Homosexuality: Chosen or Genetic?

Started by Nellinator324 pages

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You're a psychotherapist? That's GREAT! How wonderful is it to find out you've been debating the bible with a psychotherapist AND and member of the APA?...neither of which are willing to divorce their position on homosexuality from their blatant religious bias? I tell you, we here at KMC are BLESSED to post in the presence of so many members of the higher fields of learning.

Membership to the APA/CPA is not mandatory and hardly advantageous and I will probably drop my membership at the years end. One does not have to agree with the position of the CPA/APA to practice effectively. My beliefs are not an issue since I rarely deal with homosexuals because it is not really an area of specialty for me and young psychotherapists are generally not given such cases as they can become complicated fairly quickly if there is a disagreeance.

For your information. CPA Policies

Isn't it technically illegal to reproduce a Science article in such a manner?

I didn't know anybody still used the word disagreeance...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Isn't it technically illegal to reproduce a Science article in such a manner?

Yes.

It was a somewhat rhetorical question, but regards for the confirmation anyway.

you're welcome.

Originally posted by Regret
Why do I need to have the answer? Why would I respond to you further? You have insulted me, refused to acknowledge the inconclusive nature of the summation of research on the subject, insulted me on a professional level, and not once made a statement that showed even a glimmer of understanding of the concepts I have presented.

You obviously do not have a clue as to the split in psychology between behavior analysis (and, for Urizen, my statements to cognition were in reference to the APA statement I used to demonstrate the APA position on determining factors of sexual orientation) and the mentalist schools of thought, this seems to give you a false view of psychology as a whole.

The homosexuality as a sin quote is from a religious discussion. I am a religious individual, and do believe homosexual behaviors are sins, regardless of why an individual is homosexual. My views on the genetics vs. learning debate is in no manner impacted by the belief that homosexual behaviors are sins. The two topics are not related.

I will no longer participate in this discussion as even the direct and simple statement from the APA that I presented was both interpretted and emphasized incorrectly, not to mention the lack of courtesy I have been shown in this thread.

If you can't handle the heat, then get out of the kitchen.

It is dead obvious that your religious bias plays a large role in your ignorance of scientfic data supporting homosexuality being genetic, while you change the use of the term CHOICE to better fit your argument that Homosexuality is chosen, thereby HAS to be a Sin, all the while making absurd arguments that Femininity has ANYTHING to do with sexual attraction.

An intelligent person like yourself should KNOW that femininity and masculinity are simply social constructs that DO NOT exist in nature. Yet you try and argue that they SOMEHOW do.....

And on TOP of that, you BLATANTLY IGNORE the claims that myself, Capt Fantastic, and Adam Poe have REPEATEDLY made, insisting that we DID NOT CHOOSE our sexual attractions, yet you CONTINUE to argue that we DID......even though you know nothing about us or our lives.....

An Intelligent person who has all this knowledge at his disposal, STILL refuses to look at this evidense that goes against his claim....why ? Because of his religion that is why.

DO NOT ARGUE FOR A SECOND THAT YOUR RELIGIOUS BIAS PLAYS NO ROLE IN YOUR STANCE ! IT PRETTY MUCH DICTATES IT, AND ANYONE HERE CAN SEE THAT....

ATLEAST Nellinator has the balls to admit that the only reason he sees Homosexuality as wrong is because that's what his religion states....fine...that's his choice. But you try and argue that your biases against Homosexuality are non religious based, EVEN though that's what you have argued for months...nice try 👇

Originally posted by Nellinator
Membership to the APA/CPA is not mandatory and hardly advantageous and I will probably drop my membership at the years end. One does not have to agree with the position of the CPA/APA to practice effectively. My beliefs are not an issue since I rarely deal with homosexuals because it is not really an area of specialty for me and young psychotherapists are generally not given such cases as they can become complicated fairly quickly if there is a disagreeance.

For your information. CPA Policies

I'm fairly certain that you have missed the point. Not only have you missed the point, but you assume I was addressing you alone.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
[b]DO NOT ARGUE FOR A SECOND THAT YOUR RELIGIOUS BIAS PLAYS NO ROLE IN YOUR STANCE ! IT PRETTY MUCH DICTATES IT, AND ANYONE HERE CAN SEE THAT....[/B]

Correlation IS NOT causation. Did it ever occour to you that his religous beliefs might be founded on his "scientific" ones?

You need to cool down the accusations. I think to disagree with Regret is correct, but I don't think an attack on his objectivity is warranted.

Originally posted by Alliance
Correlation IS NOT causation. Did it ever occour to you that his religous beliefs might be founded on his "scientific" ones?

You need to cool down the accusations. I think to disagree with Regret is correct, but I don't think an attack on his objectivity is warranted.

1) I think in this case, he's bullshitting you, me, and himself. He totally ignored the scientific data that Captain Fantastic has presented to support the theory that there is a genetic predisposition to Homosexuality, making it virtually irriversible....

2) He totally ignored the claims made by three homos: Capt Fantastic, Adam Poe, and myself.....of how we are certain we had never made a concious choice to become Gay, nor were we molested, we were not raised in a feminine manner, nor were we encouraged by any means to do homosexual acts....

Adam Poe straight out SAID he knew he was Gay when he was 3 years old, and Regret ignored this statement.

3) Regret is using the term Choice not loyal to its actual meaning, to argue that Homosexuality is a "chosen behavior" even though that argument heavily lacks logic.

4) Regret STILL argues that Femininity leads of Homosexuality, which is a totally baseless and unfactual argument.

So, this leads to one of two conclusions:

Either Regret attends a school of Scientific stupidity, OR he allows his religious biases to nitpick his perceptions....

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Isn't it technically illegal to reproduce a Science article in such a manner?

Yes it is, perhaps it is something I shouldn't have done and something I will not be doing in the future, but perhaps next time I suggest a study supports what I am saying people will believe that I actually have evidence.
I'm fairly certain that you have missed the point. Not only have you missed the point, but you assume I was addressing you alone.

No, I got the point but I tend to ignore attempts to provoke me. I also did realize that I was the psychotherapist and that Regret was the APA member. However, I was speaking on both our behalfs when I made the point that adherence to APA/CPA policies is inconsequential.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I also did realize that I was the psychotherapist and that Regret was the APA member. However, I was speaking on both our behalfs when I made the point that adherence to APA/CPA policies is inconsequential.

Well, then I guess considering you presumptious would also be out of line.

Not only have you addressed the "inconsequential" nature of their standpoint, but you have dismissed your very reason for claiming to be a member of either group. If you want to tout yourselves as card carrying members of a group that you claim bolsters your opinion, then don't deny their credibility. Are you even paying attention to this debate? My god, how stupid do you have to be?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes it is, perhaps it is something I shouldn't have done and something I will not be doing in the future, but perhaps next time I suggest a study supports what I am saying people will believe that I actually have evidence.
You should have a mod edit the posts, considering by having the article illegally reproduced and on display on KMC, the site is probably now liable.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes it is, perhaps it is something I shouldn't have done and something I will not be doing in the future, but perhaps next time I suggest a study supports what I am saying people will believe that I actually have evidence.

You can quote the article, and often the whole abstract, but copy-pasting the whole article is illegal. I should have thought of it at the time.

I wrote this thread over 2 years ago 😑

Originally posted by Strangelove
I wrote this thread over 2 years ago 😑

And in another two years, the same debate with the same basic points will still be raging.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
[b]1) I think in this case, he's bullshitting you, me, and himself. He totally ignored the scientific data that Captain Fantastic has presented to support the theory that there is a genetic predisposition to Homosexuality, making it virtually irriversible....

2) He totally ignored the claims made by three homos: Capt Fantastic, Adam Poe, and myself.....of how we are certain we had never made a concious choice to become Gay, nor were we molested, we were not raised in a feminine manner, nor were we encouraged by any means to do homosexual acts....

Adam Poe straight out SAID he knew he was Gay when he was 3 years old, and Regret ignored this statement.

3) Regret is using the term Choice not loyal to its actual meaning, to argue that Homosexuality is a "chosen behavior" even though that argument heavily lacks logic.

4) Regret STILL argues that Femininity leads of Homosexuality, which is a totally baseless and unfactual argument.

So, this leads to one of two conclusions:

Either Regret attends a school of Scientific stupidity, OR he allows his religious biases to nitpick his perceptions.... [/B]

You have confused Adam's contributions to the thread with mine. He posts the research, I just read it and speak my mind. I was the *** at 3 years old.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You should have a mod edit the posts, considering by having the article illegally reproduced and on display on KMC, the site is probably now liable.

I have reported myself now, something I never thought I would have to do. I'm going to stick to abstracts from now on.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I have reported myself now, something I never thought I would have to do.

😂

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You have confused Adam's contributions to the thread with mine. He posts the research, I just read it and speak my mind. I was the *** at 3 years old.

I'm sorry my mistake....Atleast I address it, Regret will not respond to anything you or Adam Poe presented...

Originally posted by Robtard
And in another two years, the same debate with the same basic points will still be raging.
Undoubtedly so, because there are no logical argument against sexuality being genetic and so many in favor of it euro