Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

Is there enough oxygen up on that high horse?

This is not a procedure I would recommend to the man who wrote "Equating homosexuality to the civil rights movement is a false dichotomy." 'Cos you obviously wouldn't know how to identify a logical fallacy if they came with labels attached.If you really want to save time, try substituting in your posts the acronyms C.I.M.U. for crap you made up, H.E.O.R. for halfwitted errors of reasoning, and I.D.U.B. to signify that you don't understand biology. Maybe P.S.R.P. for pompous self-righteous preening. You'll hardly need to post anything else except "and" and "the".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yep. Science is messy like that. Everyone re-doing everyone else's stuff and finding holes. Like I said, you are not going to find a definitive set of genes that say homosexual. If they exist we haven't found them, yet. But, like I also said, the available evidence points to bio-physiology, not conscious decision making, as the determinant of sexual orientation. Look at the other studies. There is nothing conclusive because the physiology is so complex, but the pieces are coming together. Nature, not nurture.Unless, of course, you have some scientific study, with scientific data drawing science-based conclusions that disputes this. And you'll need a lot of them to outweigh the preponderance of the evidence pointing in the other direction. So you admit to your having no other choice! Now, on what basis do you think a homosexual can defy their own chemical reinforcement? I thought that was pretty clever. Glad it wasn't lost on you.

It's the logical conclusion of your argument. You like logical arguments yes?If choice is involved in sexual orientation then you must have made a choice at some point to be heterosexual.If choice is not involved then you would always know that you were heterosexual, just as someone could also always know that they were homosexual.I note your reluctance to take up the gay porn challenge. I put that down to lack of choice and evidence that at your core you do not believe choice is involved in your sexual orientation. Except that this totally fails to explain the prevalence of homosexual animals -- that prevalence tells me that some homosexual orientation is normal across the spectrum of existence.Or do you have evidence of what environmental factors are involved?Note that in biology "environmental factors" are ones that affect the development of a fetus or a child before reaching maturity, and are usually chemical or hormonal in nature. Thalidomide is an example of a chemical environmental factor that affected fetal development.Heat could be an environmental factor, as alligators and turtles have their sex determined by the temperature of their nests. Once they've hatched they do not have any choice about being male or female.Hormones can also affect fetal development in different levels at different times, and some hormornes like estrogen levels can affect development.These environmental factors do not create a situation in which choice becomes a factor. In this way these factors can operate on individuals in much the same way as genes, and they can become reinforced by genetic changes that in effect consolidate these factors into the genes by selecting mutations that enforce them. Which is your unabashed biased bigoted view, rather than a logical conclusion. So we agree that choice is not involved. As noted your sources are questionable at best. I can find no scientific evidence of any "success rate" for conversion therapies, certainly not anything that stands up to scrutiny: NEWS: Reparative Therapist Claims 66% Success Rate In 'Gay Cure' Treatment

quote:

---

During the documentary aired on BBC2 called Out There, Stephen Fry visited LA based Doctor Joseph Nicolosi who claims that his therapy has a 66.6% success rate.

​

The former director and founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality NARTH said that his treatment cured around two thirds of the patients he worked with, saying a third saw 'no change, a third a significant improvement and a third cure'.

​

Stephen Fry said, For all his talk of his success, Nicolosi is unable to find one of his ex-gays to talk to us, Dan Gonzales is not one of his success stories.’

​

Daniel Gonzales, who spent ‘thousands of dollars’ on Dr Nicolosi’s therapy and is now a spokesperson for the Ex Gay Watch organisation - says that the treatment doesn’t work.

​

He said in his interview with Fry,

​

‘You take these people on the posters for these ‘ex-gay’ programmes and not even they will tell you that they’re a 100% straight, they’ll give you these bizarre and convoluted answers about how they love women, their wife, but they’re not physically attracted to a woman walking down the street, you get these bizarre answers — that’s not heterosexuality.’

​

‘And not to mention [it’s] damaging, because every time you feel attracted to someone that’s supposedly a reminder of how you’re broken.’

---

Why are there no happy converted gay people? Gay Orthodox Jews Sue Over Therapy That Claims to ‘Cure’ Them

quote:

---

When Ben Unger was growing up in Orthodox Jewish Brooklyn, he thought he knew exactly how his life would unfold. He would live in the same neighborhood as his parents and grandparents, worship in the same synagogue, become a husband and father and uphold an age-old way of life. But by the time Unger was 19, that future was looking precarious: after years trying to dismiss his attractions to other boys, he finally faced up to being gay.

​

On the advice of a rabbi, Unger went for therapy to cure his homosexuality. Twice a week for nearly a year, he traveled across the river to New Jersey for reparative therapy treatment at JONAHor Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healinga group that claims to help Orthodox Jews eliminate their same-sex attraction. When he signed up with JONAH, Unger was confused, desperate, and vulnerable. When he finally walked away, he was close to suicide.

​

Last April, Robert Spitzer, a respected psychiatrist and longtime contributor to the DSM, the American Psychiatric Association's manual of mental disorders, publicly apologized for a study he had conducted in 2001 concluding that reparative therapy worked.

​

In May, the World Health Organization condemned reparative therapy as "a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people," and in September, California banned its use in the treatment of gay and lesbian teens. Even Alan Chambers, president of Exodus, a Christian ex-gay group, has said he believes it is impossible to change someone's sexual orientation.

​

With every mainstream psychological body rejecting the idea that homosexuality is a disorder and finding efforts to "treat" it as unethical, those who still practice reparative therapy, such as JONAH, do so on the unregulated fringes of the profession.

​

But that may soon change, following a consumer-fraud lawsuit Unger and three other young men filed against JONAH on Tuesday in New Jersey state court.

---

That doesn't look like success to me. Conversion therapy (wikipedia)

quote:

---

Conversion therapy (also known as reparative therapy) is a range of pseudo-scientific treatments that aim to change sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.[1][2][3][4][5] Conversion therapy has been a source of controversy in the United States and other countries.[6] The American Psychiatric Association has condemned "psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation."[7] It states that, "Ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation."[8] It also states that political and moral debates over the integration of gays and lesbians into the mainstream of American society have obscured scientific data about changing sexual orientation "by calling into question the motives and even the character of individuals on both sides of the issue."[7]

​

The highest-profile contemporary advocates of conversion therapy tend to be fundamentalist Christian groups and other right-wing religious organizations [9] and the therapy is derided by critics as "pray the gay away". The main organization advocating secular forms of conversion therapy is the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), which often partners with religious groups.[9] Psychologist Douglas Haldeman writes that conversion therapy comprises efforts by mental health professionals and pastoral care providers to convert lesbians and gay men to heterosexuality by techniques including aversive treatments, such as "the application of electric shock to the hands and/or genitals," and "nausea-inducing drugs...administered simultaneously with the presentation of homoerotic stimuli," masturbatory reconditioning, visualization, social skills training, psychoanalytic therapy, and spiritual interventions, such as "prayer and group support and pressure."[10]

---

Sounds more like torture and cult-like indoctrination techniques than just changing your mind on a choice.It also does not look like anything that could alter what may have occurred via environmental factors (chemicals and hormones) during development.So no I do not find your argument persuasive in the slightest, rather it appears to me that you like it because it matches your biases and bigotry and you use it to justify them rather than really look into the issue with an open mind. You mean the persecution that was invented by humans for purportedly religious reasons? So you agree that it is natural, that it is inherent in the development of the individuals, and that it is not a matter of choice. Progress is made.Now that we know it is natural we can see that it is just a matter of recognition of this fact, and that there is no cause to discriminate in any way. Indeed, that is part of social behavior. Thus we can recognize homosexual humans the same as heterosexual humans when we all follow the same social rules and learn to treat others with respect and equality. I'm afraid you lost me there, and we were doing so well. Presumably this is more trustworthy than your other sources? Peer reviewed scientific articles would be a good start. Can you provide such?What I have seen is (a) it is not choice, (b) it cannot be changed but (c) it can be hidden, usually with worse outcomes in the end (suicides for instance).What I don't see is any cause for concern. If people want to live according to their sexual orientation who are you or anyone else to say it is wrong and needs to be changed?As I've said before I have experienced no negative impact from gays and lesbians in my neighborhood. They are fun people and have fun parties, and they are happy to let me live according to my sexual orientation even though it differs from theirs. I see no reason they should not be treated the same. Indeed, so you should stop making them, particularly confusing misinformation from questionable biased sources that have an agenda with facts.Curiously I have not seen a single report from a person who is purportedly "cured" showing that they are now 100% heterosexual and happy.But I do know a lot of homosexuals who are still 100% homosexual and happy. Perhaps it is the environment here that accepts all sexual orientations that makes that possible. There is no right to be a discriminatory bigot, and freedom of religion does not give you that right.When the law says no discrimination it means no discrimination.When discrimination serves no secular purpose then it fails the lemon test (have you heard what that is?) ... The Lemon Test

quote:

---

The Lemon test was formulated by Chief Justice Warren Burger in the majority opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). Lemon dealt with Rhode Island and Pennsylvania programs that supplemented the salaries of teachers in religiously based, private schools for teaching secular subjects. The Court struck down both programs as violating the establishment clause.

​

The purpose of the Lemon test is to determine when a law has the effect of establishing religion. The test has served as the foundation for many of the Court's post-1971 establishment clause rulings. As articulated by Chief Justice Burger, the test has three parts:

​

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

​

According to separationist scholars Barry Lynn, Marc Stern, and Oliver Thomas, the fact that a law may have a "religious purpose or be motivated by religion does not mean it is unconstitutional as long as it also has a bona fide secular or civic purpose" (The Right to Religious Liberty, p. 3). Similarly, "a law that has a remote or incidental effect of advancing religion is not unconstitutional as long as the effect is not a 'primary' effect" (p. 3). Finally, the Court has allowed some entanglement between church and state, as long as this entanglement is not "excessive" (p. 3). Hence, the Court has built some leeway into the test so as not to invalidate laws that have only remote connections to religious practice. This is not, in other words, the work of a Court that was hostile to religion. On the contrary, Justice Burger, a Nixon appointee, is generally reckoned as a conservative on social issues.

---

There is a lot more there if you care to read it.... so if you want to ensconce your discrimination into law you need a secular purpose, and I fail totally to see any secular purpose that can be served by discriminating against people that are law abiding citizens happily engaged in constructive social behavior.Is there a purpose to your crusade against homosexuality? a purpose that is not based on your religious beliefs? And as has been pointed out your "research" seems to focus on questionable sources that match your biases rather than peer reviewed scientific articles that depend on facts and observations and tests with replicatable results. Curiously I have seen nothing presented so far that shows that there is anything wrong with homosexual orientation. Instead I see evidence that it occurs in many species in nature and that by definition makes it natural.It is no more of a deviation from the normal sexual process than the behavior of wolves, where only the dominant male and female mate and the whole pack engages in raising the pups.Instead what I see is that your choice of words betray your bigotry and bias and that the problem is you, not homosexuality. Except that psychopaths and sociopaths harm other people, and that is a critical difference that invalidates your argument, completely, because the concern of a free society is to allow people to freely behave according to their worldviews beliefs and desires so long as it does not cause harm to others.This is why discriminatory behavior against law abiding citizens doing normal social interactions with other people for no other reason than bigotry and biased beliefs is wrong -- it causes harm to those fellow citizens.Now you may argue that not being allowed to be a discriminatory biased bigot causes harm to you ... but in reality it is not the existence of homosexuals that causes harm to you, rather it is your own biased and bigoted beliefs that cause you harm.Perhaps you should seek a cure for your bigotry, because if you cure that then there will be no problem yes? What I have seen is that this claim is questionable at best, and that really what happens is that people are tortured until they agree to hide their true feelings and pretend to be heterosexual and that this often results in suicide.And I also consider it totally unnecessary when there is no harm in law abiding citizens behaving like adults being homosexual.You have totally failed to make the case that there is anything wrong with homosexuality, rather you have started from the (hidden) assumption that this is so. I'm sure you are aware that not including a hidden assumption in your argument is a logical fallacy. In your biased and bigoted view. To me it is just a lifestyle, one that does no harm and does not cause any problems for other people in society, rather that the problem is with biased and bigoted people, and that the problem is caused by their biased and bigoted beliefs and opinions, not by the homosexuals. Those of us that do not have such narrow-minded beliefs and opinions do not have those problems. No, it is a valid argument and it shows that the problem is with your beliefs and not with the behavior of others. Have you tried to be homosexual? Have you tried to cure yourself of heterosexuality? Have you decided to be heterosexual? If you don't answer yes then your argument fails. Nobody is asking for special treatment that I have seen. What I have seen is people asking for equal treatment under the law -- and I have seen no reason provided by anyone that would justify discrimination rather than equal treatment.And this is WHY in court after court after court the decisions are increasingly for equal treatment. Discrimination is harmful and insulting to people that are ostracized in spite of being honest hard working law abiding citizens that contribute positively to society. Whatever the cause of discrimination, it is wrong.You have not shown that there is any harm to either individuals or to society as a whole from homosexual orientations, and thus there is no secular reason for discrimination.Finally I note that there are many Christian churches, hospitals, schools and other institutions where homosexuality is not a problem, rather that the problem is in certain sects of the Christian umbrella, and thus for you to claim that your biased and bigoted views are Christian is a false application of logical principals, the fallacy of the part for the whole.Your bigotry is not based on Christianity (if other Christians are not so bigoted) so it must be your personal beliefs that you justify as Christian. Curiously the Boy Scouts have decided to allow gay kids into scouting thus ending years of discrimination: Boy Scouts to allow gay youths to join

quote:

---

Openly gay youths will be allowed to join scouting, a historic decision the Boy Scouts of America says will keep it unclouded by "a single, divisive, and unresolved societal issue."

​

More than 60% of the group's 1,400-member national council voted Thursday at an annual meeting in Grapevine, Texas, for the change, which takes effect Jan. 1.

​

"No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone," says the resolution.

---

So another group has moved forward into the 21st century. You should too.

Except we know that is bogus, don't we."Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on
Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation" 2009

quote:

---

The American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates.

​

Even though the research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, regardless of sexual orientation identity, the task force concluded that the population that undergoes SOCE tends to have strongly conservative religious views that lead them to seek to change their sexual orientation. Thus, the appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for those who seek SOCE involves therapist acceptance, support, and understanding of clients and the facilitation of clients’ active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, without imposing a specific sexual orientation identity outcome.

---

Report PDFMost of the studies reviewed were not of sufficient scientific methodology to show any efficacy in their conclusions. The remaining science worthy studies concluded that sexual orientation intervention was not effective and in a number of cases inflicted psychological harm on the patient.You're busted.

bigot (ˈbɪɡət) n
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

Yes, of course, conspiracy by the all powerful Fraternal Association of Gay Societies. Should have known that inferior studies without scientific merit could not make it through peer review with FAGS in their way.

A good beginning. So you agree that evolution would not eliminate any genetic component to homosexuality. This is the logical fallacy of moving the goal posts. You wanted to know how evolution would not "eradicate" homosexuality, and all it needs is for homosexuality to be naturally occurring, whether by genetics, by environmental (chemical or hormonal) factors or some combination is irrelevant to it being naturally occurring. Which involve safety issues and the possibility of harm to others. For someone who prides themselves on logic you make horrid irrelevant analogies. Again you seem to totally miss the issue. When you offer a public service to bake cakes you agree to bake cakes for the public, that is the purpose of your business. If you refuse service to someone because of what they are, that is discrimination and bigotry. Your not asked to endorse homosexuality, you are asked to bake a cake -- when your business is baking cakes -- so you have already agreed to baking cakes ... Again with the bad analogies. Amusing that you don't see the relevance of civil rights and the Woolworths counter incident but feel this is a valid comparison. Oh but experience does matter very much when you cite a source that has posted lies how do you know which are lies, which are half-truths, which are ignorance and what may be true? How do you know which are facts and which are not?Logic dictates that when you have found a source to be bad that you don't trust it. Nope, what you do is look for other sources of information to see if it can be corroborated first, if it can't then it is bogus, if it can then you work with that source. And of course you make the logical fallacy of equating logical fallacy with intentional falsehoods, when all a fallacy means is that the conclusion does not follow from the precepts.This is also an appeal to authority, claiming to be an authority and claiming to have a wicked eye for finding falsehoods.

In my experience, a few years of therapy allowed me to open up and grow as an individual. I became affectionate towards all people rather than just one gender, but the attraction to the initial gender remained. You cant "shock" somebody into being attracted to anything different from what they were previously attracted to.They may choose to ignore those feelings and not act upon them, but the feelings never go away---at least in my experience. A search of the internet on these topics leads to conclusions both pro and con in this area.

Nope, all I need to do is look at how you talk about homosexuality. The words you use and the intent of your posts show that you think homosexuality is unnatural and needs to be cured, and that is bigoted. Curiously I don't have that problem. Perhaps your choice of movies and tv shows points to what you want to see ... Ah the "poisoning the well" fallacy.Animals have homosexual individuals, animals are by definition natural, so it is natural for homosexual individuals to exist.That is all the facts I need, however I also note that I have provided evidence that your claims of "cures" are questionable at best, anecdotal, and not scientific.Meanwhile your assertions have been challenged, your "evidence" is shown to be more hyperbole than fact based, and your views are biased so you cherry pick what you want the evidence to show and don't fact check it.I also note that this pretty well repudiates the whole concept: Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses
to Sexual OrientationI suggest you read it.

quote:

---

Abstract
The American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates. Even though the research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, regardless of sexual orientation identity, the task force concluded that the population that undergoes SOCE tends to have strongly conservative religious views that lead them to seek to change their sexual orientation. Thus, the appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for those who seek SOCE involves therapist acceptance, support, and understanding of clients and the facilitation of clients’ active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, without imposing a specific sexual orientation identity outcome.

---

It seems they advocate therapy to make homosexual people become comfortable with who they are ... and that efforts to change orientation are failures and can cause more harm than good.So it seems to me that less harm is done to society by accepting homosexual people as equals than it is to discriminate and denigrate them. Yes, the Christian love that is really hate.When I lived in Mississippi we had neighbors that said they "love blacks, love them to death, but don't want them moving into their neighborhood" ... so you'll forgive me for thinking your claim to "have nothing but love for homosexuals" while crusading to have them all undergo some voodoo treatment to "cure" them is nothing but smoke-screen for your bigotry.You are known by your acts not your words eh?If you truly love someone you let them live the way they want to live. No. When it is applied with discrimination against certain people for what they are rather than for how they behave then it is discrimination.And you can compare how much this is done on this forum to any "Christian" forum moderation and see if you can find more discrimination here -- it's a challenge.If a person is disruptive of debate it serves the purpose of the forum to ban such people. That is not discrimination or bigotry but a response to bad behavior.

THANK YOU AZP. Somebody who can actually follow the sequence of an argument around here without getting distracted by irrelevant side issues is a rare gem and a blessing!

I admit I am both, yes.You know, it’s hard to be humble. I’m so accomplished in every way.
Everyone looks to my answers giving deference to everything I say.
In all subjects I am the expert. My intellect is high in the sky.
I find it so hard to be humble so why the hell should I try.Apologies to Mac Davis, though I don't know why. My version is so much better.Edited by AZPaul3, : total re-write - much better. Captures my most basic humility.

Ok, that's good enough - it seems that you couldn't choose to be gay. Now explain to me why you think other people *can* choose it.

Studies have not shown there is no connection, just that they have not as yet found a direct genetic link.So just to be clear, there can be a genetic component and genes can be passed by the brothers and sisters sharing common genes, a rather simple evolutionary explanation that uses actual evolutionary processes, and you were wrong about natural selection necessarily eliminating it. Education has begun. You miss the point. The point is that there are non-breeding members of the species and they do not pass on their genes, yet they keep recurring. This shows that evolution does involve non-breeding individuals. With the wolf pack you have the additional factor of the other pack members benefiting the pack and pups survival, just like the gay uncle and lesbian aunt. Thus this is not a hypothetical discussion of benefits but an observed one. If they are fertilized they are not clones. The point again is that there are non-breeding individuals that benefit the survival of the species, another observed instance that shows that a gay uncle or lesbian aunt can benefit sibling offspring and lead to their shared genes being passed on to the next generation. No, the "above arguments" involved evolution and your poor understanding of the mechanisms involved for inheritance of genes carried by non-breeding individuals within a breeding population.This was your argument in the previous linked post: This has been shown to be false, so no, the argument does not stand. This is a cop-out and disingenuous when in fact you have not answer this previously. Curiously I find it is a common refuge for people with weak arguments, as they like to pretend that their basis is solid. You may want to look up cognitive dissonance.

Whaaat? You've said lots of stuff based on broad assumptions and speculations.You know, like that being gay is a choice and that homosexuals can be cured.You based gay being a choice on some old studies that failed to find a gay gene. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.And you base there being a cure for gayness on the anecdotes of people who say they were cured, while ignoring those who say they cannot be.You also completely mis-speculate the meanings of our laws when you say that refusing gays is like refusing to serve a vegan-only cake.If you offer your service to the public, then you have to offer that service to everyone. (you can require that everyone wear clothes for health and safety reasons, that's not discriminating against anyone in particular).If you don't offer any vegan services, then that's okay, you don't have to. But if you are selling salads, then you cannot refuse to sell one to someone just because they are a vegan. That's discrimination.And if you didn't want to discuss speculation and assumptions, then why did you put Creo and ID in title, and why did you bring up the New Testament?I do have a question about a contradiction you seem to have made.

quote:

---

Its my understanding that homosexuals don't get aroused (as opposed to bisexuals) when around the opposite sex.

---

So, hetersexuals don't get arroused by the same sex, right?

quote:

---

I've already refuted this and exposure to a visual and auditory media is known to influence individuals. I personally don't want to be subjected to things I don't like and I certainly don't want to be influences subconsciously by them.

---

Wait, couldn't you just choose to not like the gay porn? If you might be influenced by it, then how does it remain a choice? And if you're a heterosexual, then you won't be able to be arroused by gay porn, so why the worry?One more thing: No, that's not what we are looking for. No bare links. No long copy and pastes. Describe the evidence in your own words, and then provide the links to the studies as support.And go for quality over quantity. We don't need a whole bunch of bad studies, we need one really good one. Pick your best one, expound it in your own words, and then provide us a link to it.