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]

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.

I posted in this thread and I said "yes," with the notable exception of change due to serious brain trauma. Why did you leave this out? As far as I can recall, several others said "yes" as well.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 1 by OpenYourEyes]

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

The ground Christianity lost never belonged to them in the first place. This so-called 'ground' was appropriated by Christians attempting to impose their religiously justified discrimination (which is unwanted by the majority of US citizens). The entitlement some Christians feel to impose their version of morality on nonbelievers is being challenged and rightly so.

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 agree. The arguments some Christians propose are solely based upon their religious scriptures, which is untenable, unsupportable and inappropriate.

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.

Are you willing to share some or all of your research paper with us?

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.

When you say 'mislead', you know this word is synonymous with 'to deceive'? 'Mislead' may not have to darker undertones that 'deceive' does, but it still implies LGBTQ advocates intend to cause people to come to 'wrong' conclusions to manipulate increased public acceptance.

From what basis have you determined LGBTQ advocates are willfully misleading people? Are there other possible explanations for people to promote overly simplified information?

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.

On the whole, 'propagating' a misleading idea that there is a 'gay gene' or that sexual preferences can be changed with 'therapy' is far less dishonest than promising people that they'll spend eternity in Heaven with Jesus. There are elements of truth, huge elements of it, in what you describe as 'misleading' information. At least the 'gay advocates' who led you to believe LGBTQ was 'innate' and 'immutable' can produce reasonable evidence for their claims, while the Christians who seek to legislate discrimination against them have no such thing.

[Bust Nak]

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.

Well you've shot yourself in your own foot then haven't you? The results you've collected show that what you called the representative sample of gay advocates here are actually well versed on scientific literature and our answers lines up with the scientific consensus. So why exactly are you still pushing the issue? "When in a hole, stop digging" springs to mind.

As a side point, but no less important, the way you classified our posts as yes or no is less than charitable, shall we say? I said sexuality is only immutable for some but unclear for others as the science literature indicated, somehow that got translated as " homosexuality is NOT immutable" in the summary.

[OpenYourEyes]

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.

I posted in this thread and I said "yes," with the notable exception of change due to serious brain trauma. Why did you leave this out? As far as I can recall, several others said "yes" as well.

I actually forgot to put your name on the list for the 2nd debate question. Had I done so I would've put you down as responding with "no" just like everyone else, with the exception of Divine Insight. That means that you agree that a person can experience a change in sexual orientation based on natural/biological factors. Who is to say what other biological or environment factors can cause this change.

The only thing I could qualify is if the change is due to 'sexual fluidity', which would involve a 'relative' change in sexual attraction, like in certain environments, or towards a certain person (gay man attracted to a particular woman as opposed to women in general). In comparison, a change in sexual orientation would be more of a global or near absolute change in attraction, like a gay man being attracted to women in general and in all or any environment.

[Bust Nak]

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

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

Moderator Comment

I don't see OpenYourEyes admit to posting propaganda and you are getting too worked up. Don't get personal.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Hamsaka]

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.

Well you've shot yourself in your own foot then haven't you? The results you've collected show that what you called the representative sample of gay advocates here are actually well versed on scientific literature and our answers lines up with the scientific consensus. So why exactly are you still pushing the issue? "When in a hole, stop digging" springs to mind.

As a side point, but no less important, the way you classified our posts as yes or no is less than charitable, shall we say? I said sexuality is only immutable for some but unclear for others as the science literature indicated, somehow that got translated as " homosexuality is NOT immutable" in the summary.

Another side point Bust Nak's post reminded me of . . . your willingness to cast an uncharitable light on our posts has me wondering if you've mischaracterized the so-called 'gay advocates' you accuse of deliberately misleading people? There is 'uncharitable' all over the place. Your debate points are marinating in it. And yet you deny any religious implications are informing your 'research', when the only anti-LGBTQI efforts are led by religionists.

If there is another option I'm not seeing, please explain what it is, this is an honest question. Answering it will help your argument's credibility, which I assume is the reason you are debating at all. You lack the education, experience and milieu to draw the 'purely' scientific conclusions you are attempting. You haven't been able to disguise your underlying anti-LGBTQI sentiments in spite of the articles you quote. It shows loud and clear in your rhetoric, for starters. It is confirmed over and over again in how you CHOOSE to characterize LGBTQI advocacy (as actively deceiving people).

If your intention is to expose the deceitful and manipulative 'propaganda' of the Gay Agenda, just to increase public acceptance (how dare they?), so far you've failed miserably. Either you won't or you can't objectively examine the evidence, and it shows. I see that you are an intelligent person with the ability to pull information together to form a hypothesis, but your anti-LGBTQI sentiment interferes with the conclusions you draw.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 1 by OpenYourEyes]

Maybe you're gay? I have no idea. Who cares? Why should they? What's the matter with letting people make their own choices as they discover their own sexuality? It's a long and interesting road that you figure out as you go, isn't it? Yay!

I'm not interested in what some undetectable and invisible God has to "say" about it, according to believers.

[OpenYourEyes]

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.

Well you've shot yourself in your own foot then haven't you? The results you've collected show that what you called the representative sample of gay advocates here are actually well versed on scientific literature and our answers lines up with the scientific consensus. So why exactly are you still pushing the issue? "When in a hole, stop digging" springs to mind.

As a side point, but no less important, the way you classified our posts as yes or no is less than charitable, shall we say? I said sexuality is only immutable for some but unclear for others as the science literature indicated, somehow that got translated as " homosexuality is NOT immutable" in the summary.

Another side point Bust Nak's post reminded me of . . . your willingness to cast an uncharitable light on our posts has me wondering if you've mischaracterized the so-called 'gay advocates' you accuse of deliberately misleading people? There is 'uncharitable' all over the place. Your debate points are marinating in it. And yet you deny any religious implications are informing your 'research', when the only anti-LGBTQI efforts are led by religionists.

If there is another option I'm not seeing, please explain what it is, this is an honest question. Answering it will help your argument's credibility, which I assume is the reason you are debating at all. You lack the education, experience and milieu to draw the 'purely' scientific conclusions you are attempting. You haven't been able to disguise your underlying anti-LGBTQI sentiments in spite of the articles you quote. It shows loud and clear in your rhetoric, for starters. It is confirmed over and over again in how you CHOOSE to characterize LGBTQI advocacy (as actively deceiving people).

If your intention is to expose the deceitful and manipulative 'propaganda' of the Gay Agenda, just to increase public acceptance (how dare they?), so far you've failed miserably. Either you won't or you can't objectively examine the evidence, and it shows. I see that you are an intelligent person with the ability to pull information together to form a hypothesis, but your anti-LGBTQI sentiment interferes with the conclusions you draw.

My reasons for discussing/debating the issue is just refute false claims and propaganda from gay advocates the same way gay advocates try to refute Christian viewpoints. You assume that i misunderstand or put more into gay advocates claims than whats warranted but i disagree.

I recommend that you go by my evidence and nothing more or less.

[OpenYourEyes]

Maybe you're gay? I have no idea. Who cares? Why should they? What's the matter with letting people make their own choices as they discover their own sexuality? It's a long and interesting road that you figure out as you go, isn't it? Yay!

I'm not interested in what some undetectable and invisible God has to "say" about it, according to believers.

Dont we all care for some reason or another. That's why most of my threads and other threads on sexuality are always filled with lots of interests, posts, and sensitivities.

We acknwledge that many religionists have their religious reasons but many gay advocates have their personal reason as well. Perhaps some dont like it when the evidence chips away at their claim that they were born that way or that they cant ever change.

Perhaps the heterosexual wife in her mid 40s wants to know shy she suddenly has feelings for a particular woman?

Perhaps the man in DanieltheDragon's article wants to know what happened to his same-sex feelings that are now gone for his partner.

These issues can be very confusing and perplexing for people to handle and having knowledge, rather than feel-good opinion, should be what people need so that way they arent further misled by feel-good opinion and propaganda from the religious and gay advocates.

[JoeyKnothead]

From various comments within the thread:

That clodded up "you", not the you "you"...

I think if some folks'd quit tryin' to discriminate, poke fun at, and otherwise harass gay folks, gay folks wouldn't find the need to "explain themselves", much less to offer up some story about how it is, they're gay because of whatever answer it might take that you'd love 'em for being the humans they're sittin' there a-bein'.

I propose that if there's some great, grand, nefarious plot by gay folks to tell you whatever the heck it is you wanna hear that'd get you to accept 'em as humans, they've probably figured that after all this time, "I'm a human, damnit" ain't worked. And I ain't gonna fault 'em for it.


I find it less than ingenuous that folks'd declare their concern lies with "confusing data", or "I'm just tryin' to help folks that might be on the fence about all this".

What I see is an attempt to de-humanize these folks at every turn.

All is see is a "search for truth" that denies the truth of homosexuals' humanity.

This whole deal causes me to ask, "Does being a bigot offer sufficient evidence to conclude the bigot ain't him a human?"

I submit that while it might not be sufficient evidence, we'd do just as well to conclude he ain't.