LDS Scientist/Biographer Presents Findings on the Science of Sexual Orientation

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

True... according to one apostle, Rome fell because of monogamy.

“It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest-lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome, with her arts, sciences and warlike instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory faded. She was a mono-gamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.”  --George Q. Cannon, JoD, v. 13, p. 202

Monogamy was the law in ancient Rome.  However, Roman men got around that fact by using slave women as concubines.  Half the population of Rome was slave.  So, George Q. Cannon was misinformed.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Button Gwinnett said:

So many things wrong with this post I don't know where to begin.  I'm going to guess that you are a heterosexual man. Imagine your reaction if a gay man posted that your sexual preference was a genetic disorder and that hopefully someday some future advance might find a cure for your disorder.  Would you not consider such a person making such a charge a bigot?

That alludes to one of the weirdest aspects of LDS beliefs about this.

If there was a church of homosexuals that believed their orientation was the natural one and heterosexuality was less desirable and they came to me and said "Even though you have heterosexual desires right now, if you follow our doctrines then after you die, god will make you have eternal homosexual desires and you can be with another man for all eternity..."  I would not be interested.  

So why would LDS think that they are offering something interesting to homosexuals when they present the eternal reward for living LDS doctrines in this life?  That's one of the huge problems that the Church is going to have to figure out with homosexuals.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Well, in ancient Greece/Minoan society it seems that it wasn't necessarily homosexuality like currently thought of. The man of the house could refuse his son. And it seems the son could refuse penetration. It was apparently usually a type of thighing as I gather from the scant evidence, but yes it was societal-wide, and expected of a young man for about 8 years until he became old enough to marry according to their law. For a young man to marry before this age or to have relations with a woman was illegal and punishable by death. I believe at that time he reached the legal age he could leave military service as well.

I believe this is the type of society we are seeing when Lot entered Sodom.

The classical Greek society was a little freer.

Greek society was very militaristic whereas Hebrew society was family centered and the young men usually married when their Greek counterparts where serving in the military. 

Really?  Where the heck did you get that idea?????  CFR where this type of society we are seeing when Lot entered Sodom.  

Honestly your posts are unbelievable.  You just say what ever pops into your head without any critical thinking???

Edited October 19, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

40 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That alludes to one of the weirdest aspects of LDS beliefs about this.

If there was a church of homosexuals that believed their orientation was the natural one and heterosexuality was less desirable and they came to me and said "Even though you have heterosexual desires right now, if you follow our doctrines then after you die, god will make you have eternal homosexual desires and you can be with another man for all eternity..."  I would not be interested.  

So why would LDS think that they are offering something interesting to homosexuals when they present the eternal reward for living LDS doctrines in this life?  That's one of the huge problems that the Church is going to have to figure out with homosexuals.

It is one of the most ridiculous ideas church leaders have come up with.  If there was anything that more motivated me to stay away from the church and pushed me to find happiness outside of the church, it is this belief.  It is like whoever wins this race will be allowed to eat dog poo and they are going to love it.  Trust me.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

So much for trying really hard to keep my comment neutral   I even use quote marks around "cure"! 

Maybe you should re-read what I wrote.  I didn't know that there was anything wrong with asking questions, or predicting future debates and questions that might arise in the medical field! 

If you think that this is not going to be a major discussion in the medical field (about how to classify it) if it is found to be of genetic origin, then you are naive.  It will be debated just like it has been in the field of the psychology.   If a therapy becomes available to alter the gene or its expression, then there will be much discussion, not just among the medical field, but also among the insurance companies.  Will it be an operation that insurance will pay for?  That depends partly on how the medical field classifies it.  

But, to answer your question about how I'd feel about a gay man trying to "cure" heterosexuality..."bigot" wouldn't be the first word that comes to mind.  I was thinking more along the lines of "the enemy of the human race"

I would also like to comment that a positive subjective experience of a genetic disorder doesn't make it any less of a genetic disorder.  My son was born with a rare genetic disorder called albinism.  It is a part of his identity, I couldn't imagine him any other way.  He is still a toddler, so I don't know what his feelings about it will be, but I have met many, many in the albino community who would not have it any other way.  The question was asked in one forum, "if you could have been born "normal", would you have chosen that option if you could do it over?  The vast majority of the comments were, "I wouldn't change", "Normal is so...boring!" etc.   There is a sense of albino pride, much like gay pride.  That pride and positive subjective experience doesn't make it any less of a disorder.

The question will be, does it have any biological disadvantage?  The point has already been made, that on an individual level, it does pose a potential evolutionary disadvantage.  That would be the point of argument among the medical community when it comes to classification.  It could theoretically go either way, but it WILL be discussed.  

 

 

 

What do you think the evolutionary disadvantage is on an individual level for a person to be gay.  And would it be fair to eliminate the genetic disorder on an unborn child, or should that decision be given to the person who actually is gay?

At one time in my life, I was willing to do just about anything to be straight.  At this point in my life, I would do just about anything to stay gay.  I think your son might go through the same thought process.  When we are young, fitting in is paramount.  When we get older we realize that the differences between us is what makes us unique.  While being gay doesn't necessarily make me unique, it does bring with it a whole slew of life perspectives that I think are unique to me because of the experiences I have gone through.  I guess that is a huge reason why I am unwilling to have that all wiped out with some magical wand in the next life.  I know crazy.  Doesn't everyone want to be thin, rich and straight?

[Button Gwinnett]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

So much for trying really hard to keep my comment neutral   I even use quote marks around "cure"! 

Maybe you should re-read what I wrote.  I didn't know that there was anything wrong with asking questions, or predicting future debates and questions that might arise in the medical field! 

If you think that this is not going to be a major discussion in the medical field (about how to classify it) if it is found to be of genetic origin, then you are naive.  It will be debated just like it has been in the field of the psychology.   If a therapy becomes available to alter the gene or its expression, then there will be much discussion, not just among the medical field, but also among the insurance companies.  Will it be an operation that insurance will pay for?  That depends partly on how the medical field classifies it.  

But, to answer your question about how I'd feel about a gay man trying to "cure" heterosexuality..."bigot" wouldn't be the first word that comes to mind.  I was thinking more along the lines of "the enemy of the human race"

I would also like to comment that a positive subjective experience of a genetic disorder doesn't make it any less of a genetic disorder.  My son was born with a rare genetic disorder called albinism.  It is a part of his identity, I couldn't imagine him any other way.  He is still a toddler, so I don't know what his feelings about it will be, but I have met many, many in the albino community who would not have it any other way.  The question was asked in one forum, "if you could have been born "normal", would you have chosen that option if you could do it over?  The vast majority of the comments were, "I wouldn't change", "Normal is so...boring!" etc.   There is a sense of albino pride, much like gay pride.  That pride and positive subjective experience doesn't make it any less of a disorder.

The question will be, does it have any biological disadvantage?  The point has already been made, that on an individual level, it does pose a potential evolutionary disadvantage.  That would be the point of argument among the medical community when it comes to classification.  It could theoretically go either way, but it WILL be discussed.  

 

 

 

Your post suggests that there is something inherently wrong with being gay or that those who are born gay need to be fixed.  This is a very arrogant naïve point of view.  I'm not trying to be rude but your point of view regarding gays is right out of the 1950's.  In case you hadn't noticed its 2017, time to update your points of view. members of the gay community are not broken nor do they need to be fixed.  However what they do need is our love, understanding and acceptance as valuable, equal members of our society.  I fear that Elder Oaks Conference address has set the church back a few decades further than they already were.

Pogi, It is not my intent to be harsh or mean spirited and perhaps I am being too direct in my word choice, but I personally believe that the church is wrong on its current position, a position that like the priesthood ban before it, is bound to change one day.  The church can either be in front of or behind the curve of that change and it appears that they have decided to remain behind it.  My fear is that the church has decided to take itself and us along for a very painful and difficult ride that will have unforeseen consequences on the entire church. It will not end well for the church nor us.  This may very well a defining historical moment for the church and one some future sociologist will look at as a  point that leads to our demise.  Clearly Elder Oaks has driven the stake deeper than ever before making it even more difficult for some future president of the church to reverse this current policy.  But I foresee that some future apologist will have to say that Elder Oaks was misinformed and was speaking as a man,  Isn't that what we Mormon's say when some past church leader is shown to have been wrong?

Edited October 19, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Your post suggests that there is something inherently wrong with being gay or that those who are born gay need to be fixed.  

Ok, this is the second time that you are reading way out of the lines.  CFR.  Where have I ever made a judgment? 

First of all, I have never labeled being gay a genetic disorder.  I said that it WILL be discussed among the medical community at some future date if it is definitively discovered to be genetic in nature, with the ability to manipulate the gene or its expression.  How could you possibly think otherwise?  It will need to be medically classified once we discover what causes it. 

Second, there is nothing "wrong" with having a genetic disorder, and no, they don't "need" to be fixed.  In fact, many would prefer not to be "fixed" as I have already pointed out.  It is you that seems to be making insulting and unfair judgments about people with genetic disorders.  Simply labeling at such does not place judgement on the person. 

48 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

 This is a very arrogant naïve point of view. 

No, what is arrogant and naive is making a medical judgment before we even know what causes it for sure.  The same questions will be made for transgender issues as well. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

What do you think the evolutionary disadvantage is on an individual level for a person to be gay. 

I think it is obvious, a strictly gay person cannot naturally reproduce with their partner.  Sure, modern medicine gives alternative options for gay people to have biological children.  Many disorders have adaptive tools to accomplish what "normal" (I hate that word) people can do without the tools,  but that doesn't make them any less of a disorder because adaptive tools do not take away the inherent biological disadvantage that exists without the tools. 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

And would it be fair to eliminate the genetic disorder on an unborn child, or should that decision be given to the person who actually is gay?

That is an ethical question of medicine that will need to be addressed at some point as genetic therapies advance. 

 

Edited October 19, 2017 by pogi

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think it is obvious, a strictly gay person cannot naturally reproduce with their partner.  Sure, modern medicine gives alternative options for gay people to have biological children.  Many disorders have adaptive tools to accomplish what "normal" (I hate that word) people can do without the tools,  but that doesn't make them any less of a disorder because adaptive tools do not take away the inherent biological disadvantage that exists without the tools. 

That is an ethical question of medicine that will need to be addressed at some point as genetic therapies advance. 

 

But why is not being able to reproduce a evolutionary disadvantage for a gay person.  Why is reproducing important at all if someone is gay?  Does everyone need to reproduce to be acceptable?  Why do you think this is an issue?

[Button Gwinnett]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ok, this is the second time that you are reading way out of the lines.  CFR.  Where have I ever made a judgment? 

First of all, I have never labeled being gay a genetic disorder. 

 

Quote

I said that it WILL be discussed among the medical community at some future date if it is definitively discovered to be genetic in nature, with the ability to manipulate the gene or its expression.  How could you possibly think otherwise?  It will need to be medically classified once we discover what causes it. 

Being Gay is not a disease nor does being gay require "manipulation" to alter its "cause" nor its "expression" 

Quote

Second, there is nothing "wrong" with having a genetic disorder, and no, they don't "need" to be fixed.  In fact, many would prefer not to be "fixed" as I have already pointed out.  It is you that seems to be making insulting and unfair judgments about people with genetic disorders.  Simply labeling at such does not place judgement on the person. 

No, what is arrogant and naive is making a medical judgment before we even know what causes it for sure.  The same questions will be made for transgender issues as well. 

Once again you don't get it, and I'm really trying to be patient, but being gay is NOT a genetic disorder, yet you continue to call being gay a disorder, it is not.  One is born gay just as someone is born with blue eyes or brown eyes.  Do you refer to eye color as a disorder also? and yet a person has just as much control over being gay as they do over the color of their eyes, NONE.

Sorry but I still don't think you know what you are saying nor how backward your views are.  Eugenics anyone?

Edited October 19, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Really?  Where the heck did you get that idea?????  CFR where this type of society we are seeing when Lot entered Sodom.  

Honestly your posts are unbelievable.  You just say what ever pops into your head without any critical thinking???

That would be me - Mr. Non-critical thinker...

There is a site in the Kikkar of the Jordan which has Minoan aspects -  a massive gate house that is Minoan style rather than Canaanite style, Minoan bull glyphs, and the black and gold Minoan styled pottery in the vicinity. We know the Minoans colonized, and we have apparently found one of their colonies - in the Jordan valley where Sodom was. Cretans also settled Philistia later on - that is fairly well settled. 

You may be able to piece that together from this report  http://nebula.wsimg.com/9a161034ecbdd5c976d2608ac7eb2d09?AccessKeyId=AD0C503627C3B88E5A7F&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

or if this site comes back up http://www.digsodom.com

[Calm]

Pogi, in the future, you might want to equate it to choices potential parents make due to preferences that in the future may be able to be genetically programmed...such as whether to darken skin colour if it provides protection from being burned if one is from a very fair family (since sunburns are both uncomfortable and add to risk of skin cancer, fair skin may be seen as less desirable for a child one wants to give all the advantages of life to) or to prevent lefthandedness because so much in the world is awkwardly placed (or so my son tells me) or to have a son rather than a daughter because in some cultures women have harsher lives.

It makes sense to genetically program in resistance to physical, emotional, and mental disorders in the abstract.  If one could remove diabetes or cancer from our societies, no one would protest...but what about deafness or high functioning autism?  Do people have an inherent right to be different if they can be independent or do parents have a right to genetically make things easier for their kids just as they do financially or educationally (why not just give your kid an aptitude for math instead of spending hours or thousands on helping them understand it the slow way?), but what about programming in advantages?  What is we could remove tendencies for depression or anxiety?  

What if it turns out homosexuality is correlated to higher emotional tendencies to depression?  Depression is more common in women.  If a family had a history of depression, would parents have a right to ensure their children were heterosexual males?

Medical discussions are going to be heard on whether it is ethical to increase a child's intelligence if they are within normal range or change appearance to high levels of beauty even if they would rate as typical in their culture.  

Whatever the causes, is it ethical to genetically program our offspring with anything we view as an advantage, as a way to avoid not only hardship, but inconvenience?  Do we program our children to ensure there is no chance they end up with multiple minor issues that compound into major ones?  Or do we refuse to allow parents to modify in order to maintain diversity and not create an out of reach elite class that genetically provides every advantage to their children?

[california boy]

1 minute ago, RevTestament said:

That would be me - Mr. Non-critical thinker...

There is a site in the Kikkar of the Jordan which has Minoan aspects -  a massive gate house that is Minoan style rather than Canaanite style, Minoan bull glyphs, and the black and gold Minoan styled pottery in the vicinity. We know the Minoans colonized, and we have apparently found one of their colonies - in the Jordan valley where Sodom was. Cretans also settled Philistia later on - that is fairly well settled. 

You may be able to piece that together from this report  http://nebula.wsimg.com/9a161034ecbdd5c976d2608ac7eb2d09?AccessKeyId=AD0C503627C3B88E5A7F&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

or if this site comes back up http://www.digsodom.com

That is not a fact.  That is a GUESS.  Do you even know the difference?  And yes I do think you are presenting thoughts that show no critical thinking skills.  Tp say that someone is gay because of a tv show they watch or a movie they saw is ridiculous and without a shread of proof or any link what so ever.  You are just making up stuff and guessing because you are driven by some false narrative that you have no ability to show as fact.  If the people of Sodom are not Hebrew, but instead are Minoans, then what was Lot and his family doing there?  And how can you prove that they were the ONLY Hebrews living in Sodom?  Give me a percentage.  What percent of the population of Sodom was Hebrew and what percentage of the population of Sodom were Minoean?  Just how much speculation are you going to give us to drive this narrative that you have cooked up out of whole cloth.?

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

 

Being Gay is not a disease nor does being gay require "manipulation" to alter its "cause" nor its "expression" 

Once again you don't get it, and I'm really trying to be patient, but being gay is NOT a genetic disorder, yet you continue to call being gay a disorder, it is not.  One is born gay just as someone is born with blue eyes or brown eyes.  Do you refer to eye color as a disorder also? and yet a person has just as much control over being gay as they do over the color of their eyes, NONE.

Sorry but I still don't think you know what you are saying nor how backward your views are.  Eugenics anyone?

You don't think there are going to be medical discussions when we get to the point of being able to choose eye color?  That everyone will just accept it is hands off?

Is it eugenics if it is not about eliminating, but giving advantages?

Edited October 19, 2017 by Calm

[kllindley]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

But why is not being able to reproduce a evolutionary disadvantage for a gay person.  Why is reproducing important at all if someone is gay?  Does everyone need to reproduce to be acceptable?  Why do you think this is an issue?

Maybe you're not clear what evolutionary advantage/disadvantage means.  It literally means the increased or decreased ability to pass on genetics to future generations.  That is not to say anything about general advantage or anything like that, and there are arguments to be made about kin-selection in terms of evolutionary advantage.  But stating that there is not an evolutionary disadvantage to exclusive homosexuality is a non sequitur.  

[Button Gwinnett]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

You don't think there are going to be medical discussions when we get to the point of being able to choose eye color?  That everyone will just accept it is hands off?

Is it eugenics if it is not about eliminating, but giving advantages?

Eye color is not a disorder, nor is being born gay.  And yes it is eugenics when someone is using controlled breeding to remove/induce a human characteristic.  Its a slippery slope.  Using words like referring to being born gay as a disorder is the first step in this process. 

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Pogi, in the future, you might want to equate it to choices potential parents make due to preferences that in the future may be able to be genetically programmed...such as whether to darken skin colour if it provides protection from being burned if one is from a very fair family (since sunburns are both uncomfortable and add to risk of skin cancer, fair skin may be seen as less desirable for a child one wants to give all the advantages of life to) or to prevent lefthandedness because so much in the world is awkwardly placed (or so my son tells me) or to have a son rather than a daughter because in some cultures women have harsher lives.

It makes sense to genetically program in resistance to physical, emotional, and mental disorders in the abstract.  If one could remove diabetes or cancer from our societies, no one would protest...but what about deafness or high functioning autism?  Do people have an inherent right to be different if they can be independent or do parents have a right to genetically make things easier for their kids just as they do financially or educationally (why not just give your kid an aptitude for math instead of spending hours or thousands on helping them understand it the slow way?), but what about programming in advantages?  What is we could remove tendencies for depression or anxiety?  

What if it turns out homosexuality is correlated to higher emotional tendencies to depression?  Depression is more common in women.  If a family had a history of depression, would parents have a right to ensure their children were heterosexual males?

Medical discussions are going to be heard on whether it is ethical to increase a child's intelligence if they are within normal range or change appearance to high levels of beauty even if they would rate as typical in their culture.  

Whatever the causes, is it ethical to genetically program our offspring with anything we view as an advantage, as a way to avoid not only hardship, but inconvenience?  Do we program our children to ensure there is no chance they end up with multiple minor issues that compound into major ones?  Or do we refuse to allow parents to modify in order to maintain diversity and not create an out of reach elite class that genetically provides every advantage to their children?

I think it could get even more complicated that that.  Say for example there is a link to being more creative or more artistic with being gay. Are you going to deny your child their full potential in the arts or science simply because they will have same sex attraction.  Or what if those attributes are a result of how someone who is gay is treated or feels compared to others.  Perhaps a gay person is more likely to think differently than other people simply because they are different.  Great strides in the advancement of civilization have come about largely by people who were not just like everyone else.  They thought differently.  They saw things that other people didn't see.  They weren't "normal". And thank God they weren't.  This idea that reproduction is the most important evolutional attribute is nonsense.  We have plenty of people that fill that role quite easily.  Forcing that role on everyone as a requirement to justify their life is just a strange criteria to even consider..

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Once again you don't get it, and I'm really trying to be patient,

Oh the irony 

You have not successfully supplied the CFR where I called it a genetic disorder.  Read and re-read the part you quoted of me in bold.  I am clearly not making any judgement that it is a disorder.  We don't even know what causes it for sure!!!  There are a lot of big "ifs"  

26 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Being Gay is not a disease nor does being gay require "manipulation" to alter its "cause" nor its "expression" 

CFR that I called it a disease.  CFR that I said it "requires" manipulation. 

26 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

being gay is NOT a genetic disorder, yet you continue to call being gay a disorder, it is not.  

CFR, CFR CFR

26 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Do you refer to eye color as a disorder also?

 Sometimes, as a matter of fact, yes. My son has albinism, as I have already pointed out.  That affects his eye color. It affects ALL of his pigment including his hair color and his skin color.  Is there anything "wrong" with that?  I don't think so, I think he is absolutely beautiful and I wouldn't change it if I could. 

26 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

and yet a person has just as much control over being gay as they do over the color of their eyes, NONE.

What?  What does "control" have to do with anything?  Do people with genetic disorders have control or a say in if they want to be born that way?  NONE!  Perhaps you are confusing your arguments.  This argument is one that you would make to someone who is arguing that being gay is a choice.  I am not making that argument, so you are sounding really confused. 

26 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Sorry but I still don't think you know what you are saying nor backward your views are.  Eugenics anyone?

Once again, you are completely mischaracterizing me and my views. 

Gene therapy anyone?

Having a genetic disorder is NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED OF, don't make it sound as if it is!!!

Edited October 19, 2017 by pogi

[kllindley]

21 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

 

Being Gay is not a disease nor does being gay require "manipulation" to alter its "cause" nor its "expression" 

Once again you don't get it, and I'm really trying to be patient, but being gay is NOT a genetic disorder, yet you continue to call being gay a disorder, it is not.  One is born gay just as someone is born with blue eyes or brown eyes.  Do you refer to eye color as a disorder also? and yet a person has just as much control over being gay as they do over the color of their eyes, NONE.

Sorry but I still don't think you know what you are saying nor how backward your views are.  Eugenics anyone?

This is a great example of straight privilege. You as self-identified heterosexual, cisgender male get to lecture anyone who you even perceive as not agreeing with you about this issue.  I'm so glad I have experts like you to tell me all about what my experiences mean.  Maybe you ought to check your privilege before you continue to condescend.  

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Maybe you're not clear what evolutionary advantage/disadvantage means.  It literally means the increased or decreased ability to pass on genetics to future generations.  That is not to say anything about general advantage or anything like that, and there are arguments to be made about kin-selection in terms of evolutionary advantage.  But stating that there is not an evolutionary disadvantage to exclusive homosexuality is a non sequitur.  

I am asking why that is important to a gay person.  Why must all humans pass on any genes?

You might also be interested in this article. Or this article

These things are not as simple as just passing on genes.  

[Calm]

 

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think it could get even more complicated that that.  Say for example there is a link to being more creative or more artistic with being gay. Are you going to deny your child their full potential in the arts or science simply because they will have same sex attraction.  Or what if those attributes are a result of how someone who is gay is treated or feels compared to others.  Perhaps a gay person is more likely to think differently than other people simply because they are different.  Great strides in the advancement of civilization have come about largely by people who were not just like everyone else.  They thought differently.  They saw things that other people didn't see.  They weren't "normal". And thank God they weren't.  This idea that reproduction is the most important evolutional attribute is nonsense.  We have plenty of people that fill that role quite easily.  Forcing that role on everyone as a requirement to justify their life is just a strange criteria to even consider..

I agree.  

I think we feel comfortable about talking about lowering possibilities of cancer or mental disorder, but what if higher probabilities are shown to be linked to what are viewed as positive or neutral attributes?

If dangerous post partum depression runs high in your family, would it be wrong to self select for only sons?  

If cancer runs higher in whiter skin, why not darken skin colour?  What harm would that do to anyone?

[RevTestament]

31 minutes ago, california boy said:

That is not a fact.  That is a GUESS.  Do you even know the difference?  And yes I do think you are presenting thoughts that show no critical thinking skills.  Tp say that someone is gay because of a tv show they watch or a movie they saw is ridiculous and without a shread of proof or any link what so ever.  You are just making up stuff and guessing because you are driven by some false narrative that you have no ability to show as fact.  If the people of Sodom are not Hebrew, but instead are Minoans, then what was Lot and his family doing there?  And how can you prove that they were the ONLY Hebrews living in Sodom?  Give me a percentage.  What percent of the population of Sodom was Hebrew and what percentage of the population of Sodom were Minoean?  Just how much speculation are you going to give us to drive this narrative that you have cooked up out of whole cloth.?

All archaeology is guess work bud. However, 3 Minoan aspects of the site and from the surrounding area, seem to be a pretty good educated guess that we have found a Minoan colony. Given their practice of pederasty, the Genesis text makes sense when young men show up at Lot's door asking him to send out his boys. It also makes sense that Lot offered his daughters instead because he apparently knew it was the death penalty if they accepted under their law. 

How can I prove they were the only Hebrews living in Sodom? I cannot. The Bible says tho that God sent Abraham and Lot from Ur in Mesopotamia, and calls Abraham a Hebrew. God led Abraham and Lot into Canaan, and promises the land to him. Abraham agrees to give Lot the well-watered Kikkar, and next we find Lot in Sodom discovering its debauchery, and not finding enough righteous souls in it to save it from destruction. I can't say I understand your point. Why do I need a percentage? Lot's family were probably the only Hebrews. The rest were probably a mixture of Minoans and some local Canaanites.

Edited October 19, 2017 by RevTestament

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

All archaeology is guess work bud. However, 3 Minoan aspects of the site and from the surrounding area, seem to be a pretty good educated guess that we have found a Minoan colony. Given their practice of pederasty, the Genesis text makes sense when young men show up at Lot's door asking him to send out his boys. It also makes sense that Lot offered his daughters instead because he apparently knew it was the death penalty if they accepted under their law. 

How can I prove they were the only Hebrews living in Sodom? I cannot. The Bible says tho that God sent Abraham and Lot from Ur in Mesopotamia, and calls Abraham a Hebrew. God lead Abraham and Lot into Canaan, and promises the land to him. Abraham agrees to give Lot the well-watered Kikkar, and next we find Lot in Sodom discovering its debauchery, and not finding enough righteous souls in it to save it from destruction. I can't say I understand your point. Why do I need a percentage? Lot's family were probably the only Hebrews. The rest were probably a mixture of Minoans and some local Canaanites.

You don't see the leaps you are making by guessing that Sodom was a Minoan settlement rather than a Hebrew one?  Why would Abraham or Lot care one bit if God destroyed a Minoan city?  Why all the pleading with God to save a city that had a completely different culture than they did and one that evidently you think they did not approve of.  

And the truth is, it is a bit unclear what was going on in Sodom.  Other Bible writers clearly state that the sin of Sodom was pride.  How does that fit into your little secerio that you have created for yourself?

 

Edited October 19, 2017 by california boy

[Calm]

I have a genetic disorder.  My kids have it.  I dread seeing it appear in my grandchildren though my son is less extreme so there is hope it won't matter until the cure is found.

Would I want to have it removed from my daughter if it changed her personality (no reason why it should, but who knows since it is a neurological disorder)?  That would be her choice as it has made her life a hell, but I also think she appreciates who she is.

Would I suggest it be removed from future children?  In a heartbeat.  Their personalities are not yet formed and so nothing is lost. What they are eternally is limited in its expression anyway...I think our mortal personalities will have a minute effect on our eternal being, it will be imo like assuming a virtual reality persona and learning from that experience.  

What if we learned it was linked to intelligence or artistic ability...given it impedes the use of such ability, I would still encourage genetic manipulation to remove it.  A talent one cannot use just leads to frustration, not great things.

----

I am not calling homosexuality a disorder, just exploring the idea of gene therapy.

[california boy]

duplicate post

Edited October 19, 2017 by california boy