God And Homosexuality

[IndigoChild5559]

Where is this? Polygamy, child rape, etc are all in the bible and God seems pretty good with it.

Where is child rape approved of in the Bible? It is forbidden under Jewish law. It is an act of violence, of assault.

 

[Mitty]

Where is child rape approved of in the Bible? It is forbidden under Jewish law. It is an act of violence, of assault.

But Jewish law, including the ten commandments, did not apply to Abraham et al and their ancestors, which is why it wasn't morally wrong for Abraham to kill his son as a blood sacrifice or to sexually assault him or his goats, or for Cain(an) to kill his brother Abel or for Moses' father to kill a young man for assaulting him.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But Jewish law, including the ten commandments, did not apply to Abraham et al and their ancestors, which is why it wasn't morally wrong for Abraham to kill his son as a blood sacrifice or to sexually assault him or his goats, or for Cain(an) to kill his brother Abel or for Moses' father to kill a young man for assaulting him.

The sacrifice of Isaac, and the murder of Abel, were not rapes, nor was the story of Moses. There were no sexual assaults at all.

My rabbi did a sermon once saying that Abraham failed the test with Isaac. Although faith and obedience were good, it would have been much better if he had argued with God, the way he argued over Sodom. Anyhow, there is more than one way to skin the cat with regards to that story. You might want to ask some of the other Jews, or Rabbi O.

 

[Mitty]

The sacrifice of Isaac, and the murder of Abel, were not rapes, nor was the story of Moses. There were no sexual assaults at all.

My rabbi did a sermon once saying that Abraham failed the test with Isaac. Although faith and obedience were good, it would have been much better if he had argued with God, the way he argued over Sodom. Anyhow, there is more than one way to skin the cat with regards to that story. You might want to ask some of the other Jews, or Rabbi O.

But where does the bible say that it was morally wrong for Lot to sexually assault his daughters after he tried to pimp them and mocked their future husbands for wanting to know what two strangers were up to in Lot's house (Gen 19)?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But where does the bible say that it was morally wrong for Lot to sexually assault his daughters after he tried to pimp them and mocked their future husbands for wanting to know what two strangers were up to in Lot's house (Gen 19)?

I did a pretty good job thrashing your Abraham/Isaac sacrifice argument. It shows how awful your reasoning is. I want you to think about that for a month before you expect me to do the same with the Lot situation.

 

[Mitty]

I did a pretty good job thrashing your Abraham/Isaac sacrifice argument. It shows how awful your reasoning is. I want you to think about that for a month before you expect me to do the same with the Lot situation.

Only in your dreams!!!

But where does the bible say that it was morally wrong for Abraham to kill his son, given that his god commanded Abraham to butcher him, even though the god subsequently preferred to eat mutton instead? And the ten commandments etc did not apply to Abraham anyway, given they are obviously just man-made.

Nor was it morally wrong for Lot to sexually assault his daughters after he tried to pimp them and mocked their future husbands since the ten commandments etc did not apply to him either.

And how could Lot's daughters manage to maintain their geriatric father's erection and make him ejaculate if he was completely drunk with brewer's droop anyway? Or did Lot just tell lies and dishonestly blame his daughters to cover up his disgusting behaviour from frequently sexually assaulting them after sneaking out of Zoar with a truck-load of grog?

 

[BilliardsBall]

The research has also debunked Christian versions of such "counseling." The head of Exodus International, the largest Christian ex-gay organization probably in the world, has admitted it's a sham and he's never met a single person who has genuinely had their sexual orientation changed by such efforts. Lots of people have come forward admitting they lied about their sexual orientation changing though.

Again, your perspective on these issues is quite obviously, as I said before, grounded in your dogmatic belief in the Bible. There's really no where to go from there in the conversation, as I don't share that dogma (anymore).

I'm familiar with the Exodus International findings and so forth. I've seen gains that are different.

 

[Left Coast]

I'm familiar with the Exodus International findings and so forth. I've seen gains that are different.

More anecdote vs. scientific, verifiable evidence. Your beliefs are rooted in Biblical fundamentalism. Until you're willing to look beyond that at methodologically sound scientific analysis, there's nothing else to discuss here.

 

[BilliardsBall]

More anecdote vs. scientific, verifiable evidence. Your beliefs are rooted in Biblical fundamentalism. Until you're willing to look beyond that at methodologically sound scientific analysis, there's nothing else to discuss here.

But neither is Exodus International is not the subject of scientific, verifiable, peer review. The leader of the group was repressed and said some things that put his movement back some years, I get that, and I appreciate his singular, anecdotal claims and that you are using a double standard, one expert's anecdote to meet my own expert anecdote. I meet many repressed people in my travels. I've also known gays and lesbians for many years who've seen victory with the Lord.

My Lord is in the business of continual healing and miracles.

PS. How many ways can I express I'm quite interested in methodologically sound scientific analysis. Part of that includes statistical analysis. When I see something over and over and over again, a possibility is pareidolia, another is statistical significance! And to add to that--when I see many hundreds of Bible claims regarding human behavior and etc. over and over and over again--that is also highly significant.

This world has been broken and off-compass a long time. One of its latest myopias is the continuing "put your genitals there if it feels good" that has been going on since the 1960s worldwide and rooted in the fun-loving 1920s and so on. The Bible still is 100% true and verifiable/falsifiable IMHO.

 

[Left Coast]

But neither is Exodus International is not the subject of scientific, verifiable, peer review. The leader of the group was repressed and said some things that put his movement back some years, I get that, and I appreciate his singular, anecdotal claims and that you are using a double standard, one expert's anecdote to meet my own expert anecdote. I meet many repressed people in my travels. I've also known gays and lesbians for many years who've seen victory with the Lord.

No double standard. He's the leader of the largest ex-gay organization I'm aware of. I'd assume he's something of a subject-matter expert, wouldn't you? If not, then simply look at the peer-reviewed science on "reparative therapy." It is decisive.

My Lord is in the business of continual healing and miracles.

We don't need healing from our sexual orientation, thanks.

PS. How many ways can I express I'm quite interested in methodologically sound scientific analysis.

Great, then you accept the methodologically sound scientific conclusions that have been reached by mental health professionals the world over that homosexuality is not a disease, disorder, or psychological wound that needs healing, and that "reparative therapy," in every form that's been studied, is a failure and in many cases does more harm than good. I'm so glad you're interested in the science!

Part of that includes statistical analysis. When I see something over and over and over again, a possibility is pareidolia, another is statistical significance!

And another is ordinary, everyday bias. Which is precisely why scientific methodology is necessary to rigorously evaluate claims, even ones we think because of our everyday experience must be the case.

And to add to that--when I see many hundreds of Bible claims regarding human behavior and etc. over and over and over again--that is also highly significant.

Even if that were true (which has yet to be demonstrated), that wouldn't demonstrate that the Bible's claims re: gay sex are true. So it's completely irrelevant to the question, TBH.

This world has been broken and off-compass a long time. One of its latest myopias is the continuing "put your genitals there if it feels good" that has been going on since the 1960s worldwide and rooted in the fun-loving 1920s and so on. The Bible still is 100% true and verifiable/falsifiable IMHO.

One of the main veins of development in modern sexual ethics is precisely the opposite of what you are claiming. We (men, especially) are precisely learning not to just "put your genitals there if it feels good," and ensure that sex is fully consensual. Yet again, your Biblical fundamentalism impedes your ability to understand what is actually going on in the world.

 

[Mitty]

I meet many repressed people in my travels. I've also known gays and lesbians for many years who've seen victory with the Lord.
My Lord is in the business of continual healing and miracles.

And that's why most people in civilized countries now support same-sex marriage because your Lord has worked miracles, and why the head of the Anglican church supports same-sex marriage, given that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and why he loved a particular disciple instead of a wife.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I'm not going to write "I believe" in front of everything I say - but assume that what I share here is my personal belief.

Unfortunately for you, your religious beliefs and opinions are not pertinent to the millions who do not share them.

And?

A forum is a place where people can engage in open discussion. It is not an echo chamber where people go to listen to only those views that agree with their own.

You are free to frequent those places - but you have no right to stifle me.

And a religious forum is - obviously - a place where people go to discuss their religious beliefs.

This particular thread on this religious forum asked for people to share their opinion on what they believed God’s views on homosexuality were.

And you believe that only those views agreed by everyone should be shared here?

Rather dictatorial of you - is it not?

When that happens, what we "believe" about "God's position" bows to prevailing scientific precedent.

I have yet to see any “scientific precedent” that contradicts the claim that homosexual behavior is sinful.

If you believe there is - then I’m all ears.

the doctors, psychologists, and sociologists know a heckuva lot more about human sexuality than you do, and than the biblical writers did.

Yes - I’m sure that they are very good at worshiping the golden calf they have erected - but that doesn’t really change anything.

Learning about the Universe and its Laws does not change how anything works.

I believe that homosexual behavior was sinful before anyone knew anything about human sexuality and it will remain so forever.

Learning about gravity does not magically make us able to fly.

But you're speaking universally, as in "what everyone should or should not do."

Yes - that is my opinion - which I have every right to share - especially when I am asked to share it by the OP on a religious forum.

If you want to believe that homosexual acts are wrong, then, by all means, you refrain from engaging in them.

Isn’t this rather hypocritical of you?

You judge me negatively for claiming that people should refrain from a particular behavior - yet you now admonish me and encourage me to refrain from a particular behavior.

Also - this argument is so shallow considering that if someone asked you about your views on homosexuality - you wouldn’t have any advice for those who disagree with you?

But the moment you try to foist your values upon everyone else, you cross a line from "personal belief" to "what everyone ought to believe." That's not How This Works.

First off - could you quote exactly where I “foisted” anything on anyone?

It is possible that you used that word incorrectly.

Second - if you can provide such a quote - could you then explain how you attempting to tell me what to do in this post is any different?

Aren’t you - right now - trying to “foist” your values upon me?

Lastly - if you don’t believe that your views should apply to everyone - then do you really believe in them?

Doesn't have anything to do with "authorities." It has everything to do with agreed-upon usage. Dictionaries, glossaries, medical journals, etc.

That’s funny.

You claim it has nothing to do with “authorities” - but then you list various authorities to support your position.

If you believe that we should all be bound by “agreed-upon usage” - then why do you not view the words “forum” and “foist” by their “agreed-upon” definitions?

To you - a forum is a place where only those who agree with you should speak.

To you - an opinion that you do not agree with is an attempt to foist values upon you.

No, it has to do with a dispassionate evaluation of ancient texts. The texts and their sources are what they are.

Yet these sources consistently condemn homosexual behavior.

Heck! Even the Mormons include the proviso "where they are correctly translated."

Yeah - but we believe that we have Apostles and Prophets alive today to interpret the scriptures accurately through revelation.

Don’t try to use our doctrine to justify your own personal interpretation.

Unless - of course - you are claiming to be an Apostle or Prophet - (i.e. an authority) - like you did in your previous post.

The thing is, according to the Tradition of the Faith, interpretation and revelation are never individual ventures. God has always worked communally.

That’s about half right.

Yes - God’s desire is for His Word to be known and understood by all - but constant bouts of apostasy have required Him to call Prophets throughout the history of Man to try and bring the people back in line with His Word.

These Prophets - although accurate in their interpretation through revelation - were definitely those who engaged in “individual ventures” - because their messages were often rejected by the people.

That doesn't make the revelation 100% infallible, any more than you believe that the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is infallible. These writers still interpreted that revelation through the lens of their own understanding. That understanding (as your own tradition practices) changes from time to time, so the revelations change from time to time.

That very same thing could be said of “doctors, psychologists, and sociologists” and “Dictionaries, glossaries, medical journals” and any other “authority” you wish to reference.

I would argue that these authorities are heavily influenced by the political atmosphere and confirmation bias.

Besides - none of this changes that the fact that the scriptures are consistent in their condemnation of homosexual behavior.

That is not a claim of “infallibility” - just a claim of - “there is no pro-homosexual behavior message contained anywhere in the scriptures.”

These records span thousands of years and they remain consistent in this regard.

I think all texts and accounts need verification and merit critical reading and exegesis. To simply take them at face value is irresponsible.

Yet - that is not what you are doing here.

You are engaging in the logical fallacy of presentism - denying that there could be any kind of verification - and dismissing it wholly.

They're reliable inasmuch as they were writing to an intended audience from a particular perspective. But these writers simply didn't have 21st century America in mind when they were writing. Therefore, we have to figure out what they intended, and translate that intention to our circumstances.

Presentism and a superiority complex.

Just excuses to ignore what you do not like.

I never said that. I said that they declared God's will for a certain time, place, and culture. None of those are ours. What I say, I extrapolate from an exegesis of the texts, taking under consideration the other foundation stones of interpretation: Tradition, reason, and experience.

You assume that you have the authority to declare what is or is not relevant to us anymore.

The arrogance.

Because there's no proof that God ever did that. There is, however, proof that some human writers did that.

God hasn’t written anything Himself. He has given to Man the responsibility to write His Word.

You are essentially saying that all scripture should be dismissed since God Himself did not write it.

I said "that's not what God had in mind," because an inclusive God is congruent with the very biblical (and, for the time, very forward-thinking) tenets of compassion, love, kindness, forbearance, mercy, forgiveness, and hospitality.

You are picking and choosing the parts of His Word that you like and ignoring that which you don’t.

It is true that God is compassionate, loving, kind, patient, merciful, forgiving and hospitable - but He is also a God of Law who has commanded that His children observe His statutes.

All will ultimately be well with us - with all of us - but we can still disappoint Him by our actions - hurting Him and ourselves in the process.

God has consistently condemned homosexual behavior and I understand that you do not like that but no mental gymnastics or “loop-hole searching” is going to change that.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I'm capable of a valid exegesis of the texts, based on study, research, and use of peer-reviewed, scholarly sources. My point was that, lacking a level of understanding of human sexuality, the biblical writers wrote from that perspective. But that doesn't mean that we have to (or should) throw scientific and sociological reason out the window, just because an ancient text "says."

I never said that we should throw anything out the window - that is your stance on this issue.

All I am saying is that no amount of study is going to change the all-pervading laws of the Universe.

See above. That theology is incongruent with biblical tenet.

Only those who ignore the bulk of His Word would assume this.

Because, for Paul, the notion that people could be attracted to the same sex just like they can be attracted to the opposite sex never entered his mind.

Now you’re a time-travelling mind-reader!

He simply did not have the information or the understanding. It took the scientific community until 1994 to definitively reach the conclusions they reached with regard to human sexuality. Paul simply could not have understood it. Paul wrote what he knew.

He knew that God directed him - through revelation - to say what he said and that it was true.

In Paul's limited understanding, anyone who was attracted same-sex "had a vile lust." We know better now, just as we know that the earth is not flat, and that menstruation is not caused by "evil spirits."

No amount of “understanding” is going to change God’s Law.

The Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat or that menstruation was caused by “evil spirits”.

The scriptures stand as a testament to what they are: a product of ancient thought.

Again - you are taking God completely out of the equation.

You assume that God could not have caused these things to be written.

You have every right to believe that - but I remain unconvinced.

The bible simply is not a reliable resource for medicine and science.

That’s good considering that it was never meant to be any such thing.

And, at this point, the homosexual question is HIGHLY informed by science.

Confirmation bias.

Then you are more than welcome to not engage in such. But you have no right to condemn others for doing what they believe is right.

Again - this is very hypocritical of you to tell me that I cannot share my opinion about what others should or should not do while you are free to do so.

Also - when did I “condemn” anyone?

Hyperbole. I'm qualified to exegete the texts and formulate valid theology. My ordination and standing (as well as education) grant me religious authority to speak on behalf of the Church.

So - as I said - you do believe yourself to be an authority to interpret God’s Word - whilst not believing that God Himself said anything that is contained in the scriptures.

It's too bad you have no idea what you're talking about.

Just turning your own argument against you.

If biblical writers were too affected by their “knowledge base” and ”cultural perspective” to be credible witnesses - then you are just as unreliable.

No one is credible according to your argument. Even you.

Doesn't matter if they were illegal.

Yes it does - because that was your argument against the practice. You said,

“BTW: I'd be careful about slinging too many rocks at the homosexual marriage thing, since your tradition historically practiced polygamy -- even though it was illegal in this country.”

If it was not illegal in the US at the time the Church practiced it - wherein lies your argument?

Paul said, "All things are legal, but not all things are beneficial." Polygamous marriages are not beneficial. And before you claim that they were beneficial, please bear in mind that that "defense" would merely prove my point that revelation changes with circumstances. You have no valid position from which to throw rocks at others.

God-sanctioned polygamous marriages are recorded in the scriptures and do not contradict God’s Laws - while homosexual behavior does.

You should understand that ignoring those parts of the scriptures that you do not like is not wise - because they leave holes in your own arguments.

Happily, your opinion doesn't matter outside the sphere of your household.

And how far does yours extend?

When Jesus comes back and lands in Canterbury and declares that homosexual marriage is A-OK, what will you do?

You are essentially asking me what I would do if God turned out to be a liar?

You understand the impossibility of such a scenario?

Like asking me what I do do if water ended up not being wet.

Claim that he doesn't know what he's talking about, since A) he didn't land in Salt Lake City, and B) it "goes against the bible?"

We get it - I’m a Latter-day Saint. Stop being so over-the-top.

We don’t believe that revelation only takes place in Utah or that the Lord Himself is going to appear there - since no prophecy claims that to be the case.

And yes - if some Being of light were to make such a claim I would instantly be suspicious of it - since it contradicts God’s Law - but I would do what I have always done with new information - study it out, ponder on it, pray and await the confirming witness of the Holy Spirit.

Homosexual behavior is sinful and God would never endorse a homosexual union - because it violates His Law and it damns the eternal potential of His children.

And that constitutes entitlement and dehumanization. Easy for you, who are heterosexual to claim that having sex with your spouse is OK, but that someone else may not have sex with their spouse, simply because they don't fit your mold.

I can still commit sexual sin with my wife. It is possible. I don’t - but the possibility is always there.

I do not make any judgments about any “molds” nor did I come to these conclusions on my own.

It is God who has made known to Man that there were made male and female and that neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in Him.

You are basically trying to shoot the messenger here.

To declare that any person cannot act upon her or his sexual orientation is to imply that that person is flawed, or inferior, or even not entirely human. You effectively strip them of dignity and full personhood. Congratulations! You've managed to not honor a whole bunch of people.

Yeah...there seems to be a lot of projection here.

I never claimed that anyone was flawed, inferior or not entirely human.

You see - you and others like you are the ones who claim that people are “born a certain way” - while I do not teach or believe that.

I believe that we - all of us - are capable of overcoming all of our sins and weaknesses and becoming perfect one day.

I treat each individual sin the same.

If any is “dehumanizing” anyone - it’s you - because you are claiming that we are all born to particular “molds” that we can never break free from - which has not been my experience with humanity and it hurts your own argument about you being superior to ancient peoples.

i seem to remember that you had a similar position with regard to blacks. it's bigotry.

I have never claimed that black people were “less” than anyone else.

I know what thread you are referring to where I claimed that African-Americans were not victims of systemic oppression in the United States.

But you bringing that up in this thread is skirting the Forum Rules.

Human sexuality isn't a crime. The comparison is not cogent.

No, it would be similar to labeling someone a heterosexual for being attracted to the opposite sex. See above for how your post constitutes a mind set of systemic violence: to equate a sexual orientation with a crime.

Ugh. People can be so illogical.

I was merely trying to establish common ground by mentioning a behavior that we both would agree was bad or sinful.

We don’t agree that homosexual behavior is sinful - but we can agree on murder right? That it’s bad?

If you don’t like that example - use literally anything else!

A man who desires to watch birds - yet never does - is not a bird watcher.

A woman who desires to bake - yet never does - is not a baker.

It is a very simple concept that you’d be able to see if you weren’t so bigoted.

BTW - any “human sexuality” performed outside the bounds the Lord has set - is sinful.

Another simple concept you’d be able to understand - but you can’t - because you want to justify sin.

Happily, you're not an authority on human sexuality. It's not a "label," it's a descriptor.

You believe that people are “born a certain way”.

I do not believe that.

My message is one of hope while yours is stifling and oppressive.

 

[Mitty]

God has consistently condemned homosexual behavior and I understand that you do not like that but no mental gymnastics or “loop-hole searching” is going to change that.

As you well know, however, there is nothing whatsoever in the bible about female homosexuals and their behaviour, since unlike female heterosexuals they do not have anal sex as described in Romans 1:26-27 and Leviticus 18 & 20.

So how do you know that your god condemns behaviour of female homosexuals, or did you just make that up?

 

[metis]

According to pretty much all of the scientific articles that I have read on homosexuality, they generally conclude that there appears to be a genetic link with most homosexual tendencies but that it is more complicated than involving just one gene. Also, we see homosexuality acts within other primates, much to the chagrin of many a parent with their kids at the zoo.

My point is that since there appears to be a genetic link to it, thus some are born with that eventuality when reaching puberty, why would God make homosexuals and then supposedly condemn them?

The truth of the matter is that the authors of the Bible clearly were influenced by the culture they grew up in that's often reflected in the scriptures, thus not all is "Divinely inspired".

 

[Mitty]

We don’t agree that homosexual behavior is sinful - but we can agree on murder right? That it’s bad?

That's why murder is listed as one of the ten commandments, along with adultery committed by all remarried divorcees. In contrast, homosexual behaviour is not, and behaviour by female homosexuals is not even mentioned in the bible.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"same-sex abuse/recruitment/early imprinting" means either/or.

Yes, I'll need to look again for the documentation I found where fathers of gays spoke about this very early/primal detachment from their sons.

Put differently, I hugged/touched my son often and still do. Born agains know that physical/spiritual/emotional closeness is a help here. I almost said "innoculation against homosexuality" but we both know you are fighting to say this is normal and I find it present where there is imprinting/trauma/lack of male closeness.

Now, it is interesting to me that we are separating orientation from gender. I still find dominant and passive partners, more butch or femme in outlook/lifestyle among gay partners.

"It is a weak hypothesis, which is why no modern reputable medical or psychological organization endorses your view. It's defunct psychoairnalytic pseudoscience."

What does that make Freudian analysis? "Reputable medical associations" as you wrote say my problems and yours are linked to primal desires to kill father to sleep with mother (or vice versa if you're gay? is their peer research here?).

My problems aren't my Bible mindset, yours aren't brokenness and willfulness, but rather, based on how much poop we held or expelled as toddlers. Freudian friends think Behaviorism is pseudoscience and vice versa. Who's right?

G_d IMHO!

Sorry BB but this is archaic nonsense that has long ago been discarded by psychologists. All this stuff about distant cold mothers producing gay sons and detached fathers producing gay children is just not reality, hence the reason nobody follows this stuff anymore. Freud's ideas on this were thrown into the dust bin decades ago because they don't bear out in reality.

Besides that, you have mangled the term "sexual imprinting'"to mean something it doesn't mean.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

According to pretty much all of the scientific articles that I have read on homosexuality, they generally conclude that there appears to be a genetic link with most homosexual tendencies but that it is more complicated than involving just one gene. Also, we see homosexuality acts within other primates, much to the chagrin of many a parent with their kids at the zoo.

My point is that since there appears to be a genetic link to it, thus some are born with that eventuality when reaching puberty, why would God make homosexuals and then supposedly condemn them?

The truth of the matter is that the authors of the Bible clearly were influenced by the culture they grew up in that's often reflected in the scriptures, thus not all is "Divinely inspired".

No one is saying that there are no genetic links to certain behaviors.

That does not mean that these certain behaviors cannot be sinful.

The scriptures refer to these behaviors influenced by the physical body as "weaknesses" or the condition of the "natural man".

I firmly oppose the concept of people being "born a certain way" or that they are predetermined to act a certain way.

Just as a person who is genetically predisposed toward alcoholism can avoid such an outcome by abstaining from alcohol - we can all of us avoid certain sexual sins by avoiding inappropriate sexual behaviors.

Besides - despite what you say - there is no conclusive evidence for the assumption that people are born to commit homosexual acts.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No double standard. He's the leader of the largest ex-gay organization I'm aware of. I'd assume he's something of a subject-matter expert, wouldn't you? If not, then simply look at the peer-reviewed science on "reparative therapy." It is decisive.



We don't need healing from our sexual orientation, thanks.



Great, then you accept the methodologically sound scientific conclusions that have been reached by mental health professionals the world over that homosexuality is not a disease, disorder, or psychological wound that needs healing, and that "reparative therapy," in every form that's been studied, is a failure and in many cases does more harm than good. I'm so glad you're interested in the science!



And another is ordinary, everyday bias. Which is precisely why scientific methodology is necessary to rigorously evaluate claims, even ones we think because of our everyday experience must be the case.



Even if that were true (which has yet to be demonstrated), that wouldn't demonstrate that the Bible's claims re: gay sex are true. So it's completely irrelevant to the question, TBH.



One of the main veins of development in modern sexual ethics is precisely the opposite of what you are claiming. We (men, especially) are precisely learning not to just "put your genitals there if it feels good," and ensure that sex is fully consensual. Yet again, your Biblical fundamentalism impedes your ability to understand what is actually going on in the world.

I'm interested in science. I disagree with some conclusions where I see errors in reporting, methodology, etc. Many of the issues that concern born again Christians are metaphysical or intangible in nature. I don't live by everything psychiatric associations say--many of them recommend therapies now that are dangerous, non-biblical, even demonic.

Here is some peer-reviewed research advocating against therapy for homosexuals:

For example, a homosexual male who enters reparative therapy
will be told that to be heterosexual, he will be required to do the following:
(see Nicolosi, 1991; Socarides, 1978): (1) participate in sports activities,
(2) avoid activities considered of interest to homosexuals, such art
museums, opera, symphonies, (3) avoid women unless it is for romantic
contact, (4) increase time spent with heterosexual men in order to
learn to mimic heterosexual male ways of walking, talking, and interacting
with other heterosexual men, (5) Attend church and join a men’s
church group, (6) attend reparative therapy group to discuss progress,
or slips back into homosexuality, (7) become more assertive with
women through flirting and dating, (8) begin heterosexual dating, (9)
engage in heterosexual intercourse, (10) enter into heterosexual marriage,
and (11) father children.

I advocate only (5) and so do every other person I know who is a Christian in this type of ministry. Logically, this is fallacious reasoning on the part of the reviewers. I mean, some of these items are abhorrent, illogical, rude, anti-Christian.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry BB but this is archaic nonsense that has long ago been discarded by psychologists. All this stuff about distant cold mothers producing gay sons and detached fathers producing gay children is just not reality, hence the reason nobody follows this stuff anymore. Freud's ideas on this were thrown into the dust bin decades ago because they don't bear out in reality.

Besides that, you have mangled the term "sexual imprinting'"to mean something it doesn't mean.

Where do you think orientation comes from? Genetic? You are denying nurture here as a cause. What is the natural cause?