of gay advocates were untrue. I even found that some of their claims were purposely propagated to help get the issue more accepted by a wider (including Christian) audience.

So you admit that your "scientific" posts around here are anti-gay propaganda?

As many others have pointed out to you on this forum, there is strong evidence that homosexuality is immutable, and strong evidence that so-called reparative therapy does not work. What more do you want?

But of course, your objection to homosexuality is based in religious zealotry, not scientific reasoning.

I don't engage in discussions/debates on homosexuality to promote Christianity nor to spread anti-gay propaganda. I do it to counter false and misleading claims of gay advocates, especially the ones who purposely propagate pro-gay lies just to get as many people as they can to accept the LGBT lifestyle. I'm not saying people should not accept the LGBT lifestyle, but let it be based on a rational/scientific understanding and then let the people make up their minds based on that understanding. A Pew Research Poll shows that over 40% of Americans believe that gays are born gay. I have no doubt that this stems from pro-gay propaganda just as I was once misled by some of the propagandists points.

Also, my position on homosexuality not being fixed throughout a lifetime is not based on religion, choice, or reparative therapy. I recall telling you this already when I told you that 'choice' is not the only way that sexual orientation can be changed. The change can happen due to non-genetic biological factors, some which you yourself agreed with here, your point #1.

First many people on that list, myself included, have disputed your inclusion of our names on that list. You have twisted our positions and put words in our mouths, as many people on that thread have pointed out. This is a bad debating tactic and is intellectually dishonest.

I disagree and I provided actual links to posts of each forum member that I listed in post #1. Some may not want to be summarized in a chart, but my summary of them is valid based on their own words!

[Haven]

I don't engage in discussions/debates on homosexuality to promote Christianity nor to spread anti-gay propaganda. I do it to counter false and misleading claims of gay advocates, especially the ones who purposely propagate pro-gay lies just to get as many people as they can to accept the LGBT lifestyle.

1. There is no such thing as an "LGBT lifestyle" except in the wild imaginations of fundamentalist zealots. LGBT(QIA+) people are as diverse as straight-cisgender people and we lead a variety of different lifestyles. Conflating the wild gay partier from West Hollywood with the transgender Mormon housewife from rural Utah is just as absurd as comparing a wild straight partier from Miami with a straight conservative Christian family man from Alabama.

2. You have yet to produce even one example of a "pro-gay lie" on this website. Not one. So why do you continue to claim that pro-gay activists (of which I am one, and proudly so!) lie about the data on homosexuality?

I'm not saying people should not accept the LGBT lifestyle, but let it be based on a rational/scientific understanding and then let the people make up their minds based on that understanding. A Pew Research Poll shows that over 40% of Americans believe that gays are born gay. I have no doubts that this stems from pro-gay propaganda just as I was once misled by some of the propagandists points.

Many believe that people are born gay because that is what the scientific evidence suggests, as numerous people have pointed out on this forum. You've yet to provide any evidence that sexuality is not based on genetics and pre-natal hormonal factors, all you've done is pointed out that, for some people (especially a minority of lesbian-identified women), sexuality is fluid (which no one has disputed). There is still overwhelming evidence that for people with homosexual orientations, especially gay men and many lesbian women, sexual orientation is resistant to change. Why won't you accept this?

My eyes are open. Are yours?

Also, my position on homosexuality not being fixed throughout a lifetime is not based on religion, choice, or reparative therapy. I recall telling you this already when I told you that 'choice' is not the only way that sexual orientation can be changed. The change can happen due to non-genetic biological factors, some which you yourself agreed with here, your point #1.

I mentioned brain trauma and no other biological cause. Certainly brain trauma cannot be considered a "therapy."

Some may not want to be summarized in a chart, but my summary of them is valid based on their own words!

You have twisted my words. In that thread I posted a clarification of post #9 where I explicitly said that sexual orientation is determined, for all intents and purposes, biologically. Other people have also complained that you have quote-mined them.

[Divine Insight]

A Pew Research Poll shows that over 40% of Americans believe that gays are born gay.

Why should it matter whether or not a person is born gay?

You make it sound like gay people need an excuse to be gay. That is what bothers me.

The United States of America is founded on FREEDOM and the right of its citizens to pursue their dreams. There's nothing about the USA that demands a person must defend their dreams in any way.

The scientific community has determined that there is nothing wrong with being gay. It doesn't qualify for the criteria of mental illness, and there is no evidence that there is anything negative with being gay specifically.

Therefore in the USA a person should not need to defend their dream of being with a same-sex partner no matter why they have acquired that desire.

Gay people DO NOT need to excuse themselves to you or your demand that if they aren't "born gay" they have no right to pursue that desire or dream should it happen to come about later due to other causes.

What right do you have to demand that someone must either be "born gay" or they have no excuse for being gay at all?

That is already an extremely judgmental and highly bigoted view toward homosexuality.

Gay people are not obligated to defend their desires to you.

The only reason they have been doing it on the social-political front is precisely because religious people are trying to put their superstitious beliefs into LAW.

But the USA isn't based upon putting superstitious beliefs into law.

That would require a "Christian Monarchy" to pull that off.

Christianity (or any organized religion) has no right to expect the United States of America to support their religious superstitions as the law of the land.

It's simply not what the USA is all about. On the contrary the USA is founded on a principle of separation of Church and State precisely for this reason. So that religious superstitions aren't put into the law of the land.

Yet, clearly this appears to be your agenda.

You said in the OP:

Christians have been losing major ground to the LGBT, or really just the LGT, movement with the increasing acceptance of homosexuality in our culture

What exactly is this even supposed to mean?

Why is there a "Holy War" between Christianity and Gays to begin with?

Why don't the Christians just mind their own "culture" and leave the Gays alone?

The Christians don't OWN the USA. It's not a Christian Monarchy. It's a FREE country that doesn't allow putting superstitions into LAW in the name of religion.

I think that's the problem right there.

Christians need to realize that if they want to have their religion that's fine. It's only a problem if they want to FORCE it onto the entire country by LAW.

At that point they become a threat to the United States of America.

[bluethread]

For me the issue is more of a philosophical than a scientific one, including the pseudo sciences of psychology and sociology.

I know it's popular to hate on sociology, but it really is not a pseudo-science. While there is some sociological work out there that is, to put it kindly, pure bunk, most sociological research does apply the scientific method to empirical data, which is indistinguishable from proper science.

Yes, I'm biased--I'm a sociologist .

You have every right to your bias. After all, this is general chat, not a debate forum. That said, I don't hate sociology. I just see sociology and psychology as pseudo science because the ability to do controlled experimentation and at the same time have it be generally applicable to the dynamics of human interaction is not the same as biochemistry. IMO, one can draw some general conclusions regarding certain circumstances, but, IMO, those disciplines tend to be more influential than observational.

On the empirical side, western society tends to be hedonistic. On the mystical side, it tends to be romantic. Though Christianity has sought to hold the line against hedonism, because it is empirically based,

How is Christianity "empirically based?" Please explain. What empirical evidence is there for Christian claims?

It's also a sweeping generalization to say that Western society is mystical, romantic, and hedonistic. While these values are present in Western society to a greater extent than they are in, say, East Asian cultures, they are by no means pervasive.

It appears that we have a word usage problem here. I was not saying that Christianity is empirical. I was saying that Christianity opposes hedonism, because hedonism is empirically based. I also did not say "Western society is mystical, romantic, and hedonistic". I said, from the empirical side, ie prospective, it TENDS to be hedonistic and from the mystical side, ie prospective, it TENDS to be romantic. You are free to disagree. I am just making a point about the approach most Christian, primarily evangelicals, take towards western society.

it has embraced romanticism as a central doctrine, because it is mystical.

Doesn't modern science specifically reject romanticism and mysticism?

Yes, but modern society doesn't and neither does evangelicalism.

This platonic approach is a fool's errand IMO, because it gives the appearance of moral superiority, while justifying one's own proclivities. Therefore, it provides no protection against sliding moral standards, because, as has been done by the LBGTQ... "community", all one needs to do is expand what one defines as romantic to include the letters one prefers.

First of all, it's considered offensive to place "community" in quotation marks when referring to LGBTQIA people. You don't see LGBTQIA people placing Christian community in quotation marks. Please give us the same respect.

Well, I do not use the term "community" to refer to any group of people based on a shared characteristic. That is why I put it in quotes. I might refer to a group of similar people a community, if they lived in the same location and had an economic structure. So, I do give everybody the same respect.

Next, my arguments for why queer sexualities and gender identities should be accepted is primarily empirically based.

My post has nothing to do with that. As noted before, this is not a debate forum, but general chat. I was merely presenting my view on why Christians, specifically evangelicals, don't make much headway on the issue of maintaining their moral standards. It is because they generally try to stand firm on certain rules, yet compromise on principles. You are free to disagree with anything I have said, but that is my viewpoint.