God's opposition to homosexual behavior. Why?

[Foxic]

I remember watching a movie based on real life events, cannot recall the title, regarding a young boy who was kidnapped as a child and raised to engage in sex with his male kidnapper. When the boy was older, after he'd managed to escape, he formed sexual relationships with women because he was straight despite the abuse he'd endured. Of course, he also had traumatic issues with which to deal as he engaged in sexual relations, but that is natural considering what he had been through.

 

[SomeRandom]

This question hinges on the idea that having a "same-sex attraction" makes a person "gay", which premise I reject.

But that is the absolute literal definition of homosexuality. Just FYI the opposite is true of the definition of heterosexuality.
Homosexuality - Wikipedia
the definition of homosexuality
homosexuality | Meaning, History, & Facts
Definition of HOMOSEXUALITY
homosexual | Definition of homosexual in English by Oxford Dictionaries

One doesn't just turn gay or indeed straight because they've decided to stop being a virgin. One can stay absolutely chaste and still have a sexual orientation. Otherwise we'd have to label every single virgin in existence as asexual.
Sexual behavior =/= Sexual orientation. Anyone with a passing familiarity with basic biology will tell you that.
How do you even define homosexuality if you're not including attraction? The very thing that defines every single sexual orientation as we know it today. I'm just baffled.

That's like saying a man having the mere desire to have sex with a woman, even if it were against her will, makes him a rapist.

Makes him a potential rapist. If he desires to have sex and do so against her will, that is quite literally the definition of a rapist actually.
The hell are you trying to say, man?

A man who has always been sexually attracted to children, yet he never once acted on that attraction, is not a pedophile.

Yes, yes he is. Again that is the literal definition of a pedophile. WTF? A pedophile is still a pedophile even if he or she never acts on their desires. Otherwise what the hell would we even label them???

Pedophilia - Wikipedia
Pedophilia | Psychology Today
pedophilia | Definition & Facts
Definition of PEDOPHILIA

Christ even the vernacular usage describes someone with desires specifically, who may or may not engage in such behaviors. Vernacular usage.
Sexual paraphilias and sexual orientations are NOT defined by sexual behavior. No one in any modern scientific scenario would ever argue such a point. Otherwise we are all asexual until we have sex. It doesn't actually work like that mate.

Like what messed up out of date dictionary are you even using?

If all people "were" or "became" everything that they "thought" or "desired", we would all be in prison.

Whoa, what kind of messed up things are you into? I mean I make no judgment, but damn dude, what fantasies are you having?

A person is not "gay" or a homosexual for being attracted to the same sex, but by acting on that attraction and engaging in homosexual behavior.

No they are not. As previously mentioned sexual behavior =/=sexual orientation. Many straight people have had gay encounters. Sometimes as mere experiments. Maybe they were even drunk. If they did not enjoy the experience, then I fail to see how it makes them gay. Bi curious maybe, but who the hell even defines their sexual orientation as specifically behavior? Sexual orientation manifests as early as prepuberty. I doubt all gay and straight people were having sex in primary/elementary school. Again maybe some as part of experimentation or even abuse (or mimicking abuse as a sort of coping mechanism.) Not really true of every gay straight or bi person though.
Did you seriously never in your life have a specific preference for males or females or both until you had sex?
Again no judgment, there exists the occasional person for who that is true. But that's not really a common phenomenon among gay or straight or bi individuals.
Just FYI.

A person is not "gay" or a homosexual for being attracted to the same sex, but by acting on that attraction and engaging in homosexual behavior.

A person is gay regardless of the sex or lack thereof they are having. Same is true of heterosexual people. I am not my behavior, that's just insulting (I'm straight in case you were wondering.) If I never had sex until the day I died, I would still be heterosexual.

When did the pedophile decide he/she was a pedophile? Or those who practice necrophilia and bestiality?

I dunno. Ask them.

Are these behaviors something they cannot control? They were forever destined to rape children, corpses and animals?

You can't control desires (well, maybe if you were the next Buddha or something) but we can control behaviors sure.
Which is why we don't define sexual orientations or even sexual paraphilias by behavior specifically. Such a thing is overtly simplistic and inaccurate to reality. Also we couldn't accurately define homosexuality, bisexuality or even heterosexuality if we did that.

I may not be able to control when I become aroused or to whom I am attracted, but I decide to have sex with no one except my wife.

Good for you.
So do you let others have theirs in peace, or are you not one for the golden rule?

Or, on the other hand, did they harbor and nourish unclean thoughts which led to unclean behavior?

Again, I dunno, why don't you ask them?

The Lord condemns any sexual activity outside the confines of marriage, which He describes as only between a man and woman who are legally and lawfully wedded.

Okay? So?

A man and a woman who are not married to one another having consensual sex is just as sinful as two members of the same sex having consensual sex.

Both are forbidden.

If both are forbidden and as bad as each other, why is it I constantly see protests against gay people but not unmarried couples?

 

[SomeRandom]

Ethics ? " not recognized as sexual orientations" ? Who is the authority that determines ethics ? Ditto for sexual orientation ? Since this hasn't been established scientifically by objective proof, what is the basis of authority ? In the US, the book that defines aberrant behavior for health care specialists listeds homosexuality for decades, then recently, one year it was listed, the next gone, with no change in objective scientific evidence. What was the authority for that ? Who decides what hairstyle is in, and out ? Same authority, influential opinion. So, if those who practice necrophilia can generate popular opinion that their practice is sexual orientation, it will be. In Germany, there is a huge push to list pedophilia as a sexual orientation, and a large number of intellectual leaders are proclaiming that some sexual activity with children isn't necessarily bad.
.

The push to label pedophilia as a sexual orientation is a common tactic to try to "out" them as it were and to push for pedophiles to come into treatment/counselling BEFORE they are caught hurting children. A sort of tactic to get pedophiles to come forward.
But yeah, sure we should totally not be pragmatic at all and wait until a child is damaged before we do anything. Of course NAMBLA would twist it to their own advantage, so I guess one would have to weigh the benefits against the negatives. Perhaps you can offer a solution to protect children?

Although if you could please point me to where these intellectual leaders are making such a claim about sexual activity with minors. All I can find is that some suggest sexual experimentation is a common phenomenon among the youth, which is true. I mean we've known that for literally decades now.

As for ethics, I think most thinking reasonable people can draw a respectable line for themselves. Linking gay behavior however indirectly to pedophilia is abhorrent to me, for example. It screams of hyperbolic rhetoric and designed specifically to incite distrust or even dislike of gay people.
An extreme scenario is not a sign of the sky falling and the moral fabric tearing apart. People have been using that tactic since my father was a kid. And that was in the roaring '20s!

I love the term "HOMOPHOBES " A phobia is an irrational fear of something. I am sure there are homophobes, just like irrationally fear spiders, arachnophobes. But once again the language has been usurped for a political/social agenda. So now, Christians ( oddly, not moslems who are told to kill homosexuals ) have an IRRATIONAL fear of homosexuals, i.e. they aren't rational. I as a Christian don't know one homosexual that I fear. Those in my family, whom I know quite well, cause me no fear.

This is just another manifestation of hitlers maxim, "tell a lie often and for a long enough period of time and people will believe it "

Umm a "phobia" is defined as irrational fear of OR aversion to. That or is quite important.
the definition of phobia
I mean would you prefer people called homophobes homosexualists? To coincide with
Racist, sexist etc? English rules are whacky but in this instance that's why people use it.

 

[shmogie]

The push to label pedophilia as a sexual orientation is a common tactic to try to "out" them as it were and to push for pedophiles to come into treatment/counselling BEFORE they are caught hurting children. A sort of tactic to get pedophiles to come forward.
But yeah, sure we should totally not be pragmatic at all and wait until a child is damaged before we do anything. Of course NAMBLA would twist it to their own advantage, so I guess one would have to weigh the benefits against the negatives. Perhaps you can offer a solution to protect children?

Although if you could please point me to where these intellectual leaders are making such a claim about sexual activity with minors. All I can find is that some suggest sexual experimentation is a common phenomenon among the youth, which is true. I mean we've known that for literally decades now.

As for ethics, I think most thinking reasonable people can draw a respectable line for themselves. Linking gay behavior however indirectly to pedophilia is abhorrent to me, for example. It screams of hyperbolic rhetoric and designed specifically to incite distrust or even dislike of gay people.
An extreme scenario is not a sign of the sky falling and the moral fabric tearing apart. People have been using that tactic since my father was a kid. And that was in the roaring '20s!


Umm a "phobia" is defined as irrational fear of OR aversion to. That or is quite important.
the definition of phobia

I am not linking the two together, I am pointing out that social views change and influence " morality ". I will see if I can dig up the material I read about 18 months ago re Germany. You asked if I had a solution to pedophilia, I do. You won't like it. Second offense, speedy objective trial, with one appeal, followed by execution. If not that, castration and life imprisonment, and I mean life. Before you conflate this view with being unChristian, Christ never said that forgiveness and acceptance by God means you are exempt from the consequences for your actions on earth. I would be happy to preach to and pray with one of these to do my best for him to have eternal life. Once a choice is made, I wouldn't lift a finger to stop his execution.

 

[shmogie]

The push to label pedophilia as a sexual orientation is a common tactic to try to "out" them as it were and to push for pedophiles to come into treatment/counselling BEFORE they are caught hurting children. A sort of tactic to get pedophiles to come forward.
But yeah, sure we should totally not be pragmatic at all and wait until a child is damaged before we do anything. Of course NAMBLA would twist it to their own advantage, so I guess one would have to weigh the benefits against the negatives. Perhaps you can offer a solution to protect children?

Although if you could please point me to where these intellectual leaders are making such a claim about sexual activity with minors. All I can find is that some suggest sexual experimentation is a common phenomenon among the youth, which is true. I mean we've known that for literally decades now.

As for ethics, I think most thinking reasonable people can draw a respectable line for themselves. Linking gay behavior however indirectly to pedophilia is abhorrent to me, for example. It screams of hyperbolic rhetoric and designed specifically to incite distrust or even dislike of gay people.
An extreme scenario is not a sign of the sky falling and the moral fabric tearing apart. People have been using that tactic since my father was a kid. And that was in the roaring '20s!


Umm a "phobia" is defined as irrational fear of OR aversion to. That or is quite important.
the definition of phobia
I mean would you prefer people called homophobes homosexualists? To coincide with
Racist, sexist etc? English rules are whacky but in this instance that's why people use it.[/QU

The push to label pedophilia as a sexual orientation is a common tactic to try to "out" them as it were and to push for pedophiles to come into treatment/counselling BEFORE they are caught hurting children. A sort of tactic to get pedophiles to come forward.
But yeah, sure we should totally not be pragmatic at all and wait until a child is damaged before we do anything. Of course NAMBLA would twist it to their own advantage, so I guess one would have to weigh the benefits against the negatives. Perhaps you can offer a solution to protect children?

Although if you could please point me to where these intellectual leaders are making such a claim about sexual activity with minors. All I can find is that some suggest sexual experimentation is a common phenomenon among the youth, which is true. I mean we've known that for literally decades now.

As for ethics, I think most thinking reasonable people can draw a respectable line for themselves. Linking gay behavior however indirectly to pedophilia is abhorrent to me, for example. It screams of hyperbolic rhetoric and designed specifically to incite distrust or even dislike of gay people.
An extreme scenario is not a sign of the sky falling and the moral fabric tearing apart. People have been using that tactic since my father was a kid. And that was in the roaring '20s!


Umm a "phobia" is defined as irrational fear of OR aversion to. That or is quite important.
the definition of phobia
I mean would you prefer people called homophobes homosexualists? To coincide with
Racist, sexist etc? English rules are whacky but in this instance that's why people use it.

Aversion means, strong dislike. Christians are instructed to love all people, to respect all people, how do you de facto extrapolate they fear or have a strong dislike of homosexuals? Do I fear or hate shoplifters, or someone hooked on painkillers or an alcoholic ? No Some Christians are guilty, just as some homosexuals are haters of straight people. However, blanket condemnation is stupidity, unethical and immoral. Struggle for whatever term you like, just don't collectively apply it. That is another political ploy

 

[Foxic]

If someone is going to irrationally employ religious beliefs to deny equal rights to someone else, using subjective dogmatic morality to cloak unacceptance, then I am going to reasonably refer to that religious person as a hater of humanity.

 

[MansFriend]

For many people, because of how they have been raised, they believe homosexual behavior is bad simply because God has said so. Unfortunately, God didn't actually take the time to give substantive justification for why this type of behavior is against His law. This leaves the door wide open for people to fail to render any convincing arguments that backs up why things are the way they are in the Bible.

This challenge is greatly compounded because we live in a culture and society that is VASTLY different from a traditional patriarchal society that God's laws foster. Because our entire mindset for day to day life is oriented around a manner of culture that is totally removed from a patriarchal order, Biblical things are easy to poke fun at.

For example, there is a provision in the Bible that says if a man rapes a woman that he is to marry her and he is unable to put her away under any conditions. In today's culture that is totally absurd because marriage has an entirely different function now than it did in ancient patriarchal times. People don't understand that the family structure is the backbone and the vast majority of governance. This made it so that the family is the government. This eliminates a need for centralized welfare agencies, taxes on personal labor and property, and so on. It is a society that maximizes personal liberty, so long as families function properly. Today marriage is primarily love and romance and some vestiges of the old culture remain, but it is nowhere near as foundational in its governmental role as it used to be. In fact, society is throwing under the bus all family related governmental aspects as people orient more and more and more to the central government.

So, that absurd law, by today's standards, would translate into something very enlightening today. If you take all of the governmental aspects of marriage that are implied in that provision of law and translate that into today's paradigm, the consequences of being convicted of raping a woman would incur all of the governmental responsibilities of marriage. Thus, this man would be responsible for the woman's housing, food, clothing, healthcare, education, transportation, etc. And, he would be charged with those responsibilities for the rest of his life. Because he is unable to put away that wife under any circumstances, she has complete freedom to continue to do as she pleases with her life. If she doesn't wish to see him again, that is her option, but he is still under those duties as a husband.

If you get your mindset outside the box of today's manner of society and you really try and wrap your head around the patriarchal order system of governance, then it simply stands out that homosexuality is totally aberrant to the well-functioning of families. Two men coming together is referred to as an abomination of desolation because their union is barren. Their lands of inheritance would have no heirs to continue to have that part of their kingdom being worked productively. It is also a self-sustaining agrarian society that lives close to the land and that depends upon all having children to keep the land populated properly.

Homosexuality is something that causes great disruption to a patriarchal order type of society, but it fits in quite nicely with a system of government that centralizes all of the welfare by means of putting every citizen of the society under a type of bondage. People's income and property are all taxed significantly so that the welfare system can give everyone a safety net regardless of their personal lifestyle choices. The lure of "big government" is so that people can indulge in a lifestyle that allows them to have a safety net paid for by means of forceful extraction of wealth from the masses. Those who want this system absolutely hate the family and they do all in their power to undermine it and to get people to abandon patriarchal principles to favor the system of central control and command. Those who want big government want homosexuality to spread like wildfire.

There tends to be a correlation between homosexuals and proponents of more "big government" and it isn't coincidental.

 

[shmogie]

If someone is going to irrationally employ religious beliefs to deny equal rights to someone else, using subjective dogmatic morality to cloak unacceptance, then I am going to reasonably refer to that religious person as a hater of humanity.

Who does that ? not I. The only place there is unacceptance, is as a member of a church. Attend, fine. I find no constitutionally guaranteed right to join a particular church. Of course, there is the right of freedom of association, which Churches have, as well as anyone else, including homosexuals. Unacceptance? What the hell does that mean ? Businesses don't accept patrons in without shoes or shirts, are they haters of humanity ? Irrationally ? Who judges rationality, you ? So, you decide someone does something you think is irrational, they are haters of humanity. No one can deny equal rights to anyone on the basis of religion, UNLESS, it conflicts with the right of free exercise of religion. The courts decide then, and have

 

[shmogie]

For many people, because of how they have been raised, they believe homosexual behavior is bad simply because God has said so. Unfortunately, God didn't actually take the time to give substantive justification for why this type of behavior is against His law. This leaves the door wide open for people to fail to render any convincing arguments that backs up why things are the way they are in the Bible.

This challenge is greatly compounded because we live in a culture and society that is VASTLY different from a traditional patriarchal society that God's laws foster. Because our entire mindset for day to day life is oriented around a manner of culture that is totally removed from a patriarchal order, Biblical things are easy to poke fun at.

For example, there is a provision in the Bible that says if a man rapes a woman that he is to marry her and he is unable to put her away under any conditions. In today's culture that is totally absurd because marriage has an entirely different function now than it did in ancient patriarchal times. People don't understand that the family structure is the backbone and the vast majority of governance. This made it so that the family is the government. This eliminates a need for centralized welfare agencies, taxes on personal labor and property, and so on. It is a society that maximizes personal liberty, so long as families function properly. Today marriage is primarily love and romance and some vestiges of the old culture remain, but it is nowhere near as foundational in its governmental role as it used to be. In fact, society is throwing under the bus all family related governmental aspects as people orient more and more and more to the central government.

So, that absurd law, by today's standards, would translate into something very enlightening today. If you take all of the governmental aspects of marriage that are implied in that provision of law and translate that into today's paradigm, the consequences of being convicted of raping a woman would incur all of the governmental responsibilities of marriage. Thus, this man would be responsible for the woman's housing, food, clothing, healthcare, education, transportation, etc. And, he would be charged with those responsibilities for the rest of his life. Because he is unable to put away that wife under any circumstances, she has complete freedom to continue to do as she pleases with her life. If she doesn't wish to see him again, that is her option, but he is still under those duties as a husband.

If you get your mindset outside the box of today's manner of society and you really try and wrap your head around the patriarchal order system of governance, then it simply stands out that homosexuality is totally aberrant to the well-functioning of families. Two men coming together is referred to as an abomination of desolation because their union is barren. Their lands of inheritance would have no heirs to continue to have that part of their kingdom being worked productively. It is also a self-sustaining agrarian society that lives close to the land and that depends upon all having children to keep the land populated properly.

Homosexuality is something that causes great disruption to a patriarchal order type of society, but it fits in quite nicely with a system of government that centralizes all of the welfare by means of putting every citizen of the society under a type of bondage. People's income and property are all taxed significantly so that the welfare system can give everyone a safety net regardless of their personal lifestyle choices. The lure of "big government" is so that people can indulge in a lifestyle that allows them to have a safety net paid for by means of forceful extraction of wealth from the masses. Those who want this system absolutely hate the family and they do all in their power to undermine it and to get people to abandon patriarchal principles to favor the system of central control and command. Those who want big government want homosexuality to spread like wildfire.

There tends to be a correlation between homosexuals and proponents of more "big government" and it isn't coincidental.

OT quotations on this issue are irrelevant to Christians, and relevant to Orthodox Jews. God nor I have to justify His feelings on the matter, to anyone.

 

[SomeRandom]

Aversion means, strong dislike. Christians are instructed to love all people, to respect all people, how do you de facto extrapolate they fear or have a strong dislike of homosexuals? Do I fear or hate shoplifters, or someone hooked on painkillers or an alcoholic ? No Some Christians are guilty, just as some homosexuals are haters of straight people. However, blanket condemnation is stupidity, unethical and immoral. Struggle for whatever term you like, just don't collectively apply it. That is another political ploy

Aversion means to distance oneself or avoid actually. Hate could be argued to be a consequence I suppose.
I'd say let the actions speak. Ex gay therapies, protests to deny equal rights to gay people and constant harassment of gay people by some members who strongly tell you at every turn they are Christian..... Well not too hard to extrapolate in all honesty.
Not all christians but a seemingly loud chunk of them.

 

[blü 2]

What is in lying around in your underwear is completely irrelevant, unless you believe it is your genitals that gain knowledge, not your brain.

Hmmm.

I'll have to think about that.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Correlation is not causation. It is essentially two overlapping things. It's basically a scientific way of saying "coincidence." Maybe a tad stronger but not by that much.

Some who can't tell the differences between correlations and causations might like to take a look at this:

15 Insane Things That Correlate With Each Other

 

[Yohanan ben Yaaqov]

Wow, just wow! 11 days and 331 replies, and not a single one that addresses the question in the thread title. Although it is sort of a loaded question.

“God’s opposition to homosexual behavior, why?”

Before anyone can even begin to answer the question, one has to determine the specific meaning of “homosexual behavior.”

The Noun “homosexual” is defined: someone sexually attracted to people of the same sex; the Adjective “homosexual” is defined: sexually attracted to people of the same sex.

The Noun “behavior” is defined: 1) manner of acting or controlling yourself; 2) the action or reaction of something under specified circumstances; 3) the way a person behaves toward other people; 4) the aggregate of the responses or reactions or movements made by an organism in any situation.

According to the dictionary definition, “homosexual behavior” means: someone who acts like they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex. So to slightly rephrase the question: Why does God oppose homosexual behavior? The answer is very simple: He does not.

There is not one single Mitz’vah throughout the entirety of Torah that says: “You will not act like you are sexually attracted to anyone of the same sex.” There is in fact not one single Mitz’vah throughout the entirety of Torah that says: “You will not be sexually attracted to anyone of the same sex.”

Vayyiq’ra/Leviticus 18:22 is very simple and straightforward about what is prohibited, and why. “You will not be sexually intimate with a male: it is a toʿévah.” Sexual penetration between two males is prohibited, not sexual attraction. Why? It is a toʿévah. So what is a toʿévah?

The dictionary definition of – תּוֹעֵבָה – toʿévah is: abomination, shameful deed, profanity, scabrousness, villainousness, anathema; idol, idolatry. In English translations of the Hebrew Scriptures the word toʿévah is translated in descending order: abomination; detestable; disgusting; loathsome. Even though these are perfectly acceptable translations, they are still somewhat ambiguous.

Context is everything. The word toʿévah is used 110 times throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, with one common context; it is describing forbidden religious practice. Why would Vayyiq’ra/Leviticus chapter 18 be the only exception?

“You will not be sexually intimate with a male, because it is a forbidden religious practice.” Even though it is also an unlawful sex act, sexual intercourse between two males is a violation of the most serious crime there is – idolatry.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Uhh yeah. It's called basic debate etiquette. You claim something then provide evidence that you think backs it up.

It's like me claiming that all homophobes like to have sex with plants and then saying, well why do I need to show you evidence?
Because I made a claim.

Having memories of early sexual experiences and indeed trauma can and does affect people for life. No study I have seen shows any direct proof that imprinting develops one's sexual orientation specifically however. Otherwise the vast majority of sexually abused children are heterosexual specifically because they were sexually abused as children.
Sexual kinks/fetishes and indeed taste in a mate is not really the same as sexual orientation. They are the quirks, if you like. The details to the bigger picture, as it were.

A man preferring someone like their mother is not evidence that they prefer females specifically because of imprinting. Even the text you cited goes out of its way to say such a thing in the ending conclusion/discussion portion. That's specific taste not a sexual orientation.Two different beasts, mate. It's like saying people who like chocolate ice cream do so because as kids their parents enjoyed chocolate ice cream in front of them.
I mean it could have a bit of an impact, but a person's taste is a multifaceted thing.
No one discounts environmental factors in one's sexual orientation (gay, straight or bi.) But to suggest it's the leading cause for gay people and only gay people is quite disingenuous.

If you've "read lots of imprinting studies but never saw that imprinting imprints", I cannot help you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

First time I have seen that and as mentioned, it is still only a theory. I believe a similar mechanism has been cited for causing paedophilia though - being attracted to smaller more feminine females. Don't have access to most of this research unfortunately but would like to have such. I believe some studies say the opposite that opposites attract - so still very much theories. Has been proposed for homosexuality, for example - some time back.

Edit: For example:

The exotic becomes the erotic?

https://duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=https://labs.psych.ucsb.edu/roney/james/other%20pdf%20readings/Bem%25201996%2520Exotic%2520becomes%2520erotic.pdf

In the nature/nurture issue, "born gay" advocates seem to miss all the identical and fraternal twins where one is gay, one is not.

Imprinting is not theoretical but fact to psychologists. Everyone I know who counsels in the area of sexual abuse know imprinting is powerful stuff.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't have time to keep going over your strawman. Either reply to what is actually being posted or I won't bother.

Very respectfully, that seems a cop out, because I visited each article you posted, and listed details from some of the articles, for one, addressing each subheading.

 

[shmogie]

Aversion means to distance oneself or avoid actually. Hate could be argued to be a consequence I suppose.
I'd say let the actions speak. Ex gay therapies, protests to deny equal rights to gay people and constant harassment of gay people by some members who strongly tell you at every turn they are Christian..... Well not too hard to extrapolate in all honesty.
Not all christians but a seemingly loud chunk of them.

Perhaps a vocal minority ? Ex gay therapy's, what is that ? I agree, Christ said, "by their fruit, you shall know them" He was speaking of how to recognize a TRUE believer. The Constitution, determines the rights of all people, I know of no one who contends that anyone should be denied these rights. Harassment is evil and no one who does this............

 

[Mock Turtle]

In the nature/nurture issue, "born gay" advocates seem to miss all the identical and fraternal twins where one is gay, one is not.

Perhaps because other effects take place apart from genes?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Some who can't tell the differences between correlations and causations might like to take a look at this:

15 Insane Things That Correlate With Each Other

Those are awesome!

 

[Mock Turtle]

Those are awesome!

The guy probably made them all up - the opposition might say.