Glad I could be of help.This is the new thing I learnt today.
This is a good book about it: https://www.amazon.com/Chimp-River-Emerged-African-Forest-ebook/dp/B00NWTPH68
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Glad I could be of help.This is the new thing I learnt today.
That mentality is something all non-Christian should adopt, and remain strong to Christians that we aren't sinners, sin doesn't apply to us, and we aren't shackled by it.Not everyone follows that God or even believes in him, or this so-called sin. I certainly don't, so for me there's no sin.
There is a good movie with Alan Alda, and the band played on, that is about the outbreak of HIV and the quest for answers about it. Including its actual origins and when they realized it's not exclusive to gay men.This is the new thing I learnt today.
Then why is it not considered such by every major medical, psychiatric, and psychological organization?me saying that homosexuality is a Psychological or genetic disorder.
You're referring to And the Band Played On. Good movie, but the movie and the book it's based upon are very outdated (which is understandable since the book came out in 1987). It has the Patient Zero theory where that French-Canadian flight attendant introduced HIV to America, which was disproved long ago.There is a good movie with Alan Alda, and the band played on, that is about the outbreak of HIV and the quest for answers about it. Including its actual origins and when they realized it's not exclusive to gay men.
...your examples do not prevent the people from performing the action that certain parts were designed for. Homosexuality does. Clear difference.
Also, to add, I just thought of this now, your examples are choices a person makes. If they are equivalent to homosexuality, then that could imply that homosexuality is a choice. So not good examples to use if you support sexual orientation being a choice.
Homosexuality disrupts normal sexual functions therefore it is a disorder.
Furthermore, I am thinking that maybe one has to be conditioned mentally regarding sexual orientation, such as the conditioning that happens when many who watch porn escalate in their sexual tastes to more extreme tastes. So sexual orientation can be molded and shaped maybe?
Then again, you didn't dispute anything he posted, either...you have not disputed anything that I have quoted.
You DO believe in science, don't you?
Lots of things are harmful. Being a movie stunt person, or a race car driver, or working in the circus, or in construction. Eating too much of the wrong foods (take a look at the American obesity statistics, and bear in mind that obesity is both very harmful, and most often a matter of pure choice). Taking drugs without a prescription can be harmful. Taking drugs even with a prescription can have harmful side effects. Letting children play outside can be harmful. Everybody owning guns has definitely been very harmful many times, and has certainly increased the mortality rate.I have not addressed it as a moral question. (Morality changes from one person to the next)
What I addressed was:
It is harmful to the body. It increases mortality rate. It increases frequencies of disease. To say it is not harmful is to deny scientific evidence
Then why is it not considered such by every major medical, psychiatric, and psychological organization?
Nope, if you're going to suggest that we legislate the matter then you'll have to prove that 'sin' is a thing. God's law is something that, as far as can be objectively ascertained, is made up by an ancient barbarous culture of humans.
You thought wrong. I definitely disagree.My argument stems purely from the "software" not matching the "hardware". I don't think anybody would disagree with me on that a
Faith doesn't grant any special knowledge or wisdom.Nope. Faith is the fundamental way for humans to reach a truth of any kind. That's how humans reach long past by history books written as human testimonies and for later humans to believe with faith. The same applies to God's truth!
Sin and Law are well defined in the Bible which is in the form of human testimonies, that is, the only way for truth of this kind to convey. Unless God chooses to show up by breaking the covenant between God and men. Such a covenant specifies that men in majority will in the end rely on faith to be saved. God thus has to hide behind. Then the only way remains for God's truth to convey is for His chosen witnesses to write down testimonies for the rest of humankind to believe with faith. It is the same route how humans get to historical truth by means of history books. Shall there be a truth, this is the only way!!!
Faith doesn't grant any special knowledge or wisdom.
The sexual parts were designed for pleasure but also for reproduction. Not allowing one of those is a disorder.Incorrect. Whether a heterosexual couple can make babies is not the issue here. The issue is why would a heterosexual couple want to use their reproductive parts for anything other than reproduction. That indicates a clear misuse of them according to your logic.
Which is my point. I was talking about orientation which isn't a choice, your points about fellatio and anal sex was are choices which do not affect sexual orientation.Wrong again. Heterosexuals also make a choice to have sex or not. Heterosexuality or homosexuality as orientations and attractions are not a choice.
Just to clarify: My points are not whether one chooses to make babies or not. It is about whether if they wanted to make babies, would they prevented from doing so because of sexual orientation. If a gay man can get an erection through natural means, which is being attracted to the opposite sex, then he is not truly gay, he would be bisexual. If he has to trick his mind into doing so or use viagra or something so that he can make a baby with a woman, then that is a disorder.Not so. My man parts work just fine. I just don't use them to make babies. Just as heterosexual couples don't use them at times to make babies. Is heterosex for its own sake, without procreating a dysfunction? There are probably thousands of men who have children, having had sex with women, but are gay. Does it mean the men enjoyed the sex? Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't. So how could I do it? Fantasizing, sufficient stimulation just to get the job done. Why would I do it? Maybe I want a child and there is a woman willing to bear me a child. Maybe she wants a child and has an attraction for me.
Not necessarily so. I didn't see gay porn until well after I knew I was gay, becoming attracted to and aroused by other men. I would wager real money that other gay men will say the same thing.
Sex is not solely Man + Woman = Babies.
Incorrect. Whether a heterosexual couple can make babies is not the issue here. The issue is why would a heterosexual couple want to use their reproductive parts for anything other than reproduction. That indicates a clear misuse of them according to your logic.
Wrong again. Heterosexuals also make a choice to have sex or not. Heterosexuality or homosexuality as orientations and attractions are not a choice.
Not so. My man parts work just fine. I just don't use them to make babies. Just as heterosexual couples don't use them at times to make babies. Is heterosex for its own sake, without procreating a dysfunction? There are probably thousands of men who have children, having had sex with women, but are gay. Does it mean the men enjoyed the sex? Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't. So how could I do it? Fantasizing, sufficient stimulation just to get the job done. Why would I do it? Maybe I want a child and there is a woman willing to bear me a child. Maybe she wants a child and has an attraction for me.
Not necessarily so. I didn't see gay porn until well after I knew I was gay, becoming attracted to and aroused by other men. I would wager real money that other gay men will say the same thing.
Sex is not solely Man + Woman = Babies.
You thought wrong. I definitely disagree.
It's really important to you that it be a disorder, isnt' it? Does it make you feel better about yourself to denigrate others?I just checked this out:
When Homosexuality Stopped Being a Mental Disorder
In 1973, APA Removed Homosexuality From List of Mental Illnesses | Human Rights Campaign
This is the reason though:
“We will no longer insist on a label of sickness for individuals who insist that they are well and demonstrate no generalized impairment in social effectiveness.”
Homosexuals do not negatively affect their surroundings, their social environment or themselves. Therefore there is no reason to classify them as such since it seems that something only gets classified as such because it has negative consequences.
My argument stems purely from the "software" not matching the "hardware". I don't think anybody would disagree with me on that as well as some who are sexually abused becoming homosexuals after the abuse.
I would say though that the in some cases homosexuality is the result of something negative, therefore this is an indication that it is a disorder:
https://stream.org/yes-childhood-sexual-abuse-often-contribute-homosexuality/