- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Best Incredible Content
-
Gay at birth?
This is a good question. Technically speaking, everything is biologically influenced to some extent. We interact with our environment, our organism reacts to that interaction in the way determined by biology, and the biology shifts as a consequence. For this process to be launched in the first place, some biological imprint has to be there.ZeusAres42 said:@MayCaesar
One thing I am confused by what you said is that orientation may very well be purely environmental. Surely you can't be suggesting that biology plays no part in physical attraction? I'm not saying you are saying this. I am just asking for clarification.
I mean there might be some outlier cases where sexual orientation seems to be very much environmentally influenced but that doesn't negate any biological influence here and wouldn't make any sense to suggest that since you need biological underpinnings in the first place for biological organisms to be influenced by their environmental factors.
However, the question arises: are people with two different biological imprints, yet subjected to the same environmental factors, going to develop their sexuality independently? How strong is the overlap? It is possible that it is 0%, but it is also possible that it is 100%. Our biological imprints may differ significantly, yet the differences might be quite irrelevant when it comes to development of this particular trait. This possibility is what I was suggesting.
-
Gay at birth?
@just_sayin
Wow! You're whining about my piece not being more up to date yet you constantly quote from a 2000 year old book and call its ramblings ....Fact ......hilarious.
The most up to date findings support the fact that secual orientation is not a choice I know this fact goes in the face of your religious beliefs but that's tough facts do not care about your religious dictates.
Your unfounded contention remains that sexual orientation is a choice and your " best evidence" has been a minority study demonstrating 39 per cent of non binrary depressed children in a small poll were confused about sexual orientation...dear or dear.
So do explain why 90 per cent of the world's population stay the same sexual orientation they were born with?
Is it because they fear gods wrath?
You believe it is don't you ? -
Gay at birth?
LOL a therapist you're not. Can you address what is being said? Science on this issue is inconclusive when it comes to natural attractions and sexual preferences. Just because a small minority of people change their orientation undoubtably after an "immense and prolonged effort" as you suggest, by no means indicates the issue is settled. I don't believe in your god anymore, has nothing to do with anger or this topic. But you do and your god holds homosexuals accountable for acting on their homosexuality so my question isn't one of morality. That's stated in your scriptures. My question is why are you banking on science that isn't conclusive and only accounts for such a small fraction of people? Is it just an effort to say could have a choice during a 'fluid' time?just_sayin said:
I have not made a moral argument for or against homosexuality in this debate. Maybe your anger towards God has clouded your ability to not lash out at people of faith unreasonably. The issue of morality is a different issue than are people born gay and is sexual orientation immutable. I see this debate as an issue of what the research says. This is about what is (the research), not what ought to be (moral determinations). On a off topic side note, until you address your anger towards God, you won't get over your depression. If you are in therapy, I'm sure they have told you this by now.Factfinder said:
No I meant what I said. In the end you think sexual orientation is a choice. Homosexuality bad so all one has to do is "change their patterns and thoughts" and resist their natural attractions long enough to 'establish new patterns'? Sorry but a succession of choices one has to make to change what they're attracted to is still choices. Not only are they choices but they're designed to ultimately reflect a final choice to change ones attractions. So just admit you think one can change their sexual orientation if they approach it like quitting drinking. Which is boloney.just_sayin said:
Yes, people have agency and can choose who they sleep with, no matter what sexual orientation they are. So if that it what you mean by 'choice' the answer is yes - people can choose their actions..Factfinder said:@just_sayin
So, about 1 out of every 5 gay men have had sex with a woman in the past year alone. Which goes to show you that sexual-orientation is not set in stone and is not immutable
The only reason to make that statement is to lead to a conclusion of choice in the end. You're claiming 1 out of every 5 gay men make the choice to sleep with women as well. So logic would dictate the others can as well? Is that your point? Cause no matter what 'choice' people make about who they have sex with, their sexual orientation doesn't change. Heterosexuals sleep with people they're not attracted to for various reasons. I imagine homosexuals would too; don't you think? If they're attracted to the opposite sex then that's the case, if they're attracted to the same sex then that's the case, they still have no choice in THAT matter.
Can people change their patterns and thoughts? Just as with people losing weight, quitting drugs, alcohol or gambling, yes, they can, but often not without immense and prolonged effort. Even then, they may have attractions and thoughts because of how those patterns have been established in their brain. As AA teaches, you never stop being an alcoholic. That doesn't mean that the person can't live a life where they no longer drink and that after establishing new patterns it isn't a little easier to live without drinking.
Because of the political aspects of the issue, people want to deny the scientific research and make claims that sexual orientation does not change, when the evidence is, it can and does for some people. For 60 plus years people claimed that people are born gay. we now know that there is no gay gene. The alleged gay genetic markers are not genetically determinate, that more heterosexuals than homosexuals have so called gay genetic markers, We know that a noticeable percentage of people change sexual orientation during their lifetime. We also know that about 2/3rds to 3/4ths of all people who identify as gay, have no gay genetic markers at all, while some heterosexuals have the so-called gay genetic markers. That's what the science says.
What about people who are married with children who come out and get divorced? The number one reason given I'd say is they couldn't live any longer being dishonest with themselves. They supposed to do the 12 steps?
Anyway, the people arguing that sexual orientation is fluid are not doing so on the basis of being religious. In fact, the opposite is much more likely the case. The researchers are very pro LGBTQ+/ The most prolific and leading researcher on the topic is herself a Lesbian.. I've cited their work multiple times now, but you haven't provided a single source that says that sexual orientation is not fluid. Either put up or .
I have not argued that change is easy, I have only pointed you to the research that says it happens. And for the record, no, I do not think I can change anyone. I think no one changes who doesn't first want to. I think if someone wants to change, that change is possible though. The research support this.
People can't help their personal attractions they become aware of as they grow and mature. 90% of people develop desires for the opposite sex, 10% develop similar desires for the same sex or both. Not in any stage where the natural development of sexual attraction is concerned is the person making a choice before those desires comes into full fruition. I just liked girls, period. I didn't choose that but I'm happy with it. Can you explain what exactly is your take when these researchers of yours talk of 'fluidity'? Can you change your sexual orientation? -
Gay at birth?
No I meant what I said. In the end you think sexual orientation is a choice. Homosexuality bad so all one has to do is "change their patterns and thoughts" and resist their natural attractions long enough to 'establish new patterns'? Sorry but a succession of choices one has to make to change what they're attracted to is still choices. Not only are they choices but they're designed to ultimately reflect a final choice to change ones attractions. So just admit you think one can change their sexual orientation if they approach it like quitting drinking. Which is boloney.just_sayin said:
Yes, people have agency and can choose who they sleep with, no matter what sexual orientation they are. So if that it what you mean by 'choice' the answer is yes - people can choose their actions..Factfinder said:@just_sayin
So, about 1 out of every 5 gay men have had sex with a woman in the past year alone. Which goes to show you that sexual-orientation is not set in stone and is not immutable
The only reason to make that statement is to lead to a conclusion of choice in the end. You're claiming 1 out of every 5 gay men make the choice to sleep with women as well. So logic would dictate the others can as well? Is that your point? Cause no matter what 'choice' people make about who they have sex with, their sexual orientation doesn't change. Heterosexuals sleep with people they're not attracted to for various reasons. I imagine homosexuals would too; don't you think? If they're attracted to the opposite sex then that's the case, if they're attracted to the same sex then that's the case, they still have no choice in THAT matter.
Can people change their patterns and thoughts? Just as with people losing weight, quitting drugs, alcohol or gambling, yes, they can, but often not without immense and prolonged effort. Even then, they may have attractions and thoughts because of how those patterns have been established in their brain. As AA teaches, you never stop being an alcoholic. That doesn't mean that the person can't live a life where they no longer drink and that after establishing new patterns it isn't a little easier to live without drinking.
Because of the political aspects of the issue, people want to deny the scientific research and make claims that sexual orientation does not change, when the evidence is, it can and does for some people. For 60 plus years people claimed that people are born gay. we now know that there is no gay gene. The alleged gay genetic markers are not genetically determinate, that more heterosexuals than homosexuals have so called gay genetic markers, We know that a noticeable percentage of people change sexual orientation during their lifetime. We also know that about 2/3rds to 3/4ths of all people who identify as gay, have no gay genetic markers at all, while some heterosexuals have the so-called gay genetic markers. That's what the science says.
What about people who are married with children who come out and get divorced? The number one reason given I'd say is they couldn't live any longer being dishonest with themselves. They supposed to do the 12 steps?
-
I hate Trump, but it's Biden who's committing genocide on the Palestinians.
How so?Bogan said:And you proved mine. You know quite well that I am right, which is why you never stop prevaricating, obfuscating, misdirecting, and muddying the water. The question that I really would love to ask you, although it is pointless because you never answer any question that I ask you, is why? Why do you persist in espousing what you know quite well is a lie?
What exactly is your claim?
I do not espouse what I know to be a lie. I have read the opinions on this thread, in particular between you and a couple other members and contributed elements of truth now and again. Point being there are many facets that this debate evolved around and I haven't picked a side in anyway. The fact is you have posited some truths but your interpretations of some of those truths I've disagreed with. Don't you understand one can be partially right while at the same time another can be partially right as well?
Anyway I do not muddy the waters, reality can do that all on its own. For instance it's true as you say, we all have some prejudices, but at the same time it's true most in western society try and avoid living by them because they easily lead to false judgments, blanket statements, and wrong conclusions. Obviously no one single statement can be absolutely true about all members of any particular ethnicity. Or is that your claim you accuse me and others of avoiding? -
How can we tell if news is true or fake?
I do not really care about politics, so I cannot give you guys my input on this. I follow the scientific/technological news and financial news, and with those it is fairly straightforward.
With scientific/technological news, I expect the author to cite the source and quote from that source accurately, and there are some authors who have a solid track of doing that, so there is very little reason for me to suspect them of making stuff up. They can make an honest mistake every now and then, but they will not come up with a paper that does not exist.
With financial news, it is even simpler: when some company's stock plummets, I can see it in real life. When some CEO is quoted, I can find the press release on the company's website.
I would imagine that you can do the same in politics: make sure that whatever you are reading links to actual sources and quotes them accurately, and lets the data speak for itself, rather than telling you what to think about it. Find a few individuals/organizations that have a good track of doing that and you will be golden. Just keep verifying regularly that they are still doing that: media organizations have a poor track record of staying fair once becoming popular. -
Reasons for your siding regarding the Israely and Palestine/Hamas Conflict?
@Bogan
You are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
I am neither. You are neither. We are just discussing it on the internet. Though I see no reason to continue.
If you insist on breaking down what someone says sentence by sentence as if they're stand alone remarks thereby warping their meanings instead of considering the intended context of said sentences, you will never understand what people are saying.
There comes a time when one must move past assigning blame and seek solutions. I have always maintained Israel's right to defend itself. Just because I also think it's not a good thing to bomb civilian hospitals is in no way changing my stance and you've failed to show that it has. Everyone has their opinions on who's fault it is and I've shown ample outrage towards Hamas and the like for being the aggressors. I realize others believe differently; but if we're to find any solutions we need to move past the blame game. Bombing people into oblivion as an answer was something we as civilized people at one time wanted to move past. That's as simple as I can make it. And before you respond let me just add, no that isn't a weak approach. It would call for doing what you think is impossible. Eliminating the criminal element so the focus can be on the real problems and issues. -
Are Homophobes Perverted?
This seems like a common misapplication of statistics people make: not accounting for updates on a prior with new information. For example, when someone says that a Black person is much more likely to commit a violent crime than an Asian person, they are making a very general population-wide statement. However, as soon as you know even a little bit about the particular Black person and the particular Asian person, the proportion of probabilities changes drastically. For instance, if you know that both are classmates in the law school of Harvard, then the probability of either committing a violent crime is going to be less than among any large racial group on average, and the comparison between the two will not be unfavorable to the Black person.
Similarly, it is true that statistically homosexual people have inferior health outcomes to heterosexual people, outcomes that are not fully explained by their inferior status in the society (which is not even the case any more: in fact, one could argue that homosexual people have more opportunities than heterosexual people when it comes to fellowships and certain job positions targeting sexual minorities). It is hard to see, however, what being homosexual itself can possibly have to do with it, just like in the example above it is hard to see what being Black has to do with one's propensity to committing violent crime. The homosexual person may be a part of the "LGBT community" (whatever the heck it is) and influenced by some poor ideologies promoting reckless hedonism, and then, yes, their expected outcomes will poor. On the other hand, I have a couple of homosexual/bisexual friends who have graduated from elite universities with STEM degrees and are proactive enough to research dangers of unprotected sex and such and do something about it - and their outcomes are not expected (to the best of my knowledge) to be worse than those for heterosexual people of the same socio-economical standing.
I am not sure what use there is in comparing general population outcomes when the question stands as follows: "Should homosexual people be encouraged to deny their sexuality or not?" It would be interesting, to that end, to also compare the health outcomes of homosexual people engaging in homosexual relationships (including sex), and those who deny themselves the pleasure. The latter is quite unlikely to be healthy.
At the same time, it is silly to deny the obvious health risks. Saying that, all other things being equal, homosexual sex is as healthy as heterosexual sex is plainly wrong no matter how much you dislike the fact that it is wrong. Reality is what it is: you are not supposed to like or dislike it, only to accept it. Life is not fair, people are born or evolve to have traits and conditions that make their lives more difficult than if the did not have them. It is more productive to talk about adaptation to those traits and mitigation of risks, than to deny the risks and hope that political correctness will keep them at bay. -
Are Homophobes Perverted?
That's because you miss the point. The views whether they be homophobic, or homosexual, are diametrically opposed so it makes sense for the two to try and avoid the other when possible; but that in no way endorses one over the other. And in no way is one perverse and the other not. It is what it is and that it.just_sayin said:
I don't see how the views are 'perverted'. The religious views you may disagree with if you have other religious values. The health issues are the health issues. Surely you aren't suggesting that we keep the health risks hidden from people are you?ZeusAres42 said:just_sayin said:Several religious traditions associate same sex relationships with sin.For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. - Romans 1:26 - 28
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
For the same reason that certain other sexual practices are deemed sin, same-sex sex is considered a sin by the Bible.Often not discussed are the serious health issues that are associated with same sex relationships. These are often hidden and downplayed due to to LGBTQ+ status as a minority group: From the National Library of Medicine:
homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years.
From Health
Here is a list of increased health risks
1) Increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. Adolescent and adult gay and bisexual men made up 68% of new HIV diagnoses in the United States in 2018.
Gay and bisexual men are also at a higher risk for other STIs than others. Chlamydia, syphilis, and gonorrhea also significantly increase the risk of getting or transmitting HIV.
Additionally, some evidence suggests that LGBTQ+ people are more likely to have the human papillomavirus virus (HPV). Gay, bisexual, and MSM are 20 times more likely than heterosexual men to develop anal cancer (Patel P, Bush T, Kojic EM, et al. Prevalence, Incidence, and Clearance of Anal High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Infection Among HIV-Infected Men in the SUN Study. J Infect Dis. 2018;217(6):953-963. doi:10.1093/infdis/jix607)
Certain strains of HPV cause anal cancer. Also, some strains of HPV are the cause of cervical cancer. But it's also a risk factor for anogenital cancers. HPV also links to head and neck malignancies due to transmission of the virus via oral sex.
2) HIgher rates of partner violence
3) Substance Abuse
Research has found that people who identify as lesbian or gay are more than twice as likely as people who identify as heterosexual to abuse alcohol or tobacco. And people who identify as bisexual are three times as likely.(Boyd CJ, Veliz PT, Stephenson R, Hughes TL, McCabe SE. Severity of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Drug Use Disorders Among Sexual Minority Individuals and Their "Not Sure" Counterparts. LGBT Health. 2019;6(1):15-22. doi:10.1089/lgbt.2018.0122)
4) Greater Risk of Mental Health Conditions
5) Greater Risk of Obesity and Eating Disorders
Research has found that bisexual and lesbian women were more likely to be overweight or obese than women who identify as heterosexual.
6) Increased Risk of Breast and Cervical Cancer
7) Heart Disease
Research has found that lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults have a higher risk of heart disease and other cardiac problems than others.
I don't think talking about how God views same sex relationships and the health risks of same-sex makes one 'perverted'. It may offend some though.
You see, @Barnardo, this is exactly why your argument is perverted. Of course, @just_saying's argument isn't any different. Hey, I guess we could call this perversion metastasis!
-
What are the "religious tenets" of the "faith" of Atheism?
Feynman, who received a Nobel Prize for his work in quantum mechanics, was known to produce quotes such as "Sh$t up and calculate" (referring to one's inability to understand quantum mechanics intuitively), or "If someone claims to understand quantum mechanics, they are either lying or crazy". Personally for me Quantum Mechanics and, later, Quantum Field Theory were the least comprehensible physics courses I have taken. I would go as far as to say that the Quantum Field Theory course I took back in Russia was what convinced me that I was not a physicist (yes, that course took that hard a toll on me; never recovered fully from that one).ZeusAres42 said:@MayCaesar
I am going to be honest: quantum physics is beyond me. From my understanding, this is a field that even some scientists find challenging. As other scientists have said, 'unless you are a quantum physicist,' avoid using this argument. And that is especially true for arguments about a Theistic God.
What theoretical physicists do in general is completely arcane in my eyes. But the quantum physicists speak a different language even with respect to these folks...
