Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?

[kaz]

You're confusing two disparate issues.

Issue one is can gays get married by a religious institution. The answer to that question is already yes and always has been yes. Government does not stop anyone from having a marriage ceremony or just claiming to be married, because getting married in the religious sense is merely a non-binding agreement between two people that may or may not have been witnessed. Well non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage.

The second issue is the one of the legal matter for the civil union of two people who have agreed to enter a marriage contract, aka. marriage licence.

Legal marriage definition:

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.

Marriage | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

I know they use the term contract, but as I pointed out it's bogus.

A contract between two parties is something they work out between each other. If you do this, I will do that. If I quit my job and raise your kids and you leave me for your secretary you bastard I want half your shit.

A contract is not something that government defines, implements and changes at it's own whim. That is just a government program.

Arguing with a libertarian that life is unbearable because someone wants things from government and government is being oppressive because they don't give it to them isn't going to ever get you anywhere. While as a Republican you may still want government, and lots of it, I would think that would bother you less than what liberals want.

You are still not listening. Without governance of some kind, there is no means to enforce and/or arbitrate a contract between two or more individuals. Without some means to enforce contracts you could only rely on a man's word as his bond. The paper of a contract would be worthless without a body to provide enforcement.

Having a body that enforces contracts without having to have people self enforce agreements is one of the corner stones of civilization since we left the trees.

I support having civil courts to enforce contracts, is that what you mean? That isn't what government marriage is, but yes, I believe contracts should be legally enforcible.

I support having government police, military, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights. Those are things that expand my liberty rather than contracting them, and they are not doable without government. Everyone has to buy in, you can't have criminal or civil courts recognized by some and not others. You cannot have different bodies recognizing land ownership. I see no solution to those things but government.

I am also saying that government marriage is not a real contract. And I've explained why that is so. It's a government program. And rather than expanding liberty, government uses it to discriminate between citizens and redistribute wealth.

 

[RKMBrown]

I know they use the term contract, but as I pointed out it's bogus.

A contract between two parties is something they work out between each other. If you do this, I will do that. If I quit my job and raise your kids and you leave me for your secretary you bastard I want half your shit.

A contract is not something that government defines, implements and changes at it's own whim. That is just a government program.

Arguing with a libertarian that life is unbearable because someone wants things from government and government is being oppressive because they don't give it to them isn't going to ever get you anywhere. While as a Republican you may still want government, and lots of it, I would think that would bother you less than what liberals want.

You are still not listening. Without governance of some kind, there is no means to enforce and/or arbitrate a contract between two or more individuals. Without some means to enforce contracts you could only rely on a man's word as his bond. The paper of a contract would be worthless without a body to provide enforcement.

Having a body that enforces contracts without having to have people self enforce agreements is one of the corner stones of civilization since we left the trees.

I support having civil courts to enforce contracts, is that what you mean? That isn't what government marriage is, but yes, I believe contracts should be legally enforcible.

I support having government police, military, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights. Those are things that expand my liberty rather than contracting them, and they are not doable without government. Everyone has to buy in, you can't have criminal or civil courts recognized by some and not others. You cannot have different bodies recognizing land ownership. I see no solution to those things but government.

I am also saying that government marriage is not a real contract. And I've explained why that is so. It's a government program. And rather than expanding liberty, government uses it to discriminate between citizens and redistribute wealth.

Not true. The contract you sign when you get married is a real and binding contract. Yes there are common law contracts in some states, where the contract is assumed to be signed based on mitigating factors. Nevertheless it's a real and binding contract. Think of it like a license to use a product, you know the part where the package say's if you open this package you agree to these terms.

As to the 20k laws written regarding marriage, yes govco likes to legislate our personal relationships. Apparently people are voting for it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're confusing two disparate issues.

Issue one is can gays get married by a religious institution. The answer to that question is already yes and always has been yes. Government does not stop anyone from having a marriage ceremony or just claiming to be married, because getting married in the religious sense is merely a non-binding agreement between two people that may or may not have been witnessed. Well non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage.

The second issue is the one of the legal matter for the civil union of two people who have agreed to enter a marriage contract, aka. marriage licence.

Legal marriage definition:

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.

Marriage | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

I know they use the term contract, but as I pointed out it's bogus.

A contract between two parties is something they work out between each other. If you do this, I will do that. If I quit my job and raise your kids and you leave me for your secretary you bastard I want half your shit.

A contract is not something that government defines, implements and changes at it's own whim. That is just a government program.

Arguing with a libertarian that life is unbearable because someone wants things from government and government is being oppressive because they don't give it to them isn't going to ever get you anywhere. While as a Republican you may still want government, and lots of it, I would think that would bother you less than what liberals want.

You are still not listening. Without governance of some kind, there is no means to enforce and/or arbitrate a contract between two or more individuals. Without some means to enforce contracts you could only rely on a man's word as his bond. The paper of a contract would be worthless without a body to provide enforcement.

Having a body that enforces contracts without having to have people self enforce agreements is one of the corner stones of civilization since we left the trees.

Ever watch Judge Judy? Did you know that she is no longer a judge, and that those cases she is ruling on are being decided without the official sanction of the government? Both parties agree to arbitration, and are paid a fee for showing up on the show, and the fines are paid out of that fee.

All without government involvement.

 

[Inevitable]

Hi [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]:
No, that's clearly a misinterpretation of what I'm saying, Sorry.

I can try to describe it more clearly: is if someone is personally unhappy about their
situation, even their gender if they KNOW their personality/soul is the opposite,
(like my friend who was resentful he had to present himself as male when inside his personality was born female),
and THEY/THAT PERSON (NOT anyone or anything in society) feels their natural orientation/gender is [fill in the blank]
then the spiritual healing process is to help them make peace with
WHATEVER they need to be at peace/come out as their NATURAL selves.

This is coming from THEM and what THEY say they are, want or need in life.
That's what determines if something feels wrong or unnatural to them.
If THEY say it isn't working, they're not happy, and want things to change.

So it is NOT up to you, me, APA, Christian or political groups, media,
the Democrat or Republican party to tell anyone what process they can or
cannot go through to come to peace with who they are naturally as a person.

It can be any form, every person is unique, I've heard just about everything.
Everyone I know struggles to come to peace with themselves in life,
so it really applies to all people but in different ways. Gender/orientation
is just one area, it can be people unhappy about their jobs or their degree.
But it's because THEY know they want something else, not anyone forcing or
guilt tripping them or telling them they can't have or be X Y Z. Most of the
guilt they want to GET AWAY FROM is from these external sources telling
them the OPPOSITE of what they really want, feel and know inside.

it is NOT about "other people" or "society/institutions" TELLING you this is
wrong, that can't be natural, etc etc.

That is the guilt/fear based "conditioning or programming" that
the spiritual healing works to OVERCOME by forgiveness. NOT to
inject, impose or program more garbage on top of what this
person is fighting to get out of their heads and life so they can be what they want in life.

Inevitable I spent months online with my transgender friend struggling
to get "all that guilt based programming out of his head," so he could
come to peace. I had no idea he would come out as female, so I knew
that had to come from him because it sure didn't come from me!

My point was only to help him forgive and let go whatever was causing his distress fear
and resentment about judgment going on about orientation, gender, sexuality, etc.

And after he let go of all that crap, he came to peace and accepted who he was.
he felt he finally understood what it meant to be embraced and accepted in full
with "God's unconditional love" he never felt before in his life. He let go,
became new and started all over as his real self, and forgave anything in his
past that was false and not his true being.

After coming out to his wife, family and friends,
He decided on his own to go through the counseling to reassign his gender.
All of that came from him, not from me or anything else around him that
all told him the opposite. I even urged him to finish the whole process first,
get used to his new life BEFORE making irreversible decisions. He already
knew what he wanted, and went through the professional counseling required
before any chemical or medical procedures. but he went ahead and started
on cosmetic changes he was absolutely thrilled about. So that was all him/her.

I thought we were just discussing how to forgive the misteachings and focus
on the real love and forgiveness that Christianity means; we did talk about
spiritual gender and gender roles in that context, not the other way around.
Whatever it was that helped him let go of guilt fear resentment and unforgiveness
about Christians and judgment, it was not "conversion therapy" to try to make
him something he wasn't. it was the opposite, trying to get away from
programming that told him the opposite and causing him distress and resentment.

Inevitable, I think there is something wrong with me using the term of
therapy if it sounds like "imposing on the outside".

It's like when people argue that Buddhism is of the devil,
based on what their church pastor told them,
but they find out the teachings within Buddhism are NOT
what they were told. And they find it is consistent
with their Christian beliefs and not against them at all,
but actually help them with their beliefs.

Whatever this therapy that works is NOT the conversion/coercive crap.
Something else is going on with effective healing therapy
that is NOT those false, harmful, abusive things
that are indeed malpractice and should be stopped, I agree.

Sorry this isn't clear.

It's easier to describe what it is NOT
* it is NOT faith healing, praying to change to X Y Z, trying to become A B C, etc.
* it is NOT anyone or anything from the outside telling someone, making or forcing
anyone to become something they are not
* it is NOT people faking it to make it, trying to go along with what they are supposed to do to become what anyone or anything else expects them to be which is clearly unnatural or forced
I could list 10 million things it is not, and that is easier than describing what it is
because the process is different for each person.

It is led by THEM not anyone or anything telling them the opposite
of what is true, natural and right for THEM. So the spiritual
therapy is the OPPOSITE of the negative things you think I am saying.

I agree with you [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] that all those negative
approaches are harmful, wrongful, abusive and disastrous.

It is clear to me we are not talking about the same thing
and that is why you are opposed. I oppose the same things you do.

I apologize in failing to clarify and communicate
so you can see we agree the same dangerous practices need to be stopped.
I totally agree!

Hi [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] and [MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION]
Thanks for developing a very interesting and diverse thread with different angles.

1. Healing still applies, WITHOUT Homosexuality being a "disease or mental illness."

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]
What on earth is unwell or in need of healing about homosexuality? I think the best cure is for people to stop insisting there is something wrong with gay people, you can't explain thatthere is any condition that even needs healing based on sexual orientation.

Natural healing is rather meaningless to me. Not sure that phrase even has a meaning.

From what you have explained thus far, "natural healing" is hocuspocus. I recall asking you several times what natural healing was and why it should be regarded as anything only to be ignored.

What on earth does this have to do with the thread?

So explain to me then why you feel it's so important to push your faith healing on the thread about homosexuality and frankly any thread regarding this topic. It's beginning to become insulting. Are you posting this as a cure for homosexuality?f

BTW I'm glad to know you are Christian, if that helps you understand there is a bigger process going on. I believe science can prove the healing of other mental illness such as schizophrenia, using the same methods, and resolve a lot of these issues at the same time. That's why I see a connection. How can you research one without affecting all applications.

The mind/body follow a natural healing process that works for all people (if something is not forgiven or resolved in the past, it can build up negative memories and emotions and block the mind/body from the natural flow of life's healing energy and process; and if the blocked memory or conflict is removed by forgiveness, this unblocks that natural energy flow so the mind/body can heal as they are designed).

Conditions DON't have to be an "illness, disease or disorder" to be healed this way.

This is exactly what I meant when I said it's beginning to be insulting. Why do you think homosexuality is a condition or that people need to be healed from it?

RE: "what needs to be healed"
"what needs to be healed" is different for each person
the PERSON choses their OWN focus of what is bothering them, not "homosexuality" as the focus.
"what needs to be healed"
can be about overcoming:
guilt
fear
anxiety/stress
grief/distress
control issues
abuse
injustice
unforgiveness
betrayal
deception
loss/separation
denial
depression
anger/rage
bullying
conflicting relations
blame
hate/resentment
negatively judging oneself or others
self hatred/destruction
communication problems
mommy issues
daddy issues
political conflicts
religious conflicts
relationship abuse
addiction
obsession
inadequacy/insecurity/low esteem
lack of peace/satisfaction/happiness/joy
etc.

The same process for healing of any negative thoughts, feelings, perceptions, memories, relationships
ACCORDING TO THE PERSON (ie what THEY are unhappy/dissatisifed about and want to see changed)
involves FORGIVING the negative things in order to facilitate the natural healing and resolution process

Whatever feels NEGATIVE is forgiven in order to fill that space with something POSITIVE

The FOCUS is finding "what is UNFORGIVEN or unresolved" and causing the negative feelings/reactions attached,
FORGIVING that cause and anything related to it, especially forgiving conflicts that cannot be resolved or changed,
so the person can be HEALED of that negativity and all its causes and effects.

so what you are saying than is your posts have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread?

 

[sealybobo]

If god is perfect, why didn't he ONLY give it to gays and drug users? Is god a fuck up?

[MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]

If bad things only happened to people we thought deserved it,
we would just let bad things happen, trusting "justice" to take care of things
"after the fact."

Instead humanity is meant to learn to PREVENT bad things from happening.
Until it affects people we KNOW did not deserve to suffer,
sometimes we don't do enough to correct problems.

But when we see innocents suffer and die, and know there was injustice,
then by conscience we study what went wrong and seek to correct/prevent the causes.

If God's will represent achieving lasting good will, good faith relations,
peace and justice in a harmonious society,
then learning to prevent injustice is clearly necessary
and the bad consequences are part of that learning curve by
experience, by trial and error, studying problems of the past
and what caused bad outcomes in order to make better decisions in the future.

All part of how the human conscience works by nature.

If god gave gays aids then he gave kids cancer. All I'm saying.

 

[sealybobo]

If Americans really believed the jesus stories were real we would be a christian nation. There would be no seperation of church and state. Fact is our forefathers were smart enough to know to keep the corrupt churches/religions away from our government/democracy/freedom/nation/fill in the blank.

Most supposed christians don't even take the bible literally.

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

1. The concept of the secular govt and secular laws of the gentiles
IS in the Bible/Christianity also. It does NOT require rejecting Christianity.

This is natural law, [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]

* The people under religious laws of the church (Jews, Christians, Muslims)
are under that means of authority and address each other using THOSE laws.

* the people under SECULAR laws of science, civil laws, psychology/sociology, etc.
use THOSE laws to address each other in context/language they understand

BOTH folds are part of the same flock
These are NOT in conflict but supposed to be "in harmony"
Natural laws and religious laws are all supposed to reflect Universal truths for all humanity,
just in different forms/languages/contexts that have separate jurisdiction.
This is to help organize people by affiliation so all people can be represented
either directly or indirectly through the body or system they relate to.

2. What Jesus means is Justice.
"Equal Justice Under Law" is on the Supreme Court building
So this is a secular concept also.

You cannot get away from the concept or authority of "Justice"
* whether you use scriptural/Christian terms for Jesus or Justice with Mercy,
* or you use secular laws about Peace and Justice, Restorative Justice
* or Constitutional terms of "Equal Justice or Protection of the Laws"
(see also Houston Police Logo that even states "Order through Law, Justice with Mercy")
These are universal concepts of Law and Justice for Peace.

3. Separation of church and state
means to impose neither authority over the other

It does NOT mean to "reject one for the other"
In fact, we would NOT have to "reject one for the other"
if we quit IMPOSING one on the other in the first place!

So separate and this rejection/conflict doesn't have to happen.
THAT is the point.

If we were all truly christians or a christian nation and if that many people really believed the bible and took the stories literally, we would only need the bible. I suspect enough of our forefathers were atheists and insisted we separate church and state. Thank Justice, I mean god, or whatever you are calling it today.

 

[LittleNipper]

Drunks are born that way...

 

[emilynghiem]

What?
it applies on all levels, not just to the content,
the question and answers, but the biases in research
and people in response to the OP, and the interactions
between people discussing it back and forth.

There isn't a level it DOESN'T apply to.

Did I respond too vaguely to all of this at once?
Sorry [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] I'm a holistic processor
so it may take me more work to edit
my thoughts down to the answers you were looking for

No offense or distraction intended
I really was trying to stay on point.
Sorry if that was a complete fail!

See below and the reply to sealybobo
under that.
I am trying to answer the question.
but it is a different answer for each person
I am trying to be fair and include all cases.

so what you are saying than is your posts have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread?

I told you already that
1. the research you are looking for (to explain what is going
on with homosexuality, is it a mental illness or choice or condition to be changed, etc.)
is going to be SKEWED if it leaves out effective spiritual healing that works

Understanding the process of healing that has changed people's
perception or actions based on "orientation"
changes the whole question by changing the answers.

2. once you or other researchers understand the process
then this answers your questions, but not in the way you might pose it here

3. if you do not care for the larger process going on with this thread,
with how people interact and perceive each other's
responses and information which I BELIEVE is part of the process
of answering your question with transparency and consistency,
then if all you want is a short answer to just your OP:

A. it's a choice for people who view their orientation or how they
act on it as a choice (I have a friend who understands for him, his
bisexual whatever you call it was a choice, and he changed it)

B. it's naturally how people are for those who find that is true for them
if they come to terms that it is not a choice for them, then it is not a choice

C. Unnatural sexual obsession or addiction (of EITHER orientation) can be treated as mental illness
for those who find this approach more effective to help them solve their issues.
Just like some people say their depression is not "normally" occurring,
but the serious clinical level of depression considered "mental illness."

This isn't limited to homosexuality, and doesn't apply to all cases,
as neither do the other answers that vary for different people's situations.

It depends on the person if they find that mental illness applies or not.

D. I believe it is an expression of spiritual karma.
You can say people are "spiritually determined" to have their orientations
or relationships in life.

The question of choice is like asking do we have free will in life,
is God's will/Nature or fate/karma controlling everything or which things,
or is there a mix of the two or what.

for some people, they are meant to experience it as a choice.
for others it is not going to be a choice.
so it is not going to be the same for all people and cases.

4. Because people are biased by how they see choices/free will in life
vs. higher laws of karma or God's will etc, this will affect how they view choices
and if they JUDGE people. If they JUDGE people for what they perceive as choices,
this affects how they answer, what they research and how they interpret it, etc.

If someone goes through the healing and forgiveness,
they can even "change their minds" and decide what they
THOUGHT WASN'T a choice IS a choice.
For some people, their spiritual process may change midstream.
So again, it is not fair to say that it's never a choice or it's always a choice.

The process of spiritual healing not only applies to
the people themselves dealing with whatever issues they have
but it applies to people replying back and forth on this thread

So it applies to both the content, the research/backing that people use to respond to the thread,
and the PROCESS of interacting to answer the question and reply back and forth.

 

[LittleNipper]

Murderers are born that way...

 

[LittleNipper]

Child molesters are born that way...

 

[LittleNipper]

Smokers are born that way...

 

[emilynghiem]

If we were all truly christians or a christian nation and if that many people really believed the bible and took the stories literally, we would only need the bible. I suspect enough of our forefathers were atheists and insisted we separate church and state. Thank Justice, I mean god, or whatever you are calling it today.

I think it is by "divine design" we have
* natural laws given in writing through the Constitution
* secular science and teachings through Buddhism, science, social psychology etc.

I find we need ALL these systems to assimilate the knowledge and experience
for humanity to develop as a mature and sustainable society and manage
education and self-government without unnecessary conflict, abuses and waste.

If none of these religions weren't needed, including the Bible and Christianity and Islam and the Quran, they would not be here. Someone needs them and they serve some purpose.
The point is to use all available resources and means we have to organize collaboration
in effective harmonious ways.

[And yes, you can join me in white robes and hippie hair and sandals,
and we can go party after this. If RKMBrown's invitation is still open....]

As for applying to OP / thread topic:
One reason for Homosexuality may be a "divine factor" created for the purpose of
bringing about greater understanding.

The Bible warns that whoever is loved shall be hated, and whoever hated shall be loved.

What if because of homosexuality debates, this truth about spiritual healing finally gets researched, proven medically, in order to save mass populations and resources currently wasted on violence, sickness, political conflict and cycles of abuse and war that could be cured. By discovering the transformation of people and relationships by divine forgiveness and healing.

Before the gay/conversion therapy issue came up
NOBODY I could find cared this much to even consider spiritual healing.

What if ONE PURPOSE of homosexuality is to bring this out as public knowledge?

So this way, it turns out to be true, that the very group the Christians hate so much,
blaming them for all the depravity and loss of family standards, etc.
turns out to be the saving grace. That brings out the true message and meaning
in forgiveness in Christ healing people and relations and restoring new life.

So that is ONE answer to is it a choice.

What if it were designed by God's will/plan or "Laws of Karma" to
bring peace and balance the scales of justice? So all people are loved equally.

 

[Inevitable]

What?
it applies on all levels, not just to the content,
the question and answers, but the biases in research
and people in response to the OP, and the interactions
between people discussing it back and forth.

There isn't a level it DOESN'T apply to.

Did I respond too vaguely to all of this at once?
Sorry [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] I'm a holistic processor
so it may take me more work to edit
my thoughts down to the answers you were looking for

No offense or distraction intended
I really was trying to stay on point.
Sorry if that was a complete fail!

See below and the reply to sealybobo
under that.
I am trying to answer the question.
but it is a different answer for each person
I am trying to be fair and include all cases.

so what you are saying than is your posts have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread?

I told you already that
1. the research you are looking for (to explain what is going
on with homosexuality, is it a mental illness or choice or condition to be changed, etc.)
is going to be SKEWED if it leaves out effective spiritual healing that works

Understanding the process of healing that has changed people's
perception or actions based on "orientation"
changes the whole question by changing the answers.

2. once you or other researchers understand the process
then this answers your questions, but not in the way you might pose it here

3. if you do not care for the larger process going on with this thread,
with how people interact and perceive each other's
responses and information which I BELIEVE is part of the process
of answering your question with transparency and consistency,
then if all you want is a short answer to just your OP:

A. it's a choice for people who view their orientation or how they
act on it as a choice (I have a friend who understands for him, his
bisexual whatever you call it was a choice, and he changed it)

B. it's naturally how people are for those who find that is true for them
if they come to terms that it is not a choice for them, then it is not a choice

C. Unnatural sexual obsession or addiction (of EITHER orientation) can be treated as mental illness
for those who find this approach more effective to help them solve their issues.
Just like some people say their depression is not "normally" occurring,
but the serious clinical level of depression considered "mental illness."

This isn't limited to homosexuality, and doesn't apply to all cases,
as neither do the other answers that vary for different people's situations.

It depends on the person if they find that mental illness applies or not.

D. I believe it is an expression of spiritual karma.
You can say people are "spiritually determined" to have their orientations
or relationships in life.

The question of choice is like asking do we have free will in life,
is God's will/Nature or fate/karma controlling everything or which things,
or is there a mix of the two or what.

for some people, they are meant to experience it as a choice.
for others it is not going to be a choice.
so it is not going to be the same for all people and cases.

4. Because people are biased by how they see choices/free will in life
vs. higher laws of karma or God's will etc, this will affect how they view choices
and if they JUDGE people. If they JUDGE people for what they perceive as choices,
this affects how they answer, what they research and how they interpret it, etc.

If someone goes through the healing and forgiveness,
they can even "change their minds" and decide what they
THOUGHT WASN'T a choice IS a choice.
For some people, their spiritual process may change midstream.
So again, it is not fair to say that it's never a choice or it's always a choice.

The process of spiritual healing not only applies to
the people themselves dealing with whatever issues they have
but it applies to people replying back and forth on this thread

So it applies to both the content, the research/backing that people use to respond to the thread,
and the PROCESS of interacting to answer the question and reply back and forth.

Your statements have absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

 

[emilynghiem]

Child molesters are born that way...

Some molesters or predators are born with a criminal illness/mentality
that develops into full blown obsession/sociopathy

Some pick up the addiction/obsession by
being physically or sexually abused where this wasn't born in them.

Some have both, inherited from the family psychologically/spiritually
and also physically repeating the cycle of abuse.

Because there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals in the population,
it makes sense to find more criminals who are heterosexual than homosexual.

Abstract
A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males.

The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male.

 

[emilynghiem]

Your statements have absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

What?

I explained
* WHEN it was a CHOICE
* WHEN it was NOT a choice
* WHEN it DOES involve MENTAL ILLNESS
* and how it could be a
Spiritually Determined factor

How is this NOT answering the question?
It is different for different people
and I listed a number of ways that
people have described it for themselves!

Are you only looking for people who
want to say it is a mental illness so you can argue with them?

Were all my answers above fair and consistent
so there is nothing to argue with?

How do these NOT apply?
Did I overexplain them and that is what is wrong?

Sorry I thought I was getting better
at answering not worse!

 

[Inevitable]

Murderers are born that way...

Child molesters are born that way...

Smokers are born that way...

Homosexuality isn't smoking drinking or child molesting, so what point are you making?y

 

[RKMBrown]

I know they use the term contract, but as I pointed out it's bogus.

A contract between two parties is something they work out between each other. If you do this, I will do that. If I quit my job and raise your kids and you leave me for your secretary you bastard I want half your shit.

A contract is not something that government defines, implements and changes at it's own whim. That is just a government program.

Arguing with a libertarian that life is unbearable because someone wants things from government and government is being oppressive because they don't give it to them isn't going to ever get you anywhere. While as a Republican you may still want government, and lots of it, I would think that would bother you less than what liberals want.

You are still not listening. Without governance of some kind, there is no means to enforce and/or arbitrate a contract between two or more individuals. Without some means to enforce contracts you could only rely on a man's word as his bond. The paper of a contract would be worthless without a body to provide enforcement.

Having a body that enforces contracts without having to have people self enforce agreements is one of the corner stones of civilization since we left the trees.

Ever watch Judge Judy? Did you know that she is no longer a judge, and that those cases she is ruling on are being decided without the official sanction of the government? Both parties agree to arbitration, and are paid a fee for showing up on the show, and the fines are paid out of that fee.

All without government involvement.

That's really just governance on a smaller scale formed for a smaller group.

 

[Inevitable]

Your statements have absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

What?

I explained
* WHEN it was a CHOICE
* WHEN it was NOT a choice
* WHEN it DOES involve MENTAL ILLNESS
* and how it could be a
Spiritually Determined factor

How is this NOT answering the question?
It is different for different people
and I listed a number of ways that
people have described it for themselves!

Are you only looking for people who
want to say it is a mental illness so you can argue with them?

Were all my answers above fair and consistent
so there is nothing to argue with?

How do these NOT apply?
Did I overexplain them and that is what is wrong?

Sorry I thought I was getting better
at answering not worse!

Your blathering about something you fail to define, "natural healing," isn't related.

 

[emilynghiem]

Smokers are born that way...

When is smoking from an addiction and not a natural choice but abnormal compulsion?

When is smoking a "social choice" and can be done or not done at will?

Isn't there a DIFFERENCE between the two?

NOTE: I've never met anyone who believed they were naturally born to smoke.
Most admit they are addicted, or that they "choose to smoke,"
but none say it's part of how they naturally are "as a person."

I know plenty of people, directly or through others, who describe
themselves as naturally gay, or the opposite gender, etc.
(where it's not a choice, and it's not "unnatural" for them,
and certainly not something unhealthy or negative).

But nobody I know says this of themselves about smoking,
so I don't think it can be compared the same way.

(For the people who SAY their sexual behavior is an
unnatural, unhealthy "addiction" yes, that could be
compared, but this does not apply to all cases;
and where it does apply, it affects more heterosexuals
than homosexuals by % of population alone)

 

[emilynghiem]

Your statements have absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

What?

I explained
* WHEN it was a CHOICE
* WHEN it was NOT a choice
* WHEN it DOES involve MENTAL ILLNESS
* and how it could be a
Spiritually Determined factor

How is this NOT answering the question?
It is different for different people
and I listed a number of ways that
people have described it for themselves!

Are you only looking for people who
want to say it is a mental illness so you can argue with them?

Were all my answers above fair and consistent
so there is nothing to argue with?

How do these NOT apply?
Did I overexplain them and that is what is wrong?

Sorry I thought I was getting better
at answering not worse!

Your blathering about something you fail to define, "natural healing," isn't related.

OK that can be fixed:
1. under the answer to "is it is a choice or something inherent"
and I answered in some cases it can be "Spiritually Determined"
(ie something inherent, but more on a spiritual level)

the reason this applies is that it
COULD BE ONE of the Purposes for Homosexuality:
to focus public attention on natural spiritual healing
for greater benefit of society to have this knowledge

So for this particular purpose Homosexuality serves,
the conflict itself is meant to force public debate and attention
to methods of HEALING that help save other people with lifethreatening diseases.

This method of HEALING would not have been brought out publicly
EXCEPT that so many people pushed for policy reform on homosexuality
and conversion therapy, that the issues escalated to national public attention.

So that is one answer as to "is it a choice or something inherent":
It is spiritual caused, with one purpose being to uncover knowledge of
spiritual healing to help more people and solve greater problems.

2. I tried to describe the process of "natural spiritual healing"
in a reply to someone else on this thread:

basically it is about identifying any areas of
"unforgiven" conflicts or issues causing negative effects
to mind/body/spirit or relationships,
and praying/agreeing to "FORGIVE" those negative areas
so that these blockages are removed and healed, and all
related emotions and events/relationships also find healing in the process.

What practitioners and recipients have found is that by removing the
blockage of unforgiven things from the past (from this lifetime or
past generations) this RESTORES the natural flow of positive life energy
so the mind/body heals itself as normal; and also people can heal
the relationships around them with the same FORGIVENESS process.

How this applies to homosexuality:
1. in cases where people healed of unnatural abuse and/or changed
their homosexual "lifestyle/relationships/choices" or whatever they describe it as
the common factor is they went through a spiritual healing process
based on FORGIVENESS
2. however, this does not apply to ALL homosexuality
If someone is naturally the opposite gender or orientation,
that may not change, or be something they need or want to change;
it does not apply.
3. And this does not "JUST apply to homosexuality" but all people,
whether applied to healing cancer and other physical and mental illness.

[MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
In order to "make any sense" of my answer that homosexuality may
be "spiritually created" as inherent in some cases, a choice in others,
or a disorder/illness to other people who sought and received change,
I explained the full context of spiritual healing so it is clear that
the CAUSES of homosexuality may include DIVINE PURPOSE
of helping A LOT MORE PEOPLE than just affected by homosexuality.

How can I expect you to understand this answer
if you do not understand the profound social, medical and
collective impact of spiritual healing, which can now be
brought to public attention because of the controversy
and publicity surrounding homosexuality and conversion therapy?

You will think this does not apply if I don't explain the full context.
So that is why I included that. Sorry if this isn't clear or understood.