Rubio: sodomites are born that way

[The Barbarian]

There's just no point in denial. Sin is sin. But sinners don't sin because they're crazy. They do it, because they want to do it, in spite of what their consciences tell them.

It's O.K. to recognize that homosexuality is not a personal choice as far as inclination goes, but to also recognize that one is not compelled to act on one's personal inclinations.

A healthy understanding of homosexuality requires one to recognize both of those facts. Not everything that's natural is O.K. to do.

 

[musterion]

You have taken a great leap into the sludge of dishonest speculation and conclusion.

Meh.

 

[Lon]

And you're not biased yourself? You can claim to be 'bang on' as much as you like. Your claim that most homosexuals are abused into being such is just empty rhetoric.

Let me burst your bubble: First, psychiatrists and psychologists THEMSELVES are not in agreement :noway: THAT alone should burst your bubble. Why? Because that isn't what we 'politically' are hearing. We are hearing the media report 'in favor' of gays. Guess what that means? Second, it means it is ..... tada! Political! You guessed it!

So no, I'm actually 'less' biased than you, whether I'm biased or not, is beside the point when you become the bigger one because THEN, it is more your problem than mine, even 'if everybody else is doing it.' Mom used to say "if everyone else jumped off a bridge" but she quit when I said "Yeah, because I'd know you could live!" but that is neither here nor there other than saying we should be at least a 'tiny bit' conspiracy theorists or else we just go with the crowd like unthinking drones. If you'want' to, I'm not going to stop you. I don't think I can add anything else to this thread other than 'do research.' It is out there, and from really reputable psychology resources too! It isn't just Christianity bias, despite that easy fish in the barrel. Stop shooting them and go to the lake where the real information is available.

 

[john w]

It's usually people who talk to an invisible guy that died 2000 years ago that think homosexuality is a pysch problem. Irony?

And you "believe" in this "invisible" wind, electricity...................?What are you smokin', Hop Sing?

 

[Angel4Truth]

"Little data?" "On a dime?" You have no idea what you're talking about. Dr. Hooker's study was conducted in 1957. She was the first to do a double blind study, and to conduct the study with non-psychiatric patients. What a concept. lain:

Her study demonstrated "that expert clinical judges could not distinguish the projective test protocols of nonclinical homosexual men from a comparable group of heterosexual men, nor were there differences in adjustment ratings, was validated soon thereafter by other investigators. Not until 1973, however, did the American Psychiatric Association delete homosexuality from its diagnostic handbook."

It took almost a generation after her landmark study for homosexuality to be removed from the DSM, and Dr. Hooker's study has been replicated numerous times.

Decades of empirical research, Lon. Not "2 years of counter points."

You have taken a great leap into the sludge of dishonest speculation and conclusion.
Science teaches us that from 9% to about 15% of the earth's population is born with an attraction for the same sex. Studies have been conducted and reproduced with the exact same conclusions.
It is an utterly foreign thought to me but I don't dwell on sexuality or sexual practice. I do defend the freedom to choose one's way in the world.

Do you both believe the bible is wrong about it?

 

[The Barbarian]

I hope the person who repped me (positive, BTW), but noting that a "homosexual gene" has not been found, will not mind me bringing this up in the thread.

I very much doubt that it's genetically determined. All the evidence I see, is that it's likely caused by the mix of hormones in utero or shortly after birth. Doesn't matter, really.

And as I said, what is right and what is natural are not always the same thing. We are not compelled to act on our inclinations.

 

[annabenedetti]

That is, she chose homosexuals that led quiet lives and didn't show signs of trouble because they were her friends and students and asked her to do so and so it was a secluded study all 30 years. Because it was an interest group she worked with and was interested in, it was not indicative of all.

Quite simply, you're wrong. Even a quick check of wiki will show that:

Although Hooker had collected data about her homosexual friends since 1954, she felt this was of little value because of the lack of scientific rigor attached to the gathering of these data. She applied for a grant from the NIMH even though she was warned that it was highly unlikely she would receive it due to the controversy of the topic.[9] After all, the 1950s was at the height of the McCarthy era, and homosexuality was considered to be a mental disorder by psychologists, a sin by the church, and a crime by the law.[3] The man in charge of awarding the grants, John Eberhart, personally met with Hooker and convinced by her charm he awarded her the grant.[10] She gathered two groups of men: one group would be exclusively homosexual, the other exclusively heterosexual. She contacted the Mattachine Society to find a large portion of homosexual men. The Mattachine Society was an organization whose purpose was to integrate homosexuals into society.[11] She had greater difficulty finding heterosexual men for the study. She gathered a sample of 30 heterosexual men and 30 homosexual men and paired them based on equivalent IQ, age, and education. For the interest of the study, it was required that none of the men from either group have previously been seen for psychological help, in disciplinary barracks in the Armed Services, in prison, showed evidence of considerable disturbance, or who were in therapy.[12] She also had to use her home to conduct the interview to protect the participants' anonymity.[2] Hooker used three psychological tests for her study: the TAT, the Make-a-Picture-Story test (MAPS test), and the Rorschach inkblot test.[2] The Rorschach was used due to the belief of clinicians at the time that it was the best method for diagnosing homosexuality.[12] After a year of work, Hooker presented a team of three expert evaluators with 60 unmarked psychological profiles. She decided to leave the interpretation of her results to other people, to avoid any possible bias.[2] First, she contacted Bruno Klopfer, an expert on Rorschach tests, to see if he would be able to identify the sexual orientation of people through their results at those tests. His ability to differentiate between the two groups was no better than chance.[2] Then Edwin Shneidman, creator of the MAPS test, also analyzed the 60 profiles. It took him six months and he, too, found that both groups were highly similar in their psychological make-up.[2] The third expert was Dr Mortimer Mayer, who was so certain he would be able to tell the two groups apart that he went through the process twice.[2] The assumption was that these tests would prompt respondents to reveal their innermost anxieties, fears, and wishes.[7] Each test response would be submitted in random order, with no identifying information, to Klopfer, Meyer, and Shneidman.[11] The judges had two tasks: to arrive at an overall adjustment rating on a five-point scale, and to distinguish in pairs which participant was homosexual and heterosexual.[7] The three evaluators concluded that in terms of adjustment, there were no differences between the members of each group.[2] In 1956, Hooker presented the results of her research in a paper at the American Psychological Association's convention in Chicago.[2] The NIMH was so impressed with the evidence Hooker found they granted her the NIMH Research Career Award in 1961 to continue her work.[10]

 

[annabenedetti]

Do you both believe the bible is wrong about it?

I'm not talking about the Bible, I'm talking to Lon about the inaccuracy of his information.

 

[musterion]

Meanwhile, two wealthy Catholic drunks make out in public.

 

[Lon]

I'm not talking about the Bible, I'm talking to Lon about the inaccuracy of his information.

I don't think you understand/understood the limited context of this control group.

 

[annabenedetti]

I don't think you understand/understood the limited context of this control group.

I don't think you understand I've been refuting your information, and I could keep on doing that, but I'm not going to bother beyond this.

 

[Lon]

I don't think you understand I've been refuting your information, and I could keep on doing that, but I'm not going to bother beyond this.

You won't like my response as I'd intend but thanks for providing the proofs for my statements. You just prove 1) that it was a limited control group, and 2) that it was agendized. "Politics" not psychology analysis, ram-rodded this as anything but what it actually was and you bought it. Here is something else to think about: The group, itself, wanted to be 'normalized.' They are the ones who asked her to do this study for this purpose.

I don't care about disagreement, we sufficiently called attention to articles and facts that stand with our without your and my commentary. You've been on this road for a bit over a year now. I don't think I'm going to change your mind, facts or none. They really won't matter for you, but perhaps another.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Let me burst your bubble: First, psychiatrists and psychologists THEMSELVES are not in agreement :noway: THAT alone should burst your bubble. Why? Because that isn't what we 'politically' are hearing. We are hearing the media report 'in favor' of gays. Guess what that means? Second, it means it is ..... tada! Political! You guessed it!

So no, I'm actually 'less' biased than you, whether I'm biased or not, is beside the point when you become the bigger one because THEN, it is more your problem than mine, even 'if everybody else is doing it.' Mom used to say "if everyone else jumped off a bridge" but she quit when I said "Yeah, because I'd know you could live!" but that is neither here nor there other than saying we should be at least a 'tiny bit' conspiracy theorists or else we just go with the crowd like unthinking drones. If you'want' to, I'm not going to stop you. I don't think I can add anything else to this thread other than 'do research.' It is out there, and from really reputable psychology resources too! It isn't just Christianity bias, despite that easy fish in the barrel. Stop shooting them and go to the lake where the real information is available.

Why would that burst my bubble? I wouldn't expect all psychologists/psychiatrists to be in absolute agreement with each other so it's hardly a surprise that they aren't, and there's a fine line between 'tiny bit' conspiracy theorist and outright crank - just take a look at Nazaroo. AFAIC anna's made the salient points here as much as you would obviously differ.

 

[kiwimacahau]

Do you both believe the bible is wrong about it?

I certainly consider that the way in which the Bible is interpreted on this issue is wrong.

 

[patrick jane]

I certainly consider that the way in which the Bible is interpreted on this issue is wrong.

many do

 

[Lon]

I certainly consider that the way in which the Bible is interpreted on this issue is wrong.

WHO destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? Bigots? :nono: Not even close.

Do you EVEN understand that to embrace homosexuality,against marriage that Paul calls a picture, a purposeful example created to show Christ and the Church, is blasphemy? You are saying it is okay to malign the character of God! Ephesians 5 spells this out. Clearly:
Ephesians 5:32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

On top of that, EVERY scripture reference to sexuality instruction, is Husband/wife.

You love the world, Kiwi.

many do

Often Political, rather than a love for Christ. They are fitting their Christianity in with the world, and therefor love it more than the Savior. The road isn't broad. Jesus Christ reached 'into' the world of sinners, but was not 'part' of them. This is the common liberal 'all you need is love' mistake. "If you love your father and mother more than me, you are not worthy of me." These are our Lord Jesus Christ's words and many live as enemies to the Cross .

 

[patrick jane]

It's usually people who talk to an invisible guy that died 2000 years ago that think homosexuality is a pysch problem. Irony?

Jesus wasn't invisible when He walked and talked. i am on the record as saying it IS ALL Psychological. Gay is in the mind. "Feeling" Good about it is the Flesh. Carnal. Anyone can justify ANYTHING once a line is crossed. just remember, what feels good and looks good NOW for sinners, will not "feel" or look the same as time goes by - just friends ? -


View attachment 19654