Explain to me how Homosexuals are "born that way".

Originally posted by BiggerPicture


Ditto, for one to imply the English dictionary word "homophoobe" does not mean a fearer of homosexuals.

Homophobe is a term coined by gay activist George Weinberg in the 70s.

It's relevantly new and clever play on words. Because it implies that people who disagree with homosexually have a phobia (An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.)

And yes. George Weinberg was very much part of the "gay agenda" and posted many studies, probably the studies that you read. Since he was a gay activist, it's no doubt that he probably manipulated his studies.

It's a shame that you don't know the bigger picture.

Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by stormson

 

Annnnd we're back to square one. The question I asked was how Homosexuals were born that way. You answered with, they were born that way.

What?

Originally posted by Garfee
Why does the OP author care so much about who anyone else has sex with?

Why do you care so much about why I care so much?

In actuality, I care more about where the attraction origination from, not the action. Why are you in my thread? You're annoying

I care why you care because you're the one knowingly rasing such a volitile issue on this site, knowing full well there are idiot bigoted pigs who will drag the hate out for pages and pages - I think you did it for laughs no matter what you say.

This isn't your thread, mate - you just started it.

So, why do you care about the origins? I haven't see one single post of yours in fifeen pages asking haters to be on topic.

You're either a liar or a hater.

reply to post by Garfee


Right, I'm sure we develop sexuality when were a baby...where do you get these people ATS? Oh yeah I forgot. Unless your talking about the babies born half woman half man then lay the blame to the mother.

What else you got? See I can be cool too.

Do you work in biology? Genetics? Oh, I see, a christian. You say you love them but you don't approve of their expression of love. Anyway, I don't think you should be casting judgement here. I highly doubt you're a saint. But I'm sure you hold onto the belief that you'll possibly go to heaven anyway. Like the majority of christians and catholics. I guess that means the gays still have hope. That is if they still care for said religions seeing how hypocritical, hateful, and judgmental many of their followers are. Jesus would be proud.

Originally posted by Garfee
Sorry, you're wrong.

By your logic all those things also fall into the same catergory as heterosexuality.

Heterosexuality and homosexuality and bisexuality are not choices.

Only the sexual act itself is the choice.

Uhh, yea. That's the point.

There's NOTHING wrong with a man having love for a man, or a woman having love for a woman. I love my male friends, and my female friends alike. The action of having sexual relations with them, however, is what falls under the same category. That means, yes, an unmarried couple having sex, a homosexual couple having sex, a man and an animal having sex, all the same category - it's an action, a decision, a choice.

Originally posted by mayabong
Do you agree with everything god says in the old testament op? There's some pretty saucy stuff in there that I'm sure you don't believe in.

Yes. I do agree with everything God says, in both the Old and New Testament. I agree, there is some saucy stuff in there that I'm sure you don't understand.

reply to post by AreYouSatisfied


No, the lack of strong male role models for little girls have been shown that promiscuity and lesbianism are as a result of them not having that daddy that teaches them what a man really is meant to be.
Add to it the onslaught of female hormones and endocrine disruptors in milk and other foods as well as all our water supplies it's not a streach to see where the core of the problem is.
Of course we could have other genetic factors that actually are passed at birth but without first addressing all the factors we are left with more of a political debate than that of any scientific nature.
I think that is where the op is coming from.

lol, btw, if you are implying that I think it's ok if it's 2 lesbians, I think you might watch too much porn.
The fact that they are lesbians simply turns me off...why? Because they don't want or need me silly

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by Garfee

 

Right, I'm sure we develop sexuality when were a baby...where do you get these people ATS? Oh yeah I forgot. Unless your talking about the babies born half woman half man then lay the blame to the mother.

What else you got? See I can be cool too.

We develop sexuality as children and go from there.

What's your degree in? I majored in early childhood education and social science and I'm not a religious pig.

Originally posted by manna2
reply to post by AreYouSatisfied

 

No, the lack of strong male role models for little girls have been shown that promiscuity and lesbianism are as a result of them not having that daddy that teaches them what a man really is meant to be.
Add to it the onslaught of female hormones and endocrine disruptors in milk and other foods as well as all our water supplies it's not a streach to see where the core of the problem is.
Of course we could have other genetic factors that actually are passed at birth but without first addressing all the factors we are left with more of a political debate than that of any scientific nature.
I think that is where the op is coming from.

lol, btw, if you are implying that I think it's ok if it's 2 lesbians, I think you might watch too much porn.
The fact that they are lesbians simply turns me off...why? Because they don't want or need me silly

The first sentence you wrote disgusts me , where do you find this research ? Don't believe everything you read , for every THEORY , there is thousands of others to dispute it.

You can't prove homosexual's aren't born that way anymore than you can prove God exists in the first place..

I asked you why it matters? .. is it some how damaging your life?

Originally posted by Lionhearte
Alright, let me start off by saying I do not by ANY means have hatred toward Homosexuals. Yes, you can see my avatar very clearly to the left - but make no mistake, I love Homosexuals with all of my heart, and so does God. I am a Christian, and though I do not approve of Homosexual relations (i.e. sexual relations between same genders, lusting, etc.), I classify it as any other sexual sin - i.e., fornication, sexual immorality, adultery and lusting. Yes, that means we are ALL guilty of sin, except for those who aren't attracted to ANYTHING, because apparently there are some people out there like that.

However, I have a sincere, honest question in response to the claim LGBTs and LGBT-defenders make - that they are, for some reason, born that way. For example - we wouldn't discriminate someone who was born with a disease or something, because it isn't their fault, they had no choice, they were born that way.

So, we've all heard that argument before. First off - to be born in a certain way, we are talking about genetics, correct? So, somebody with a heart disease, possibly received that disease because of a parent, an uncle, a grandparent, etc. It was in their family - that is why you hear the commercials that say "If your family has a history of heart problems", etc, etc.

Now, here's where I'm confused. You get your genetics from your BIOLOGIC parents, correct? So.. how do homosexuals "receive" these supposed "inherent" genes.. if they got them from HETEROSEXUAL parents?

It is a proven fact, undeniably so, that there has never, EVER been a case of a homosexual couple having a biologic child - they can adopt, sure. But that child got his genetics from his BIOLOGICAL parents.

So, LGBTs and LGBT defenders, please answer this for me - where does the gene come from that makes a homosexual "born that way"?

I can't make an argument to support why or how they were born that way in a scientific sense or with much proof at all, but all I can say is that I believe most gays have/had a difficult time admitting or "coming out" as some would say, knowing they could and will most likely be ridiculed. I don't think many people would knowingly accept the perceived backlash unless they had no choice in the matter, so imo, people don't choose to be attracted to the same sex, they just are. I can't explain it any other way than that. I don't hold anything against them either, what you do in your bedroom is your business.

Originally posted by Lionhearte
Yes. I do agree with everything God says, in both the Old and New Testament. I agree, there is some saucy stuff in there that I'm sure you don't understand.

Lionhearte. Sorry this is slightly off topic. But since you think all sexual relations are sinful. I think you should study about your god more. The fact that he wasn't the only god, and that infact he was a BAAL god.

Says so...... in the bible.

Originally posted by specialk89
Do you work in biology? Genetics? Oh, I see, a christian. You say you love them but you don't approve of their expression of love. Anyway, I don't think you should be casting judgement here. I highly doubt you're a saint. But I'm sure you hold onto the belief that you'll possibly go to heaven anyway. Like the majority of christians and catholics. I guess that means the gays still have hope. That is if they still care for said religions seeing how hypocritical, hateful, and judgmental many of their followers are. Jesus would be proud.

Here's my post from the 2nd page of this thread, toward the end.

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by Lionhearte

 

Please highlight in my original post where I made the statement that homosexuals are acting by choice. Thank you.

Please show where in my post that i said you did, do it now.

I posted that because it is a false division that is commonly presented in this type of discussion and is about as logical as saying that since a baby was born without cancer that he MUST have chosen to get cancer. Homosexuals are not born gay, that comes latter. It is not right or wrong it just is. Besides, god says gays can't do it missionary (don't lie down with a woman the way you would with a man). As long as they are not doin it face to face they can go to haven with Jesus.

Just curious, since Jesus died for your sins wouldn't it be letting him die in vein if you didn't sin?

Technically speaking, I never said you did say that I did. But now we're just circle jerking.

I should have made this clear, though - this thread is not about CHOICE, it's about genetics, hereditary genes, etc. It's about the origins of the homosexual gene, if there even IS one. And no, that makes no sense. Cancer is a disease, homosexuality isn't. I mean, not in my opinion.

And Homosexuals can go to Heaven, if they truly believe in Christ and actively get conviction for ANY of their sins, whether they are liars, drug addicts, porn addicts, WHATEVER. Jesus died for the sins of ALL. Homosexuals aren't excluded.

And are you serious? I sin EVERY, SINGLE, DAY of my LIFE. Letting him die in vein? I'd be letting him die in vein if I didn't believe in him. Silly question.

Their "expression" of love is what is known as LUST. The Greeks have 5 different words for love, and in English, we only have one. Lust isn't love, lust is the desire, the sexual preference, etc. I simply want to know where that attraction originated from - if not hereditary, then where?

gay and straight have always been around. no more now than in the past. the only difference is how we view it and the press it recieves.

lots of people think crime is rampant, cause of the news, yet the fbi says crime is lower now than in the last 30 yrs. same with gays, no more or less of them, they just get more press now.

back in the day, status mattered not sexual preference. for example, a roman male could sleep with males or females, so long as he was in charge. no shame. however, if he got seduced by someone of lower class than him, male or female, then it was shameful. it was based on who played the "male" part, not to get to graphic.

reply to post by Garfee


hey dude, name calling simply means you have no arg.
too bad...for you!
Sad sad sad. This seems to be one of those topics where adult dialogue runs away to make room for immature insults attacking the person.

You fail, you simply fail.
Now go beat somebody up to feel better.

Homosexuals are God's gift to us. They teach us about unconditional love.

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Originally posted by specialk89
Do you work in biology? Genetics? Oh, I see, a christian. You say you love them but you don't approve of their expression of love. Anyway, I don't think you should be casting judgement here. I highly doubt you're a saint. But I'm sure you hold onto the belief that you'll possibly go to heaven anyway. Like the majority of christians and catholics. I guess that means the gays still have hope. That is if they still care for said religions seeing how hypocritical, hateful, and judgmental many of their followers are. Jesus would be proud.

Here's my post from the 2nd page of this thread, toward the end.

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by Lionhearte

 

Please highlight in my original post where I made the statement that homosexuals are acting by choice. Thank you.

Please show where in my post that i said you did, do it now.

I posted that because it is a false division that is commonly presented in this type of discussion and is about as logical as saying that since a baby was born without cancer that he MUST have chosen to get cancer. Homosexuals are not born gay, that comes latter. It is not right or wrong it just is. Besides, god says gays can't do it missionary (don't lie down with a woman the way you would with a man). As long as they are not doin it face to face they can go to haven with Jesus.

Just curious, since Jesus died for your sins wouldn't it be letting him die in vein if you didn't sin?

I should have made this clear, though - this thread is not about CHOICE, it's about genetics, hereditary genes, etc. It's about the origins of the homosexual gene, if there even IS one. And no, that makes no sense. Cancer is a disease, homosexuality isn't. I mean, not in my opinion.

And Homosexuals can go to Heaven, if they truly believe in Christ and actively get conviction for ANY of their sins, whether they are liars, drug addicts, porn addicts, WHATEVER. Jesus died for the sins of ALL. Homosexuals aren't excluded.

And are you serious? I sin EVERY, SINGLE, DAY of my LIFE. Letting him die in vein? I'd be letting him die in vein if I didn't believe in him. Silly question.

Their "expression" of love is what is known as LUST. The Greeks have 5 different words for love, and in English, we only have one. Lust isn't love, lust is the desire, the sexual preference, etc. I simply want to know where that attraction originated from - if not hereditary, then where?

That's just silly , That can be for both gays and straights. Both sexualitys have lust and love.

Originally posted by Manunnaki
Food for thought. Why would anyone chose to be gay knowing that society people in society rather could potentially kill them for being gay. Make sense of that.

Zing!!!!!!!!!!! We have a winner, my thoughts exactly, there is no reason why they would want to do this if it was at all avoidable, they have no choice.

Originally posted by Garfee
Why does the OP author care so much about who anyone else has sex with?

I often wonder why ANYONE cares about other peoples sexuality. People need to keep their damned nose in their own bedrooms and stop worrying about who is what and why.

Originally posted by stormson
gay and straight have always been around. no more now than in the past. the only difference is how we view it and the press it recieves.

lots of people think crime is rampant, cause of the news, yet the fbi says crime is lower now than in the last 30 yrs. same with gays, no more or less of them, they just get more press now.

back in the day, status mattered not sexual preference. for example, a roman male could sleep with males or females, so long as he was in charge. no shame. however, if he got seduced by someone of lower class than him, male or female, then it was shameful. it was based on who played the "male" part, not to get to graphic.

That's a good point.. homosexuality has existed throughout human history.. there's even been evidence of it in early man.

It also exists in nature with many species of animal ..

I personally think this thread is going absolutely nowhere..

reply to post by Lionhearte


So you agree with stoning and all that stuff? If a guy rapes a woman he must marry her? Tatoos are forbidden ect.???

What don't I understand?

Just wondering why you are cherrypicking.