You have yet to show that. You quoted something, yet there seems to be no source, other than my post, in which the words you quoted are not there. So it looks like you made it up. Also, what you quoted only deals with sexuality, so it does not cover transgender or gender identity.
Learned behavior isn’t a choice, your statement is an oxymoron One thing that is 100% chosen (well some would say propagandized) is religious belief.
You have just refuted your own argument, by showing that, to follow it, we would have to say many things do not exist, which actually do, since all we individuals have different ideas about, possibly, most things. For example, a good portion of this forum's posters believe racism doesn't exist (at least institutional racism, by the white majority); does that make them incapable of being racists? For another example, does color exist? Then what color is this dress? https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate....eres-why-people-saw-the-dress-differently.amp You are probably familiar with this controversy over the blue & black dress that two-thirds of people see as white and gold (actually, the one on the right, in this pic, looks white & black, to me). Because we disagree over something, does not mean that it doesn't exist or isn't real. This is not inconsistent with the idea that, for each of us, "reality," is our own mental construct. To give a political example: in the minds of many, Donald Trump won our Presidential election. Luckily, a majority believe Joe Biden won. Does the disagreement alter the actual truth of the matter? https://mobile.twitter.com/LisaDeBruine/status/937105553968566272
I've posted it twice with the reference website of the article. It's not up to me to be able to read and comprehend. It's learned.
Of course it's a choice when one learns to go against their natural order. If you want to use the term brainwashed, fine with me. But, it's not "born that way."
You have, have you? Hmmmm....let's take a closer look: That is the URL link you provided twice. Credit where credit is due, at least you used the same wrong link twice. Go ahead and click on it and tell us where it takes you. And those are two different posts of yours. Raw numbers are 1072688755 and 1072692948, with thread post numbers of 114 and 120. Follow the upthread arrows.
Forget about URL blah, blah, blah. Here is my post with the facts from the article: "A random sample of 5,182 adults from 6 U.S. metropolitan areas were questioned about incestuous sexual relationships during childhood. Incest was disproportionately reported by both male and female bisexuals and homosexuals. 148 gays (7.7% of the sample) reported 14 (50%) of same-sex, and 7 (22%) of opposite-sex incestuous experiences, and 20 (69%) of same-sex and 2 (3%) of opposite-sex sexual experiences with other relatives. 88 lesbians (3% of the sample) reported 2 (33%) of same-sex incest and 7 (9%) of opposite-sex incest and 1 (17%) of same-sex and 10 (13%) of opposite-sex sexual experiences with other relatives. 12% of 98 male homosexuals vs 0.8% of 1,224 male heterosexuals with a brother reported brother-brother incest. These findings are consonant with those of other studies in which disproportionately more incest by homosexuals was reported. As opposed to an evolutionary genetic hypothesis, these data support the alternative that homosexuality may be learned, since homosexuals do not produce children at sustainable levels and the incidence of homosexuality varies as a function of various social factors. Incest cannot be excluded as a significant basis for homosexuality." - http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/gender-doesnt-exist.585920/page-5#post-1072687579 As far as whether the incest and how much was rape, don't know. But, since 3% of the population is gay, the numbers are quite large that turned into homosexuals after their incest or rape. It is learned and from their environment. Nothing has changed since the 1930's studies.
Homosexuality — both sexual behavior as well as long term coupling — exists in nature and thus is natural. You would be correct had you said Religion isn’t natural, but homosexuality absolutely is. You have no concrete data to prove that homosexuals are not born that way but even if if is coded by unconscious environmental factors it still isn’t a ‘choice’.
The 3% has been debunked countless times, if you want to discuss statistical data use current figures: https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx LGBT Identification Rises to 5.6% in Latest U.S. Estimate
But where are you getting it from? You just posted the exact same link as before. You have not shown a source.
"In an attempt to replicate the results, two subsequent studies were performed, one in 2003 and the other in 2015.In the first study a random sample of 10,247 adults from 15 metropolitan areas and 10 rural areas were question about past sexual relationships including incestuous ones. 516 homosexual males (10%) reported the following incestuous relations in their past: Same sex sibling: 10 (1.8%); Opposite sex sibling: 16 (5.3%); Same sex parent: 2 (.8%); Opposite sex parent: 5 (1.2%); Same sex other: 1 (.4%); Opposite sex other: 2 (.8%). For the 600 homosexual females (11%), the following past incestuous relations were reported: Same sex sibling: 12 (.9%); Opposite sex sibling: 4 (.3%); Same sex parent: 1(.2%); Opposite sex parent: 1(.2%); Same sex other: 14(1.4%); Opposite sex other: 12(.9%). The 2015 study showed the following results from a sample of 15,421:545 homosexual males (8%) : Same sex sibling: 6 (1.2%); Opposite sex sibling: 9 (2.6%); Same sex parent: 1 (.4%); Opposite sex parent: 1 (.4%); Same sex other: 4 (.9%); Opposite sex other: 0 (0%). For the 532 homosexual females (7%): Same sex sibling: 12 (2.5%); Opposite sex sibling: 7 (1.3%); Same sex parent: 0(0%); Opposite sex parent: 1(.1%); Same sex other: 8(1.5%); Opposite sex other: 10(2.2%). It should be noted that the 2015 study included people who identified as transgendered. The results for such individuals were reported under their preferred gender, and not their sex assigned at birth. Neither study showed anywhere near the percentages of the original Karson study, bringing into question the validity and/or methodology" - http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/gender-doesnt-exist.585920/page-6#post-1072697590
Maquiscat does have a valid point. All you are doing is posting something. Words and meaningless statistics. You've posted them over and over again. But you have given no link to anything resembling an actual reference. I can post statistics and words too. Things like "The average drunk driver drives under the influence more than 80 times before being arrested the first time." or "There are more trees on Earth than there are stars in the Milky Way" or even "One-third of adults still sleep with a comfort object." But without a link to an article...how do you know which (if any) of those stats are real? I can provide links to articles about the three I stated. The drinking and driving one The trees Comfort objects Now I'll admit that the links provided are from articles that pull from other sources and may indeed be incorrectly biased or even flat out wrong...but at least I provided them. What you provide to back up your chunk of text that you cut and paste and paste and paste ad infinitum...is a link to something that Maquiscat said. Hell just look at the link. Actually read the URL. I rather doubt that your information actually came from Politicalforum.com, much less from the one hundred and thirteenth post in this thread that was made by Maquiscat. If you're going to use that data to back up your beliefs and claims, you need to provide a link to the article so people can understand that you aren't just pulling random statistics out of a rectally mounted replicator. After all, there is a long-standing joke that "80% of all statistics quoted to prove a point, are just made up on the spot."
You are assuming that the Human race is just another type of animal. We know that is not true. Humans are by far more different and not after the natural animal fold. We are of another fold of life. I would also debate the idea that it's natural for animals to have homosexual relations. It is not. They are created in their own sphere to multiply and replenish the earth. They are not commanded to behave in any other way. There is no indication that animals have any eternal punishment for their improper behavior. But, there is with human beings. So, you are incorrect in your opinion on animals and what is natural for them. "Natural" doesn't have anything to do with "Religion." Religion doesn't really have anything to do with the Godhead, the Gospel, the Doctrines, the Ordinances, and the true Church of Jesus Christ. In my opinion, which is true, there is The Church of Jesus Christ and then there are religions. For the Godhead, homosexual behavior and acts are counter to the purpose of God which is, "to bring to pass, the immortality and eternal life of Mankind." Even if evolution occurs in nature, it did not with us. We are not of any fold that may have come before us.
At the end of the quoted paragraph, I have given the link each time: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2466/pr0.1995.76.2.611
I am going by the definition of ‘natural’ — which means occurring in nature — what definition are you using because it isn’t one found in the dictionary. There is zero indication for eternal punishment in humans. Story books are not an ‘indication’ of anything other than belief, not fact. I do not care about your religious proselytizing or opinion based on religious propaganda written by man, edited by kings and the mistranslated by transcribers. None of what you posted has anything to do with the definition or the OP. If your only argument is how you have interpreted your chosen sect of your chosen version of your chosen religion while not acknowledging simple fact you should expect most to immediately dismiss it. Try using logic and sound reasoning over make believe. You will make stronger arguments.
THANK YOU! It only took you three times of posting the wrong link to finally put this out. Now look at this: And this look at this again: Are you actually adult enough to admit that you have been posting the wrong link up until the last two responses?
You have NOT provided anything aside from your own baseless OPINION. I am TRANS...I was BORN this way...where is YOUR factual evidence to establish that I "learned" to be trans?
Your 1995 BOVINE EXCREMENT source is from THEIST homophobe who has been utterly DISCREDITED as ab anti-gay BIGOT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cameron Here is a CURRENT Scientific Study from 2020 that provides the FACTS instead. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13558358.2020.1818541 ZERO scientific evidence of any "learned behavior" can be found. Theist HOMOPHOBIA has been DEBUNKED!
Well damn it. I was setting her up. I had finally gotten her to post the actual link and not one to a previous post of mine. I was going to see if she could be honest enough to admit that she was posting the wrong link, which would then show whether she was able to present evidence in good faith. Not necessarily correct evidence, but at least in good faith. Then I was going to hit her with this: https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_survey.html Which shows that the studies the Camerons (it wasn't just Paul) did were flawed and unreliable. All that planning.....ruined! RUINED I say! (mock sob).
My profound condolences for ruining your plans. It must be that "hair trigger" of mine that caused me to go off half-cocked with DEBUNKING just ONE of that pair of homophobic charlatans. I will try harder next time...scout's honor!
Truth is reason, truth is eternal. I only use eternal logic and reason to understand the entire big picture of God, The Universe, The Earth and the Eternal Nature of Mankind. Your logic and reasoning is minute and inept within the big picture of all life and eternity. Therefore your your arguments are weak and incomplete.
There is yet Zero evidence that science has connected DNA or Biological mutations to homosexual and queer desires opposite of what our nature is, to replentish the earth with children in a heterosexual natural manner. The study is credible and the findings too. It's your opinion of the author of the study which was also done scientifically. Your liberal WOK crowd's method of shaming those who don't agree with liberalism of today is falling on more and more deaf ears. Name calling is childish and irreverent. So, incest and rape contribute mostly to young people becoming brain damaged into moving into homosexual behaviors though the though process of the reprobate mind. We should therefore work on figuring out how to reprogram the brainwashed so they can get back on the heterosexual path. Telling them they are okay continuing down that path isn't good for them. Telling them that you still love them and will help them reprogram is much better than assisting them in their sins.
Please learn to properly edit a post as I will not do so for you. Again. Your version of god is just a tiny drop in the sea of different versions and deities that have been and are worshiped. It takes someone of extreme arrogance to believe theirs is correct while billions others are wrong. See how easily you dismiss theirs? That is how easily yours is dismissed. That all of your arguments are based around a story book is the only thing weak and incomplete. Homosexuality is a naturally occurring element of human sexuality. It has existed for as long as records have been kept. Religion has done nothing but change and be replaced by other religions. Just as yours will be eventually.
The reality is sin has always existed since Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden. So, that is why homosexual behavior has existed within the fold of Adam and Eve. It's not natural to sin and not excused. We all sin and fall short the glory of God. But, that isn't an excuse for sinning. Fortunately, we have a Savior who atoned for us after all we can do to repent of our daily sins. Homosexual behavior and acts is just one of them.
