That's because religion is a reflection of thousands of years of the human experience.
For thousands of years humans of all cultures understood homosexuality was just as harmful as smoking.
But thanks to our dumbed-down celeb-rotten culture, enough stupid people now believe homosexuality is just as harmless as eating an apple.
Scott L, you bring up a couple of points here I feel compelled to respond to. A couple of others have referenced psychology courses, professors and PhD's in some other posts as well. I chose your post to quote as it covered three points in particular. My apologies in advance for the long post, but I chose to address this in one shot vs doing so in a number of posts.
A little background as way of introduction and to let folks know where I am coming from. In '85-'86, I did my Masters in Education (MSEd) at a Catholic University. In '87-'90, I did my Doctoral work at a midwestern university because it had a highly reputable Developmental Psychology program within its broader Educational Psychology Department. Received my PhD with a major in Developmental Psych and a minor in Research and Measurement.
I have over 12 years experience teaching at 3 different universities (one a state land grant university, one a private university, and the last a Black university in the mid-atlantic. As tenure and promotion is dependent upon research, grant writing, etc., I was engaged in all of those professorial type activities during that time. During the 12 years university teaching I primarily taught in teacher and counselor training programs as well as teaching courses on research design, research consumption, stats and data collection methods. Co-led in one and developed another inner-city educational project which was geared toward helping disadvantaged children and their families thru educational and parenting programs. Both projects were grant funded, connected to public education districts, and supported by the local social services departments. Both projects were housed right in the section 8 housing complexes in which the families lived.
I left the university setting in the early '90s to pursue my own professional business ventures and to be more actively involved in parenting my children. Since that time I have worked as a developmental psychologist whose practice has focused on children with developmental issues, parenting, developmental appropriateness of practices and curricula in schools. Over the past 20+ years of private practice, I have witnessed numerous changes in children's development as a result of what society and schools are forcing upon, have seen parenting fad after parenting fad come and go, and have watched as many, many parents have turned over their responsibilities to the State which has been all too happy to assume those responsibilities. Strangely enough, this shift to move and more responsibility being taken on by the State (via the schools) has been accompanied by an ever growing antagonism between educators and parents.
Point 1 as it relates to your post and some of the other comments I have seen in the thread (so this isnt only being directed at Scott). "On the science we disagree. And many scientists disagree with your scientists." I am not sure what science you or anybody else on either side of the topic (gay being genetically caused or not) is referring to when such a claim is made. The "science" which exists to this point is primarily rooted in attempts to isolate genetic variations (used loosely as I an not a geneticist) as predictors for behavior, personality, disease, physical traits, and in this case, sexual orientation. Making predictions about a baby's eye color, for example, is 100% accurate if the child's genetics are known. It is fail proof due to the fact that eye color is not influenced by one's environment and experiences. The same cannot be said for predicting sexual orientation. Without going into an exhaustive analysis of the research models employed, current research on genetic predispositions toward one's sexual orientation can only produce correlational data. For example, if a study finds a 20% correlation between a genetic type and one's sexual orientation, the MOST that any truthful researcher can say is "20% of people born with gene condition A are self reported homosexuals." In English, it does not mean gene condition A causes 20% of those who are born with it to be homosexuals. They are coincidental occurrences and not predictive, cause and effect variables. And, as neuroscience has been advancing exponentially over the last decade or so, we are finding that some of the things we thought were genetically fixed by nature can be profoundly affected by nurture, experience & the environment. Bottom line IMHO, neither side of the genetics vs choice has science on their side at this point. Technological advances may change that as well as improvements in the research methodologies which will likely accompany those advances.
Point 2 : Again, only using your quote to share my perspective on a couple of things. "I went to Penn State 1978-82. Took many pysch courses. The consensus was gays are born that way among the professors I had, all with doctorates." I wonder what those professors were basing their conclusions on as little to no research on the topic even existed at that time. Did they cite specific studies or did they simply use the "research says" argument knowing they would not be challenged. Do a simple search of research on the topic from that time period and see for yourself what was "scientifically proven" at that time. The way the system is set up in higher education, professors have vested interests in what they do and say on campus, this is especially true at a land grant institution such as Penn State. And, truth often gets trampled under by those interests. Tenure, access to grant money, getting published, being invited to speak, etc. are all major priorities in one's career. Coupled with the fact there is virtually no accountability for what a professor says in a class and you have a system which promotes something other than true education.
Point 3 : "The reason you search for studies that support your beliefs is because for the way you CHOOSE to worship God you need homosexuality to be termed a disease." Every research study conducted is based on the hypothesis researcher. That hypothesis drives the study from start to finish. It determines the study's research design, methodology, data collection tools, data analysis methods, and so on. If conducted soundly and professionally, the study will yield results which are reliable (same results every time the study is done) and valid (the findings answer and apply to the hypothesis/question at hand). If I conduct a study whose methods cannot be followed or whose results cannot be replicated, I have contributed nothing to the field. I say all of that to make this point--you or I can go searching for studies which support a belief. If you reference a study which you say supports your belief but which cannot be duplicated and/or replicated, then your belief is still just a belief. The same is true of the flip side. Professional research doesnt yield opinions or beliefs, it yields verifiable facts which anyone who conducts the same study can reproduce. We are not even close to reaching that objective criteria with regards to definitively proving whether one's sexual orientation is a function of genetics, of experience, or an interaction of the two.
One thing to watch out for in the next few years. Research is driven by the $$$'s which fund it. You will see fields of research which are given high priority due to the funding being made available now and in the near future:
1. the sexual orientation question
2. neuroscience and brain research
3. earlier childhood education (early childhood education as we know it today was advanced on the basis of shoddy, misapplied research which is another topic for another time).
that means that if get any tax breaks, have any gov't loans, receive small business aid from the gov't, use gov't services, such as garbage pick up, police or fire protection, that you would be breaking the law by not serving everyone. you suck the gov't tit, you play by their rules.
maybe you can eliminate every gov't aid in any form and then you are free to serve who you want. oh wait, you would go bankrupt and have no police or fire protection. you are a real bright one.
Close-Minded Man Not Even Willing To Hear Out Argument On Why Homosexuality An Abomination
News • Unsponsored • ISSUE 50•08 • Feb 26, 2014
The small-minded man refuses to even entertain the possibility that gays and lesbians are subhuman degenerates.
DULUTH, KS—Claiming it is “impossible” to get him to consider different points of view, exasperated acquaintances of local man Kyle Dunham told reporters Wednesday that the 34-year-old is completely unwilling to listen to even a single argument as to why homosexuality is an abomination.
Sources familiar with the account manager’s maddeningly rigid beliefs said that no matter how patiently and logically they present the extensive evidence demonstrating that gays and lesbians are systematically destroying society, the narrow-minded Dunham simply tunes them out.
“You try to have a rational conversation with him in which you carefully explain, point by point, how the Bible reveals that homosexuality is abhorrent and dangerous, and his eyes just glaze over,” said neighbor Alex Richardson, who told reporters he has never met anyone in his life so resistant to facts that contradicted his preconceived ideas. “Even when I bring up something basic that most informed people agree on—like how a man who lies down with another man is condemned to eternal hellfire—he just shakes his head.”
“I could spend all day calmly and methodically spelling out what befell the Sodomites,” Richardson added. “But it all goes in one ear and out the other.”
Despite intending to do nothing more than engage Dunham in a frank but nonjudgmental conversation about his inflexible views, most of his acquaintances said they could not even broach the possibility that homosexuality was a vile obscenity without being immediately dismissed.
“If you even suggest there’s the slightest chance that gays are deviants who are unequal to heterosexuals, he just puts up this mental barrier,” said Dunham’s brother-in-law, Wayne Byers, who claimed his repeated efforts to educate Dunham about how all gay men are pedophiles was “like talking to a brick wall.” “Once he retreats into that mindset, forget it. You can counter every single one of his arguments with irrefutable Scripture all day, but you’re not getting through. Even when I try to tell him these aren’t just my personal beliefs, but the consensus opinion of leading pastors and radio personalities, he’s still not convinced.”
“Honestly, I think he’s afraid,” added Byers. “Maybe if he opened his mind a tiny, tiny crack, he just might discover that it’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”
Many speculated that Dunham’s obstinate behavior stemmed from an insular childhood spent cloistered exclusively among similarly close-minded individuals. Under these sheltered conditions, acquaintances told reporters, it might actually seem natural for him to doubt that gays and lesbians serve the Devil, that they are intent on converting all young children to homosexuality, or that their sexual orientation is actually a disease.
As a result, some said they tried viewing Dunham’s refusal to acknowledge even the most common-sense facts about homosexuality’s apocalyptic power with understanding and compassion.
“I just try to remind myself that Kyle’s not inherently a bad person, just an ignorant one,” said coworker Cathy Ramirez, who conceded that she occasionally walked away from a conversation with Dunham rather than listen to him repeat the same tired egalitarian talking points over and over. “If I was raised in an environment where I had no choice but to read something other than the Old and New Testament, I might share his same stubborn beliefs.”
But most who have come up against Dunham’s intractability told reporters that their sympathy quickly gives way to frustration.
“I just get so angry when I sit there citing clear-cut evidence like Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27, and Corinthians 6:9, and I can already tell his mind’s 100 percent made up,” said Dunham’s former college roommate, Nate Dietrich, admitting he often rolls his eyes at the forwarded emails he receives from Dunham that make impassioned claims about homosexuality being a normal, natural behavior. “He’s just so trapped in his little sealed-off world that nothing makes a difference, nothing. I just want to shake him, you know?”
“One of these days, though, he’s going to have to leave that dark cave of his and accept that being homosexual is an offense in the eyes of God and will incur His righteous wrath,” Dietrich added. “Honestly, I don’t know how you go through your whole life living in blindness like that.”
as soon as you mention religion and the bible as a basis for a debate, it means you are already insane.
No.
I don't need to take a "psychology class" to read the relevant APA materials. Further, there is going to be exactly zero Psychologists that "prove" being gay is innate using science.
Note: just because some psychologist somewhere says gays are probably born that way doesn't mean anything.
That was a very, very stupid question.
That also means he wouldn't have to pay any income or property taxes in his business using your reasoning. Your response makes no sense, but bringing up government aid while failing to mention taxes while indicating he couldn't make it in a business without it.
How many fire stations could remain open if someone had the option of declining any assistance but in return would not have to pay property or business tax?
Nice read , Thks for sharing .
Should science aggressively fund an explanation for homosexuality ? Monies better assigned ?
Anecdotical , let me share . Private practice for over 20 yrs,dds . A boy under my care since age 4. At 10-11ish, it was clear , the Y chromosome was grossly weak in him . Fast forward to 17- he's full blown extremely effeminate. Genetic ? In this case , yes.
