God's opposition to homosexual behavior. Why?

[SomeRandom]

Your premise is faulty. The majority of focus is on homoexuals because they represent a small minority outside the norm.

Christians who wrongly interpret the Bible harp on it, and bring focus on it. Rabid homosexual activists who demand everyone think they way they want, or compromise their free exercise of religion, abandon their right to association, bring focus.

I don't even think about them, except theoretically here. Otherwise I go about my business. If someone wants to know what my faith says about them, I am happy to share. I do find ludicrous and hilarious the permutations that homosexual apologists go through in trying to reinterpret the Bible and Christian history to support homosexuality as being A OK in the faith.

"Sexual orientation" and "gender" are social and political terms driving the nebulous science of psychology bending to social pressures. These terms have little to do with biology or genetics. Is necrophilia a "sexual orientation" ? If so, does that mean it is socially acceptable ? If not, why not ? Would you be pals with a necrophiliac ? How about a pedophile, these folk meet your definition and contrary to popular opinion, in moslem society, by their rules, it is perfectly normal and not harmful. Would you argue that a 60 year old moslem with 11 and 10 year old wives had just a sexual orientation ? Are there any lines that "sexual orientation" cannot cross ? A woman loves her St. Bernard, he loves her, they have sex, she loves that, he loves it. Is that just her sexual orientation ?

Okay I would agree that gender and sexual orientation are rather political and social. But you have yet to answer my question. If being gay is a choice, when did you choose to be straight?
It's pretty straightforward. If one orientation is a choice, then it would stand to reason that all of them are. Otherwise you can't choose it to begin with!!

Pedophilia, Necrophilia, Bestiality etc are not recognized as sexual orientations. Rather sexual paraphilias (sp?) And they involve non consensual sexual activity. A child cannot legally consent to sex. A dog cannot consent as understood by our parameters, neither can corpses. So they are all inherently non consenting sex, ie rape.
Thus I can point out a very specific aspect that is found in all such scenarios and give an argument as to why it is not ethical.
Can't really do that with two consenting adults of the same sex, though.

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm talking about close correlation. Not all abused people become abusers or gay or anything else. But imprinting is real, and they call Christians science deniers!

You can see a post elsewhere on this thread where I go into the issues in detail.

And repeating, every time I speak with a gay person in depth, they affirm what I've said.

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.
Also every single gay person I have ever spoken to in my life have basically disputed what you're saying. In fact many gay people I know come from loving religious households.
So........

And if you're so science affirming where are the studies done by qualified unbiased legitimate professionals that confirm this? I'm intrigued to read them.

The most damaging things about homosexuality, if you like, comes from religion and its abhorrent justification of abusing others. Things like ex camps and that Kidnapped For Christ documentary, which I do actually recommend. Very dark but pretty well made for what amounts to a film student project. (Also the one behind it is an Evangelical Christian who started out wanting to sing the camp's praises. Just in case anyone wants to claim bias.)
All done in the name of "healing." If that's the response society has towards gay people, I'm honestly not surprised abuse comes up in correlation with homosexuality and gay troubled youths. Though for different reasons than you do, I assure you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Cite some. Not the term they would use.

That is the term they use for early behaviors: Sexual imprinting in human mate choice.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1,5. You're actually skirting the article yourself, as it's contrasting behavior you're associating with homosexuality away from homosexuality. Stating plainly that these are straight men with issues, and aren't gay.
"The truth is that many men who have sex with men aren’t gay or even bisexual."
2. They don't recognize that imprinting is a choice nor that it's linked to homosexuality, or that homosexuals are sexually imprinted, or that gays are as a result of abuse or broken relationships. You made that up on your own. That's why you're a science denier. Also the following.
3. First of all, lots of generic factors aren't related to one gene, that doesn't negate genetic influence. Things like blood type are multi-allele, which means there is no 'blood type gene', but that multiple genes cause blood type. Not all genetic change is inherited (please see dormant genes and epigenes), and genes can be activated by environmenta, such as womb environment. The articles I posted did not only address genetics as biological factors.
Imprinting on the epigenome has nothing to do with the imprinting you've been attempting to push forward. Not all occurrences of the same word are the same process. Please actually educate yourself about epigenetics before commenting on it.
Lastly, having multiple biological influences on sexuality is known, of course they are dynamic and not fully understood, but nobody except Christians wanting to maintain a homosexuality=bad believes the biological components are insignificant, or that homosexuality is merely a choice. That's all on your prejudices.
4. Blacks and Hispanics also have higher drug rates, STD rates, assault rates, et all. A racist would use this to justify that there is something inherently wrong with being a racial minority. A non-racist would understand that there's dynamic exterior influence on those statistics, and not say something as ridiculous as 'they should just stop being black or Hispanic'.

Yes, I understand, the Bible talks about the kind of sometimes homosexual, sometimes hetero choice people make. That's what I was referring to.

I also mentioned the difference between a heritable trait and an inherited trait. There is NO scientific consensus or even theory regarding INHERITED genetic tendencies toward homosexuality, there are HERITABLE traits. There is no genetic reason for American minorities to have higher STD rates, but there may be environmental factors. The Bible describes, just as science describes, how libidinous people may turn to adultery or homosexuality as an outlet, however, there is NO genetic "predisposition" toward adultery or homosexuality. The libido/behavior link is all science acknowledges, especially as true science always agrees with the Bible.

The Bible and science agree:

1. Libido can spill over into non-traditional sexual behavior
2. A child can be led toward certain behaviors while not always acting out their abuse as adults
3. Being fatherless or motherless (or having distant parents) can lead to issues

The article YOU referred me to ABSOLUTELY mentioned imprinting.
Also, sexual imprinting is recognized throughout the animal kingdom: Imprinting (psychology) - Wikipedia - you seem (along with others on the thread, no offense meant) to be denying science here.

Also, it still sounds like your stance is "there is no high correlation between early sexual experience and later sexual development/preference", which is unscientific.

It is also illogical to say "oppressive people determine some gay behavior, but not early sexual experience".

 

[Mock Turtle]

That is the term they use for early behaviors: Sexual imprinting in human mate choice.

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&udd...5201996%2520Exotic%2520becomes%2520erotic.pdf

 

[BilliardsBall]

Would you mind providing a few sources for this? I can find a lot having to do with animals imprinting regarding preferred traits in a mate, but I can't find anything that shows psychologists widely agreeing that homosexuality (rather than traits like preference for tall or short, dark or blond, loud or quiet) is imprintable at all. Yes, it's true that many animals prefer mates with traits very similar to their own parents -- generally the opposite sexed one, since those traits proved to be both attractive (to the other parent) and capable of producing offspring (to be thus imprinted).

Many children experiment with other children, of either sex, but grow up to be straight/gay at the usual percentage (about 98% straight, 2% gay). Students who went to same gender boarding schools, or members of the military, or those in prison, engage in same-sex activities at a higher rate than those outside of those environments, yet when out of those environments, revert right back to being who they always were -- remaining remarkably un-imprinted. A good example is Cambridge University in England, where there was actually quite a lot of homosexual goings-on. George Mallory, who died on Mt. Everest, had an affair with Lytton Strachey, and there are Mallory's letters to Strachey to prove it. And yet, Mallory went on to marry and become a father and live a reasonably normal (for the time) life until his unfortunate demise on that horrible mountain.

Let's parse this out:

1. An adult who is "convenient in prison" has nothing to do with early imprinting. (The Bible talks, however, about exactly this kind of behavior, libido and an outlet)

2. I can provide sources, but I find that people find it more convincing to use logic and common sense, avoiding a he-said-she-said quotation of various scientists. You and I both know that early imprinting leads to fetishes of all kinds. Young straights whose moms like to play dress up and wish they had girls often grow up to be straight cross-dressers and etc. You and I both know that everyone has unique memories of their first sex experiences with partners.

3. Yes, children experiment, with studies I've seen saying 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 boys experiments with boys--and mostly grow up straight as you wrote. Now instead of boys masturbating in each other's presence, take an uncle who is 30 years older than the 10-year-old he repeatedly indoctrinates, imprints and abuses.

4. Are humans animals or do human souls make them different? If you can find a lot of literature about animal imprinting, what does that imply for the human animals?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You keep talking as if you are providing some kind of "treatment" for gays. Are you a professional of some kind?

You really are talking about 2 quite different phenomena here. In terms of learning about the world and surviving in it, children are conditioned at birth to learn from family and community -- or they don't survive to adulthood. Sexual orientation -- who you find attractive -- seems to me to be quite a different thing.

Then how do little boys grow up liking women? Or little girls grow up to like men? Are they having sexual experiences as children that imprint these orientations? There is no science that I can find behind your statement. Certainly, the APA (American Psychological Association) disagrees with you.

Once again I ask, why are you "counselling" gay people? What are your qualifications to do so?

Here's something to think about: the only people who go to the doctor are people who have (or think they have) something wrong with them that needs correction. If doctors thought that all humans were reflected by the sample that they see, then they would imagine that all humans are either sick or hypochondriacs.

If (and I mean IF) some (few) gay people are coming to you hoping for some kind of fix, then you may well be seeing a very lop-sided sample of all the gays that are out there. Sure, there are some -- usually brought up in religious or repressive environments -- who think that there's something wrong with them. Sure, there are those who were taunted in school for being different, and are desperate to "fit in" and be like everybody else.

But the truth of the matter is that the majority of gay people (probably something like 5-6 million in North America, and over 100 million world-wide) function quite well and happily, and are not seeking counseling to help them "change." Our fight, rather, has for most of my life about having the right to live as happy, married families, like everybody else.

You don't ask yourself much about girls, do you? As far as I know, they have fantasies, too, and (probably rightly) think that boys are weird and violent, and they also have their own heroines to admire -- often princesses or actresses or women of great accomplishment. So what?

For the record, I have only ever been interested in or attracted to males. My first sexual experiences were, consequently, with males -- and those were, by and large initiated by me because it was what I wanted.

I was a battered child when I was very young, and a ward of the state (Children's Aid) for most of my childhood. I had no close bonds with any guardian. I did not like any of the foster homes I was in, and had only casual, infrequent contact with social workers. Frankly, I was glad to become legally and adult so I could get on with the business of being me.

As to people "hassling" me because of my orientation -- well of course they did! It was the 50s and 60s and homosexuality was everybody's favourite target, including the target of other minorities.

I am a Kinsey 6 -- totally gay and zero interest in the opposite sex. My life partner is, too. But while I grew up Children's Aid, he grew up in a loving and supportive family.

You know, my partner is slowly on the mend from Guillain-Barre Syndrome, which totally paralyzed him last May. He was in hospital for 8 1/2 months, and for 5 1/2 of those months, I rushed to and from work to feed him lunch and dinner by hand, and spent the whole of every weekend with him. He's home now (in a wheelchair and walker) and I am his sole caregiver, though I still work every day. And I'm 70, with spinal problems of my own. It has been quite a nightmare, actually, but we're hanging in, and working at improving every day.

I know something about REAL love, is what I'm trying to say.

What I wrote was, "It is a double standard to say 'Gays are affected by the psychological imprinting of repressive Christians, but not by the psychological imprinting of sexual experiences in their formative years.'" This has nothing to do with counseling. It has to do with people all over this thread saying "Gay guilt isn't normative or from God, it's caused by the psychological imprinting of repressive homophobes, however, even though I totally believe that imprinting is real, it is more real than sexual imprinting." That makes no sense whatsoever!

Sometimes people ask me for my advice in the church about a "gay friend". I say, "I understand most people in the life were sexually indoctrinated by older ones, as children, and/or had a bad relationship with a same sex parent," and then they say, "Yes, that's what happened to me, my 'gay friend' is me. What now?"

As I may have mentioned, these two markers seem very prevalent in people who've never experimented with the opposite sex or had opposite sex desire. You experienced some early trauma and grew up fatherless. Doesn't that align with what I wrote?

Love is a great thing and so meaningful. Love is a God thing. I'm glad you care deeply for your partner. Like you, I love many people deeply, but have sex with one person only. Part of love for me, like you, is being truthful. I try to tell people the truth about sexuality. Sexuality is made by God for monogamy. A part of wholeness and life fulfillment for most, not all, is monogamous sex with a spouse of the opposite sex. That's true.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.
Also every single gay person I have ever spoken to in my life have basically disputed what you're saying. In fact many gay people I know come from loving religious households.
So........

And if you're so science affirming where are the studies done by qualified unbiased legitimate professionals that confirm this? I'm intrigued to read them.

The most damaging things about homosexuality, if you like, comes from religion and its abhorrent justification of abusing others. Things like ex camps and that Kidnapped For Christ documentary, which I do actually recommend. Very dark but pretty well made for what amounts to a film student project. (Also the one behind it is an Evangelical Christian who started out wanting to sing the camp's praises. Just in case anyone wants to claim bias.)
All done in the name of "healing." If that's the response society has towards gay people, I'm honestly not surprised abuse comes up in correlation with homosexuality and gay troubled youths. Though for different reasons than you do, I assure you.

Again a double standard, if I can tell you so respectfully. "Gay behavior has everything to do with psychological imprinting from repressive homophobes but nothing to do with early sexual experience."

Do I really need to show you "evidence" that people have lasting, abiding memories of early sexual experience? How about sexual trauma? I'm not talking about two little boys or girls masturbating in each other's presence, I'm talking about uncle and aunts who are 30 years older than prepubescent children grooming, luring them and indoctrinating them, setting up powerful patterns to be acted upon later.

But if you must, simply Google "sexual imprinting in the animal kingdom", since humans are mere animals and not people with redemptive souls, yes?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is the term they use for early behaviors: Sexual imprinting in human mate choice.

You need to read that article. It doesn't say what you think it does.

 

[shmogie]

Okay I would agree that gender and sexual orientation are rather political and social. But you have yet to answer my question. If being gay is a choice, when did you choose to be straight?
It's pretty straightforward. If one orientation is a choice, then it would stand to reason that all of them are. Otherwise you can't choose it to begin with!!

Pedophilia, Necrophilia, Bestiality etc are not recognized as sexual orientations. Rather sexual paraphilias (sp?) And they involve non consensual sexual activity. A child cannot legally consent to sex. A dog cannot consent as understood by our parameters, neither can corpses. So they are all inherently non consenting sex, ie rape.
Thus I can point out a very specific aspect that is found in all such scenarios and give an argument as to why it is not ethical.
Can't really do that with two consenting adults of the same sex, though.

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.

Paul in the Bible, lists a number of behaviors that are not acceptable for A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH. He makes it clear that outside the Church everybody does what they choose, and Christians have no business worrying about it. One is gluttony, the habitual habit of of overeating. It is clear that there are genetic, hormonal reasons why some are compelled this way. This separates them from the willful gluttonous pig.

I know of Christians who were homoisexuals, who now have wives or husbands and have children, apparently a choice was made. Paul addressed his list to a church, then says after the list, as some of you once were. 2,000 years ago choices were made. I have the authority that tell's me what cannot be accepted in the Church, outside the Church is not my concern or worry.

 

[shmogie]

I disagree. His point wasn't that people are biologically designed to reproduce, and sex is for that purpose, but that it shouldn't be exclusively used for any other purpose, in particular, homosexual behavior.

.

I understand that you disagree.

 

[shmogie]

So the people with ambiguous or otherwise genitalia were designed for what, exactly?


Yeah, my family tree is filled with crazies and monsters. I'm doing humanity a favor by severing the future of some of the branches.


Would I avoid them because of morals or just because I think it's icky?


Have you noticed your examples are all devoid of a consenting relationship?


CAN ... THE ... DOG ... LEGALLY ... CONSENT?


Seriously, no wonder rape is so prevalent in humanity. Fools don't understand the basic concept of CONSENT.



One built on love and respect.


They don't just get their values from parents, so the genders of the legal guardians are irrelevant.


Why must there be a "leader"? Sink or swim, they're all in the same boat.


The parents or guardians.


Casey Anthony?


Or maybe yours is just popular and severely overstated.

http://www.confero.ep.liu.se/issues/2013/v1/i2/131203/confero13v1i21f.pdf

https://www.cogentoa.com/article/10.1080/23311908.2016.1153231

Are the Fathers Alright? A Systematic and Critical Review of Studies on Gay and Bisexual Fatherhood


No, the bible told you that, and it's definitely wrong.


You seek blind agreement?


Why? Any man who can't do the laundry or cook will have problems. Any woman who can't install a light fixture or do car maintenance will have problems. My grandfather thought as you did. He didn't want to teach me how to run a house or do taxes. He figured my husband would do that for me. Well, my father didn't love us and my maternal grandfather was dying and no one else felt like "adulting", so I had to fight him tooth and nail to learn what you silly men would consider "masculine" just so my family would survive. I watched my father and my maternal grandfather work on houses and cars. Do you know how frustrating it is to go to an auto shop and talked to like I'm some ditsy Barbie who can't understand how to fill up with gas, much less whether my axle, my fan belt, or my spark plugs need work? Why can't I teach a child how to put in a new electrical outlet? Is my vagina not conducive to such a procedure? Maybe my breasts block my view of the car radiator? I'm sure the female mechanics at the last place I went to get my state inspection stickers didn't think so. My father had to teach my mother how to cook because her parents thought as you did, that she would be the homemaker and the husband would work. However, they also felt it was the parents' duty to care for the children, so my mom ended up with hardly any life skills. My father also didn't want her to work, because she was his property and a paycheck would give her a means of escape from his abuse.


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


Gender roles are socially contrived.


I don't WANT to be fruitful and multiply. My mother is crazy and my father is a sociopathic monster. Why would I curse humanity by continuing that family line?

How come chastity is a virtue in Christianity and yet so many Christians will rush to judge virgins negatively? The most action my vagina gets is the barely tolerated Pap smear I get every few years. I don't WANT people coming in or coming out of me.

For you, sex is fulfilling. For me, the thought of it is a violation of my person.


I was never the princess type. Don't buy me a diamond ring. Buy me a power drill instead.


Apparently you're right. A woman might have known "is" should be replaced with "are."


It must REALLY bug you when there are female government officials or military personnel. I can just see you stage a protest in front of the prophetess Deborah for daring to lead a nation.


Any animal that can choose one idea over another can reason. My dogs reason. The raccoons under my deck reason. Birds reason. Fish reason. Ants reason.


So you're mushroom?


God had to figure out Adam needed a chick after it was determined the other animals just weren't cutting it. How do you think they figured that out?


God created asexual creatures. He also created creatures with more than two genders.


LOL. God can make a man out of dirt and give a virgin tween a baby, but can't figure out how 2 men or 2 women can have children. We have lizards who can be all female and reproduce, so clearly God understands the concept. We have pregnant males with seahorses, so clearly this didn't slip God's mind.

You know as well as I that a tiny, tiny percentage of babies are born with physically jumbled sexual organs. This is CLEARLY the result of damaged genes. This is now corrected shortly after birth. These unfortunate people no longer grow up to be circus freaks. You know this isn't the issue.

Consent ? There is direct consent, and implied consent. A happy dog is obviously implied consent. Children in moslem marriages give direct consent. I have heard pedophiles plead as a defense, He wanted me to do it. Teachers are prone to this defense for sex with minors.

 

[Prestor John]

Well, first of all, I don't think a home needs a "leader." My husband and I share our household responsibilities 50/50 and neither is the "leader" of the other. I find that to be an extremely outdated mode of thinking. Misogynistic even. Why is a man supposed to be a better leader than a woman in the first place?

I don’t think “leader” is the word that I would use.

I would say that a righteous husband/father “presides” over his family. I know that sounds like the same thing as “leads”, but I take it as “assuming responsibility” rather than “giving orders” like a “leader” would.

Paul claimed that a man is to the woman as the Lord is to the Church.

On it’s face it looks like he is saying that the man is the “Master” of the woman, because the Lord is Master of all. However, that doesn’t take into account what the Lord actually did for the Church.

The Lord sacrificed all that He had and was for the Church.

He suffered for the Church, so they would not have to suffer.

He lovingly taught and nurtured His disciples.

Ideally, a husband/father would be a righteous man and therefore be worthy of holding the Priesthood. And as a Priesthood holder, the husband/father would “preside” over his family, as the Lord presides over the Church.

In this scenario, the righteous wife/mother would act as the Holy Spirit or the Comforter. She would be filled with love and understanding and convey that to the entire family. She would be the pillar, strengthening her household, holding them up and shielding them from evil.

The Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are one. Equal partners, yet they focus on different things.

So, ideally, a righteous father/husband would be chief in teaching and directing the affairs of the family and the righteous wife/mother would be both the lubricant and glue that keeps things running smoothly as well as keeping things together.

I think any human being is capable of nurturing a child - we're all human beings with the same feelings and emotions, after all.

Yeah, but men and women are so different from one another. They tend to handle things differently. I’m speaking in general terms, of course.

I see it in my own home between my wife and I in regards to our children.

My wife tends to focus on the maintenance side of things. She worries about getting them fed, cleaned and safe. I, of course, help her in these things, but she tends to direct me and gives me instruction on how she wants it done.

I, on the other hand, tend to focus more on play, maintaining dialogue, helping them take risks. She tends to follow my lead when we are tickling them, or when I suggest an outing or when I let them do something she thinks is too risky.

I first realized that my wife and I did these things after I read a study that discovered these natural differences in how mothers and fathers parent their child. (That was a long time ago and I don’t know if I can find it again)

All that being said, I don’t take issue with a same-sex couple raising children, other than in the fact that their children would grow up being taught that homosexual behavior is acceptable, when I believe that it is not.

I don't think the particular makeup of the family unit itself matters as much as what values are instilled in the home.

I agree wholeheartedly, but that is not the same as saying the makeup of the family does not matter or that there is not an ideal family unit.

I don't think two people of the same sex are any less capable than two people of the opposite sex in instilling values into their children.

I agree, other than their teaching that homosexual behavior is acceptable.

You're confusing sex with sexual orientation again.

I don’t think he is.

I believe that he is saying that our “orientation” should be as “biologically determined” as our sex.

If you are male, you should be attracted to a female. If you are female, you should be attracted to a male.

That is the “norm”.

Homosexuality has apparently been around as long as human beings have existed.

No, Adam and Eve were not homosexuals. They were male and female and attracted to one another.

We also find it in the animal kingdom (and of course, we're all animals anway). You haven't addressed homosexuality in the animal kingdom yet, for some reason. How do you explain it?

I would contend that human beings are not animals and that animals do all kinds of things that I would not recommend people picking up.

Many animals eat their children. Does that make it right for me to eat my children?

Finding homosexual (abnormal) behavior in the Animal Kingdom is not proof that homosexual behavior is acceptable.

I have to ask again, what is "homosexual behavior?"

The same as “heterosexual behavior”, but with the same-sex.

It's regular sexual things that anyone can do, whether in an opposite-sex relationship or same-sex relationship.

Yes, exactly. The Lord has forbidden homosexual behavior amongst His children.

It's just extra specially icky to some people when shared between two members of the same sex.

Well, I would argue that sexual acts in general are technically “icky”.

However, I would not claim that sexual acts between same-sex partners is more or less “icky” than sexual acts between opposite-sex partners.

All that matters is that the Lord has deemed one acceptable (within the confines of marriage) and the other is not.

Sexual relations between a husband and wife is according to God’s plans for His children, while any other sexual acts are not.

One has eternal significance and power, while all others do not.

I guess I was curious as to see exactly what the term means to him and why whatever specific sexual "behaviors" that partners share between themselves has to do with raising children together.

I never said that homosexual behaviors had anything to with raising children, outside the obvious teaching of children that such behavior is acceptable.

I was responding to your questions regarding conscious choice and homosexual behavior.

Same-sex attraction may be beyond a person’s immediate control, but they can choose not to act on it.

I believe that such attractions can eventually be overcome through reliance upon the Atoning Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.​

 

[shmogie]

What I wrote was, "It is a double standard to say 'Gays are affected by the psychological imprinting of repressive Christians, but not by the psychological imprinting of sexual experiences in their formative years.'" This has nothing to do with counseling. It has to do with people all over this thread saying "Gay guilt isn't normative or from God, it's caused by the psychological imprinting of repressive homophobes, however, even though I totally believe that imprinting is real, it is more real than sexual imprinting." That makes no sense whatsoever!

Sometimes people ask me for my advice in the church about a "gay friend". I say, "I understand most people in the life were sexually indoctrinated by older ones, as children, and/or had a bad relationship with a same sex parent," and then they say, "Yes, that's what happened to me, my 'gay friend' is me. What now?"

As I may have mentioned, these two markers seem very prevalent in people who've never experimented with the opposite sex or had opposite sex desire. You experienced some early trauma and grew up fatherless. Doesn't that align with what I wrote?

Love is a great thing and so meaningful. Love is a God thing. I'm glad you care deeply for your partner. Like you, I love many people deeply, but have sex with one person only. Part of love for me, like you, is being truthful. I try to tell people the truth about sexuality. Sexuality is made by God for monogamy. A part of wholeness and life fulfillment for most, not all, is monogamous sex with a spouse of the opposite sex. That's true.

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 "

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yes, I understand, the Bible talks about the kind of sometimes homosexual, sometimes hetero choice people make. That's what I was referring to.

I also mentioned the difference between a heritable trait and an inherited trait. There is NO scientific consensus or even theory regarding INHERITED genetic tendencies toward homosexuality, there are HERITABLE traits. There is no genetic reason for American minorities to have higher STD rates, but there may be environmental factors. The Bible describes, just as science describes, how libidinous people may turn to adultery or homosexuality as an outlet, however, there is NO genetic "predisposition" toward adultery or homosexuality. The libido/behavior link is all science acknowledges, especially as true science always agrees with the Bible.

The Bible and science agree:

1. Libido can spill over into non-traditional sexual behavior
2. A child can be led toward certain behaviors while not always acting out their abuse as adults
3. Being fatherless or motherless (or having distant parents) can lead to issues

The article YOU referred me to ABSOLUTELY mentioned imprinting.
Also, sexual imprinting is recognized throughout the animal kingdom: Imprinting (psychology) - Wikipedia - you seem (along with others on the thread, no offense meant) to be denying science here.

Also, it still sounds like your stance is "there is no high correlation between early sexual experience and later sexual development/preference", which is unscientific.

It is also illogical to say "oppressive people determine some gay behavior, but not early sexual experience".

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

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don’t think “leader” is the word that I would use.


I would say that a righteous husband/father “presides” over his family. I know that sounds like the same thing as “leads”, but I take it as “assuming responsibility” rather than “giving orders” like a “leader” would.

I’m not sure why anybody needs to preside over anyone else.


In a relationship based on equality, one person doesn’t preside over another; rather, the two people share equal positions.

Paul claimed that a man is to the woman as the Lord is to the Church.


On it’s face it looks like he is saying that the man is the “Master” of the woman, because the Lord is Master of all. However, that doesn’t take into account what the Lord actually did for the Church.


The Lord sacrificed all that He had and was for the Church.


He suffered for the Church, so they would not have to suffer.


He lovingly taught and nurtured His disciples.


Ideally, a husband/father would be a righteous man and therefore be worthy of holding the Priesthood. And as a Priesthood holder, the husband/father would “preside” over his family, as the Lord presides over the Church.


In this scenario, the righteous wife/mother would act as the Holy Spirit or the Comforter. She would be filled with love and understanding and convey that to the entire family. She would be the pillar, strengthening her household, holding them up and shielding them from evil.

I just find this all very archaic and derived from a culture that is very far removed from where we are today.


It’s not “my” household; it’s “our” household.

The Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are one. Equal partners, yet they focus on different things.

Except that all men are supposed to focus on the same things and all women are supposed to focus on the same things, which are different things than the men are supposed to be focused on.


Now, my husband and I obviously have different strengths and weaknesses but they don’t necessarily line up in accordance with this stuff you’re telling me the Bible says are supposed to be our strengths and weaknesses and I don’t see why they should have to. Some men are more nurturing than women, some women are stronger than some men, some women are better at “directing the affairs of the family” than men are, and on and on.

So, ideally, a righteous father/husband would be chief in teaching and directing the affairs of the family and the righteous wife/mother would be both the lubricant and glue that keeps things running smoothly as well as keeping things together.

That doesn’t sound ideal to me.


In my family, we work together so that we are both the “lubricant” and the “glue” and both of us teach and direct the affairs of the family.

Yeah, but men and women are so different from one another. They tend to handle things differently. I’m speaking in general terms, of course.

In terms of “handling things” it’s not so much a man/woman difference as a person-to-person difference. Gender isn’t all the relevant here. I tend to freak out a bit when things go haywire, while my husband is able to stay slightly calmer and then calm me down. But you can’t say that all women react that way or all men react the way my husband does. Hence, it depends on the person you’re talking about, moreso than the gender of the person you’re talking about.

I see it in my own home between my wife and I in regards to our children.


My wife tends to focus on the maintenance side of things. She worries about getting them fed, cleaned and safe. I, of course, help her in these things, but she tends to direct me and gives me instruction on how she wants it done.


I, on the other hand, tend to focus more on play, maintaining dialogue, helping them take risks. She tends to follow my lead when we are tickling them, or when I suggest an outing or when I let them do something she thinks is too risky.


I first realized that my wife and I did these things after I read a study that discovered these natural differences in how mothers and fathers parent their child. (That was a long time ago and I don’t know if I can find it again)

Okay, but on what basis can you generalize this to all other couples? I don’t think you can.

All that being said, I don’t take issue with a same-sex couple raising children, other than in the fact that their children would grow up being taught that homosexual behavior is acceptable, when I believe that it is not.

I’m glad to hear the first part.


Homosexual behavior is acceptable now, in the society we now live in (at least in North America and most other advanced nations, anyway). So I don’t see a problem there.

I agree wholeheartedly, but that is not the same as saying the makeup of the family does not matter or that there is not an ideal family unit.

I think the “ideal family unit” is whatever works for that family.


There are people raised in good Christian households with a mother and father that grow up to be serial killers. There are people that were raised in chaotic and abusive families that turn out to be decent, law-abiding citizens, and everything in between. What kind of person we become apparently has much more to do with environment than the sex of our parents or what relation they are to us.

I agree, other than their teaching that homosexual behavior is acceptable.

It is acceptable in most modern, advanced societies.

I don’t think he is.


I believe that he is saying that our “orientation” should be as “biologically determined” as our sex.

Saying something should be a certain way doesn’t speak to the way things actually are though. And as we can see, what you have stated here is not actually the case in all instances.

If you are male, you should be attracted to a female. If you are female, you should be attracted to a man.


That is the “norm”.

Homosexuality has been around for so long that I would say that it is part of the norm that a certain percentage of the population will be gay, bisexual, straight and everything in between. Because as Kinsey’s work taught us, sexuality falls more along a spectrum than just a strict black and white gay/straight differentiation.

No, Adam and Eve were not homosexuals. They were male and female and attracted to one another.

We have no evidence indicating such people ever existed at all.

Animals do all kinds of things that I would not recommend people picking up.


Many animals eat their children. Does that make it right for me to eat my children?


Finding homosexual (abnormal) behavior in the Animal Kingdom is not proof that homosexual behavior is acceptable.

That wasn’t the argument being made though.


I was asking that poster how it is that homosexuality could be a conscious choice when we find it throughout the animal kingdom, as well as the human population (that’s not to say we aren’t animals, because we are).

The same as “heterosexual behavior”, but with the same-sex.

So if it’s all just the same stuff, what’s the big problem?


Did you parents teach you how they have sex? Do you think most parents do this?

Yes, exactly. The Lord has forbidden homosexual behavior amongst His children.

And if I don’t believe your Lord exists?

Well, I would argue that sexual acts in general are technically “icky”.

Maybe you’re not doing it right?

However, I would not claim that sexual acts between same-sex partners is more or less “icky” than sexual acts between opposite-sex partners.

Good to know.

All that matters is that the Lord has deemed one acceptable (within the confines of marriage) and the other is not.

Sexual relations between a husband and wife is according to God’s plans for His children, while any other sexual acts are not.


One has eternal significance and power, while all others do not.

I wonder why the Lord created homosexuality in the first place then.

I never said that homosexual behaviors had anything to with raising children, outside the obvious teaching of children that such behavior is acceptable.

I don’t know that many parents who teach their children how they have sex.

I was responding to your questions regarding conscious choice and homosexual behavior.


Same-sex attraction my be beyond a person’s control, but they can choose not to act on it.


I believe that such attractions can eventually be overcome through reliance upon the Atoning Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Why should they have to? Aren’t they entitled to be just as happy as the rest of us?

 

[Skwim]

I understand that you disagree.

If that's all, should I take this as a declaration that you don't understand my point?

.

.

 

[Prestor John]

If being gay is a choice, when did you choose to be straight?

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

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.

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

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

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.

If one orientation is a choice, then it would stand to reason that all of them are.

I, as a heterosexual man, choose when and with whom to engage in sexual behavior.

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.

Pedophilia, Necrophilia, Bestiality etc are not recognized as sexual orientations. Rather sexual paraphilias (sp?) And they involve non consensual sexual activity. A child cannot legally consent to sex. A dog cannot consent as understood by our parameters, neither can corpses. So they are all inherently non consenting sex, ie rape.

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

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

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

Can't really do that with two consenting adults of the same sex, though.

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.

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.

 

[shmogie]

If that's all, should I take this as a declaration that you don't understand my point?

.

.

I do understand your point. I was making sure you understood his

 

[SomeRandom]

Again a double standard, if I can tell you so respectfully. "Gay behavior has everything to do with psychological imprinting from repressive homophobes but nothing to do with early sexual experience."

Do I really need to show you "evidence" that people have lasting, abiding memories of early sexual experience? How about sexual trauma? I'm not talking about two little boys or girls masturbating in each other's presence, I'm talking about uncle and aunts who are 30 years older than prepubescent children grooming, luring them and indoctrinating them, setting up powerful patterns to be acted upon later.

But if you must, simply Google "sexual imprinting in the animal kingdom", since humans are mere animals and not people with redemptive souls, yes?

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.