• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bishop says kids ‘spontaneously’ gay and pedos

What? More stupid responses from the Catholic church to the priest abuse scandals? Say it isn't so!
 
This is simply more proof of why debating sexuality with most religious people is like debating how The Sacrament of the Last Supper was painted with a blind man. Why is it we are debating the origins of heterosexuality, homosexuality etc. with these people? The majority of clergymen, pastors, evangelicals, Catholics, etc. I have encountered in this forum and elsewhere are completely ignorant of the role science has played in deciphering sexuality. They do not compute that the majority of mental health care professionals in this country and elsewhere have discredited 'psychological' explanations for sexuality. But yet those who follow these men are the people who we are forced to have 150 page debates with over what 'sexual stimuli' are and the numerous studies demonstrating the complexity of sexuality in general.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
They do not compute that the majority of mental health care professionals in this country and elsewhere have discredited 'psychological' explanations for sexuality.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't exactly call "mental health professionals" (i.e. practitioners) experts on scientific matters -- though clergy are even less so.
 
Taylor said:
I wouldn't exactly call "mental health professionals" (i.e. practitioners) experts on scientific matters -- though clergy are even less so.
Click to expand...

Only that is not what I said. Read what I actually said:

Hatuey said:
They do not compute that the majority of mental health care professionals in this country and elsewhere have discredited 'psychological' explanations for sexuality.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with science. Mental health professionals have DISCREDITED - PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS for homosexuality.

In other words, people who are experts in mental health have found that a person being a homosexual, heterosexual etc has little to do with their mental health. There is nothing mentally wrong with a person who is gay. It's not a decease. You don't simply change your mind and decide you want to screw the same sex. It doesn't happen 'spontaneously' anymore than heterosexuality does.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Only that is not what I said. Read what I actually said:



Nothing to do with science. Mental health professionals have DISCREDITED - PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS for homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Apologies. In the sentence before you said:
I have encountered in this forum and elsewhere are completely ignorant of the role science has played in deciphering sexuality.
Click to expand...

Hatuey said:
In other words, people who are experts in mental health have found that a person being a homosexual, heterosexual etc has little to do with their mental health. There is nothing mentally wrong with a person who is gay. It's not a decease.
Click to expand...
Without science, their opinion is no better than that of the clergyman. Whether there is something "wrong" is more of a societal decision.
 
Taylor said:
Without science, their opinion is no better than that of the clergyman. Whether there is something "wrong" is more of a societal decision.
Click to expand...

It is science, it's observation which the medical health professionals base their conclusions on. They see a lot of people, mentally sick to mentally healthy. They can make correlations from the data they observe. What they have observed is that sexuality is independent of psychology.
 
Taylor said:
Apologies. In the sentence before you said:

Without science, their opinion is no better than that of the clergyman. Whether there is something "wrong" is more of a societal decision.
Click to expand...

Actually it is better than a clergyman. Their studies in their field determines what something is not. Example, I'm not an "expert" in my field, but my studies in it help me determine how something is made. I see something like this:

mona-lisa-painting.jpg


And I know it wasn't 'made' with Photoshop. I know it wasn't created with a Wacom tablet. I know it wasn't painted with water color. It wasn't created with a digital camera. It wasn't created through any modern techniques. I 'might' not know who it was created by but I know how to 'read' the data I see. That puts me a few light years distance from some silly tourist who walks by the same image and says 'oh, of course it was made with Photoshop', simply because they say it is.
 
Hatuey said:
This is simply more proof of why debating sexuality with most religious people is like debating how The Sacrament of the Last Supper was painted with a blind man. Why is it we are debating the origins of heterosexuality, homosexuality etc. with these people? The majority of clergymen, pastors, evangelicals, Catholics, etc. I have encountered in this forum and elsewhere are completely ignorant of the role science has played in deciphering sexuality. They do not compute that the majority of mental health care professionals in this country and elsewhere have discredited 'psychological' explanations for sexuality. But yet those who follow these men are the people who we are forced to have 150 page debates with over what 'sexual stimuli' are and the numerous studies demonstrating the complexity of sexuality in general.
Click to expand...


Its always humorous for the far left nutballs to claim people don't understand science when they can't even point to science to explain homosexual behavior. In fact the opposite is true.

There are many half baked theories from the failed twins study to the fruit fly fiasco to relying on unsupervised questionnaires but it never changes the basic knowledge of science.

Biological sexual reactions are purely preparation for heterosexual sex. No matter how much the pro gay marriage group screams and cries the biological sexual reaction does not change for hetero or homosexual people. Men still produce and ejaculate sperm and women still divert blood to the uterus in anticipation for conception. These are measured and rock solid constants yet despite the evidence the religion of "homosexuality must be genetic" never ceases to draw new members to its flock based purely on faith alone.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
Its always humorous for the far left nutballs to claim people don't understand science when they can't even point to science to explain homosexual behavior. In fact the opposite is true.
Click to expand...

While this is true, it also doesn't discredit the original statement. Science does not know why some people are gay and some aren't. Probably not too concerned about it. But the original statement is one based on observation and data. There is no observed correlation or causation between sexuality and personal psychology.
 
Ikari said:
While this is true, it also doesn't discredit the original statement. Science does not know why some people are gay and some aren't. Probably not too concerned about it. But the original statement is one based on observation and data. There is no observed correlation or causation between sexuality and personal psychology.
Click to expand...

And since science can't explain it there is no reason to change the law to classify it as something more than a behavior or choice.
 
texmaster said:
Its always humorous for the far left nutballs to claim people don't understand science when they can't even point to science to explain homosexual behavior. In fact the opposite is true.
Click to expand...

Sigh. And so it begins:

Homosexuality and Mental Health

However, empirical evidence and professional norms do not support the idea that homosexuality is a form of mental illness or is inherently linked to psychopathology.

The foregoing should not be construed as an argument that sexual minority individuals are free from mental illness and psychological distress. Indeed, given the stresses created by sexual stigma and prejudice, it would be surprising if some of them did not manifest psychological problems (Meyer, 2003). The data from some studies suggest that, although most sexual minority individuals are well adjusted, nonheterosexuals may be at somewhat heightened risk for depression, anxiety, and related problems, compared to exclusive heterosexuals (Cochran & Mays, 2006).

Unfortunately, because of the way they were originally designed, most of these studies do not yield information about whether and to what extent such risks might be greater for various subgroups within the sexual minority population (e.g., individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual versus those who do not; bisexuals versus lesbians and gay men). In future research, it will be important to compare different sexual minority groups in order to understand how so many individuals withstand the stresses imposed by sexual prejudice, and to identify effective strategies for treating those with psychological problems.
Click to expand...

Twin Studies of Homosexuality

Survival of genetic homosexual traits explained - life - 13 October 2004 - New Scientist

The researchers discovered that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same - as yet unidentified - genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the "gay" genetic factors in circulation.

The findings represent the best explanation yet for the Darwinian paradox presented by homosexuality: it is a genetic dead-end, yet the trait persists generation after generation.

"We have finally solved this paradox," says Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua. "The same factor that influences sexual orientation in males promotes higher fecundity in females."
Click to expand...

Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist

Homosexual behaviour has been observed in hundreds of species, from bison to penguins. It is still not clear to what extent homosexuality in humans or other animals is genetic (rather than, say, due to hormonal extremes during embryonic development), but there are many mechanisms that could explain why gene variants linked to homosexuality are maintained in a population.

A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex. In some traditional societies, various forms of non-exclusive homosexuality were common.
Click to expand...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3008-homosexuality-is-biological-suggests-gay-sheep-study.html

A study of gay sheep appears to confirm the controversial suggestion that there is a biological basis for sexual preference.

The work shows that rams that prefer male sexual partners had small but distinct differences in a part of the brain called the hypothalamus, when compared with rams that preferred to mate with ewes.

Kay Larkin and colleagues from Oregon Health and Science University found the difference was in a particular region of the hypothalamus - the preoptic nucleus. The region is generally almost twice as large in rams as in ewes. But in gay rams its size was almost identical to that in "straight" females.

The hypothalamus is known to control sex hormone release and many types of sexual behaviour. Several other parts of the hypothalamus showed consistent sex differences in size, but only this specific region showed differences that correlated with sexual preference.
Click to expand...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17723884.900-the-big-brother-effect.html

But when Roger Gorski tells them that their sons have inherited "an immutable, behaviourally expressed, bimodal trait" rather like left-handedness, homosexuality assumes a whole new mantle of respectability.

"I recently spoke at a seminar for Mormon parents of gay children in Salt Lake City and it was amazing," says Gorski. "I felt like I was talking in a vacuum, with every word sucked up. It was the parents who were coming out."
Click to expand...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13918830.100-comment-a-gene-for-our-times.html

Few people can have missed the claim by American researchers that they have identified a portion (called Xq28) of the X-chromosome which appears to predispose men to a 'male sexual orientation' (see This Week). The identification of the maternally inherited 'gay gene' has probably attracted more column inches than any scientific announcement so far this decade. Even gay rights groups have given the discovery a warm welcome because it supports their long-held view that sexual orientation is not just a matter of choice but has its roots in biology - one Washington DC gay book shop is already selling a T-shirt with the legend: 'Xq28, Thanks Mom'.
Click to expand...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13918830.300-gene-hunters-sound-warning-over-gay-link.html

A group of American researchers stepped into a political and ethical minefield last week when they reported new evidence that some men may have a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. In a paper published in Science, molecular biologist Dean Hamer and his colleagues at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, took the unusual step of warning against the 'fundamentally unethical' use of such research to 'assess and alter' a 'normal variation in human behaviour'.

The scientists believe they have found a link between sexual orientation and a small region on the X chromosome, the chromosome which men inherit from their mothers. 'This study looks pretty solid,' said Francis Collins, director of the National Center for Human Genome Research. 'Even so, it is extremely important to have it reproduced.'
Click to expand...

Are you even serious? SERIOUSLY? Now I welcome you to provide scientific evidence that homosexual is some sort of mental illness or not related to genetics in any way.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
It is science, it's observation which the medical health professionals base their conclusions on. They see a lot of people, mentally sick to mentally healthy. They can make correlations from the data they observe. What they have observed is that sexuality is independent of psychology.
Click to expand...
They judge those observations against societally-determined criteria of what makes something "wrong".
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Actually it is better than a clergyman. Their studies in their field determines what something is not.
Click to expand...
And what are these "studies" if not science?
 
Hatuey said:
This is simply more proof of why debating sexuality with most religious people is like debating how The Sacrament of the Last Supper was painted with a blind man. Why is it we are debating the origins of heterosexuality, homosexuality etc. with these people? The majority of clergymen, pastors, evangelicals, Catholics, etc. I have encountered in this forum and elsewhere are completely ignorant of the role science has played in deciphering sexuality. They do not compute that the majority of mental health care professionals in this country and elsewhere have discredited 'psychological' explanations for sexuality. But yet those who follow these men are the people who we are forced to have 150 page debates with over what 'sexual stimuli' are and the numerous studies demonstrating the complexity of sexuality in general.
Click to expand...
This is one of the more outlandish statements from you that I have seen. Not only can't you prove it within the forum, you can't even say it about most of those outside the forum...even in your personal encounters.

As though chance would have it that you meet so many that are ignorant of science.

Ridiculous!
 
American said:
This is one of the more outlandish statements from you that I have seen. Not only can't you prove it within the forum, you can't even say it about most of those outside the forum...even in your personal encounters.

As though chance would have it that you meet so many that are ignorant of science.

Ridiculous!
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that it isn't chance that so many religious are so ignorant of science? Well I guess but I have no way of determining for sure whether I'm just unlucky to bump into so many ignorant bible thumpers or whether the majority of bible thumpers are ignorant. :lol:
 
Hatuey said:
Sigh. And so it begins:

Homosexuality and Mental Health



Twin Studies of Homosexuality

Survival of genetic homosexual traits explained - life - 13 October 2004 - New Scientist



Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist



Homosexuality is biological, suggests gay sheep study - 05 November 2002 - New Scientist



The big brother effect - 29 March 2003 - New Scientist



Comment: A gene for our times? - 24 July 1993 - New Scientist



Gene hunters sound warning over gay link - 24 July 1993 - New Scientist



Are you even serious? SERIOUSLY? Now I welcome you to provide scientific evidence that homosexual is some sort of mental illness or not related to genetics in any way.
Click to expand...


hahahhaha

Despite all your claims nothing you linked to changes the facts.

Rant and rave all you like Hatuey, theories are not facts :)
 
texmaster said:
hahahhaha

Despite all your claims nothing you linked to changes the facts.

Rant and rave all you like Hatuey, theories are not facts :)
Click to expand...

Your surrender is accepted. When you can provide evidence disputing the evidence, I welcome you to. :2wave:
 
Hatuey said:
Your surrender is accepted. When you can provide evidence disputing the evidence, I welcome you to. :2wave:
Click to expand...

I already have, multiple times.

You show me even one of your links claiming a homosexual genetic link that was even found in 70% of homosexuals tested and I'll shut up.

Go ahead. I'll wait :)


And I see you ducked my evidence of the biological sexual reaction in all people. Thanks for staying predicable.


Your articles always implode when they can't find a a trait that is either exclusive to homosexuals or one that can't even be found in all homosexuals.

Thanks for playing :)
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
I already have, multiple times.
Click to expand...

YOUR LINKS? PLEASE? A link to the post? A re-post of the links? Anything?

You show me even one of your links claiming a homosexual genetic link that was even found in 70% of the people tested and I'll shut up.

Go ahead. I'll wait :)
Click to expand...

Are you really this intellectually dishonest? I have already provided the evidence supporting HOMOSEXUALITY ITSELF having a basis in biology, genetics etc. Why would I need to provide a statistic?
 
texmaster said:
Biological sexual reactions are purely preparation for heterosexual sex. No matter how much the pro gay marriage group screams and cries the biological sexual reaction does not change for hetero or homosexual people. Men still produce and ejaculate sperm and women still divert blood to the uterus in anticipation for conception. These are measured and rock solid constants yet despite the evidence the religion of "homosexuality must be genetic" never ceases to draw new members to its flock based purely on faith alone.
Click to expand...

What does any of that have to do with who someone finds sexually appealing?
 
Hatuey said:
Sigh. And so it begins:

Homosexuality and Mental Health
Click to expand...

No evidence of a genetic link. Try again.

Twin Studies of Homosexuality
Click to expand...

Survival of genetic homosexual traits explained - life - 13 October 2004 - New Scientist
Click to expand...

One of my personal favorite junk science articles on homosexuality. Not only could they not even find their "evidence " in even 50% of the twins but it showed that there was less of a homosexual chance when the twins were separated. LOL Not surprised you didn't read it :)

Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist

From the article:

It is still not clear to what extent homosexuality in humans or other animals is genetic

Whoops! Damn those details! :D

Homosexuality is biological, suggests gay sheep study - 05 November 2002 - New Scientist
Click to expand...

Ok this one is really funny.

From the article: But Larkin suggests there may also be the influence of genes at work, at least in predisposing the animals to homosexuality. This is because selective breeding seems to have been responsible for the high proportion of gay sheep compared with other animals.

So it was not clear whether the differences were related to the disease or to sexual preferences.

All half baked theory and no factual genetic evidence in all homosexuals.

The big brother effect - 29 March 2003 - New Scientist

Comment: A gene for our times? - 24 July 1993 - New Scientist

Gene hunters sound warning over gay link - 24 July 1993 - New Scientist
Click to expand...

from the article:

Few people can have missed the claim by American researchers that they have identified a portion (called Xq28) of the X-chromosome which appears to predispose men to a 'male sexual orientation

Once again you hold your beliefs on a theory not fact.

Are you even serious? SERIOUSLY? Now I welcome you to provide scientific evidence that homosexual is some sort of mental illness or not related to genetics in any way.
Click to expand...

I just did. :)

Your theoricial arguments and junk science studies without being able to ever once find a genetic link in even a majority of homosexuals proves once you peel away the theories and junk science, you have nothing to base it on :)
 
rivrrat said:
What does any of that have to do with who someone finds sexually appealing?
Click to expand...

Don't remind him that we're debating the nature of sexual orientation and not bodily functions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom