Yes, Childhood Sexual Abuse Often Does Contribute to Homosexuality

[bigheadfred]

Mod1

You know this homo thing can come in handy. Dressed as a woman to get my job. Showed up as a man and they doubled my pay. Swear to...

[truth_seeker]

This isn't DU where there exists a 15-page set of rules and guidelines for their "laws" (complete with Judges, Juries and trials).

In this particular case it's because the thread seems to have gotten into a big circle-talk about religion, and it may have to stop for the same reason TBR doesn't have a religious section.  It's virtually impossible to carry on such discussions for any length of time before it gets personal.

This one stays open for a while more.  I appreciate your asking and giving me an opportunity to amplify upon that policy.

Mod1

I appreciate your kind and informative answer. No religion. Got that.

[Wingnut]

You know this homo thing can come in handy. Dressed as a woman to get my job. Showed up as a man and they doubled my pay. Swear to...

[goodwithagun]

I've heard the abuse as a child excuse used as a reason, but if a person was abused as a child, which by most accounts are by an adult of the same sex, why then would that horrifying event cause a person to alter their sexual preference?
On a talk show many years ago there was a woman who was sexually abused by her father when she was a girl.  As an adult, understandably, she didn't want anything to do with men and was a lesbian.
I would think being abused by a person of your own sex would turn a person off homosexual sex.   I'm no psychiatrist, but from what I've observed and read it seems most homosexuals are born that way.  I'm not ruling out abuse as a cause in some cases, it's just not very persuasive to me. Hormonal abnormalties during gestation sound like the best explanation to me.  That would explain many lesbians in sport and many effeminate male homosexuals.

It might have something to do with the orifaces involved, and no I'm not saying vaginal rape is less traumatic than anal rape. We must also consider that men and women are different, so it would stand that thier reactions to rape would also be different. A female might think that, because a man raped her as a child, she wants nothing to do with men in the future. A male might think that, because a man raped him as a child, his manhood has been irreversibly affected so he must be gay. I dunno. Just thinking out loud.

[Oceander]

Nice data.  Oh, wait, there wasn't any; except if you count anecdote and "I just know it" as data.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  Where is it?

[bigheadfred]

Nice data.  Oh, wait, there wasn't any; except if you count anecdote and "I just know it" as data.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  Where is it?

You talking to the mods?

Take it on FAITH, Oceander. 

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead
We'd all be bowing 3 times a day to Mecca if it were not for Christianity;

But seeing how some people never criticize Sharia Law, honor killings, throwing gays off of buildings, female genital mutilation, I guess we can consider the issue a wash.

I'm trying to get at a larger truth here.  If you want me to acknowledge that Muslims are also bigoted against homosexuals, then fine.  But so what?   I don't think I've yet engaged in dialogue with a Muslim on this board.   But I've certainly dialogued with "Christians" here that think we should go to war with Muslims, all 1.4 billion of 'em.   Sorry, TomSea, but that's insane.

I am a disaffected Christian.   Your post is a perfect illustration why I doubt I'll ever go back to the church.   Religion - an institution of man -  is inherently political.  The Christian soldiers must oppose the Muslim hordes.   Blah blah blah.   Religion has little to do with faith, or at least what I regard as the responsibilities of faith.       

Here's the point - science that suggests that sexual orientation is inbred - part of one's wiring - forces a Christian (or a Muslim, for that matter) to face an uncomfortable truth - either that their holy book is wrong, or God is arbitrarily cruel in a way they may find difficult to accept.   Therefore they reflexively reject what they know in their heart may well be true - that we are, simply, who we are.   Be honest, TomSea - do you really think it was your environment or upbringing that made you straight - or is it simply who you are?

Because if our sexuality is genetic, then one must accept that God made us this way.   And the Bible's message to the homosexual is to forever deny what God has wrought.   Stay celibate and never know true love.   I don't think God is that cruel.   I believe God can see virtue based on the totality of one's life,  of one's compassion, charity, loyalty and humility.   And the message I hear from some on this board is that a homosexual, a priori, cannot be virtuous, cannot exhibit good moral character.  He is simply an abomination, and irredeemable as such.   

That is why I say that my respect for Jesus Christ precludes my return to a religious community that insists on such cruelty as a marker of faith.         

[Cyber Liberty]

 

[Sanguine]

I'm trying to get at a larger truth here. ...

@Jazzhead, the problem with that statement is that it is predicated upon the idea that you have access to a larger truth than the rest of us here.  There is a small possibility that it is true, but the likelihood is that you don't. 

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead, the problem with that statement is that it is predicated upon the idea that you have access to a larger truth than the rest of us here.  There is a small possibility that it is true, but the likelihood is that you don't.

No, I'm trying to have a dialogue about something that bothers me a lot.   And which has been stated to me quite plainly by several here - that my friends, who just happen to be gay, cannot, a priori, be virtuous and of good moral character.   They are irredeemable,  regardless of the way they lead their lives, because their sexual orientation trumps whatever else they may do.

That "Christian" attitude is at the root of my disaffection.   
   

[Sanguine]

No, I'm trying to have a dialogue about something that bothers me a lot.   And which has been stated to me quite plainly by several here - that my friends, who just happen to be gay, cannot, a priori, be virtuous and of good moral character.   They are irredeemable,  regardless of the way they lead their lives, because their sexual orientation trumps whatever else they may do.

That "Christian" attitude is at the root of my disaffection.   
 

Well, I'm not sure I would agree with you that anyone has said that, and in fact, I said something quite different.  I would agree with you if people were condemning someone for their state of being and not their actions. 

[thackney]

In this particular case it's because the thread seems to have gotten into a big circle-talk about religion, and it may have to stop for the same reason TBR doesn't have a religious section.  It's virtually impossible to carry on such discussions for any length of time before it gets personal.

I must say, that is one of the worst aspects of TBR, banning discussion of religion.

For some, it is the most important topic of our lives, and it is the basis of most all of our significant actions.

Why do you want a discussion of a topic while preventing discussion of the basis of actions and thoughts?

[Wingnut]

Why do you want a discussion of a topic while preventing discussion of the basis of actions and thoughts?

As my parents always said, "Just Because."

[Cyber Liberty]

I must say, that is one of the worst aspects of TBR, banning discussion of religion.

For some, it is the most important topic of our lives, and it is the basis of most all of our significant actions.

Why do you want a discussion of a topic while preventing discussion of the basis of actions and thoughts?

Maybe they're tired of being called to intervene because somebody takes an innocuous comment as a slam on their personal salvation?

[TomSea]

Upon seeing how there are multiple stories that deal with Islam daily, I don't think religion is banned.

I would say, perhaps what is being banned is "proselytizing", that if one goes into this modus operandi, then one is out of bounds.

[TomSea]

Maybe they're tired of being called to intervene because somebody takes an innocuous comment as a slam on their personal salvation?

Nothing wrong with pointing out repeated inconsistencies of some folks. In my opinion.  One can call that innocuous if one wants.

[Silver Pines]

Well, I'm not sure I would agree with you that anyone has said that, and in fact, I said something quite different.  I would agree with you if people were condemning someone for their state of being and not their actions.

@Sanguine

I haven't seen a single poster claim that @Jazzhead's gay friends are "irredeemable."

[Silver Pines]

I must say, that is one of the worst aspects of TBR, banning discussion of religion.

For some, it is the most important topic of our lives, and it is the basis of most all of our significant actions.

Why do you want a discussion of a topic while preventing discussion of the basis of actions and thoughts?

@thackney

I wouldn't be surprised if witnessing the conduct on the TOS religion forum has something to do with it.  That place is knock-down, drag-out.  I can understand not wanting that kind of thing here.

[Wingnut]

@thackney

I wouldn't be surprised if witnessing the conduct on the TOS religion forum has something to do with it.  That place is knock-down, drag-out.  I can understand not wanting that kind of thing here.

 
 

[thackney]

@thackney

I wouldn't be surprised if witnessing the conduct on the TOS religion forum has something to do with it.  That place is knock-down, drag-out.  I can understand not wanting that kind of thing here.

If bad behavior is the problem, work on the behavior. 

Focusing on the excuse given for bad behavior only moves the problem around, not works on actually resolving the problem. 

I don't see personal insults and attacks limited to religious posts.

my 2¢

[Silver Pines]

If bad behavior is the problem, work on the behavior. 

Focusing on the excuse given for bad behavior only moves the problem around, not works on actually resolving the problem. 

I don't see personal insults and attacks limited to religious posts.

my 2¢

@thackney

No, they aren't.  You're right.  But TBR management doesn't derive glee from deletions and warnings and bannings--unlike other forums.  So I can understand not wanting to set up an area where all of that would likely be multiplied several times over. 

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine

I haven't seen a single poster claim that @Jazzhead's gay friends are "irredeemable."

Yeah, me neither.

[INVAR]

I'm trying to get at a larger truth here.

No you're not.  You're trying to spam the board with your liberal deviancy.

I am a disaffected Christian.   Your post is a perfect illustration why I doubt I'll ever go back to the church.

Like a true Liberal Leftist, you even blame others for your 'disaffection' and unbelief.  "Because of you, I am never going back to church!"  That's a marker of someone whose faith is built on the approval of other people and not upon making oneself approved of God.

You either never had any belief other than in your own self, or you are so woefully ignorant of the bible and God Himself that your understanding is limited to believing in a god of your imagination.

Religion - an institution of man -  is inherently political...Religion has little to do with faith, or at least what I regard as the responsibilities of faith...their holy book is wrong, or God is arbitrarily cruel in a way they may find difficult to accept.

What you regard of religion, faith and God is irrelevant - because as you just confessed - God and faith is whatever you have decided it is in your own mind sans biblical revelation.       

Because if our sexuality is genetic, then one must accept that God made us this way.   

Serial Murderers, rapists, pedophiles, thieves, adulterers, torturers and extortionists all agree that God made them to be their way.  So by your deviance in logic - society is supposed to just embrace and accept them for who they are.

And the Bible's message to the homosexual is to forever deny what God has wrought. 

You have absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING of the bible.  NONE.  You have no authority other than your own imagination to cite, quote or assert what it says.

I believe God can see virtue based on the totality of one's life,  of one's compassion, charity, loyalty and humility.   And the message I hear from some on this board is that a homosexual, a priori, cannot be virtuous, cannot exhibit good moral character.  He is simply an abomination, and irredeemable as such.   

Or do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. - I Corinthians 6:9-10

If they are practicing homosexuality and those other sins, they are not inheriting the Kingdom of God and eternal life.  Period.  Scripture speaks to your ignorance of scripture.

That is why I say that my respect for Jesus Christ precludes my return to a religious community that insists on such cruelty as a marker of faith.         

You have no respect for Jesus Christ.  None.  Or you would do as He says:

“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?...But the one who hears my words and does not do them is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.” - Luke 6:46, 49

[INVAR]

@thackney

I wouldn't be surprised if witnessing the conduct on the TOS religion forum has something to do with it.  That place is knock-down, drag-out.  I can understand not wanting that kind of thing here.

In my experience, it is when brethren begin arguing over doctrines and practices that the knock-em out drag-out fights occur.

In this case, we are discussing an overt attack on the civil society and Christianity itself in terms of the culture.

And as the culture goes, so goes Republican liberty.

[thackney]

In my experience, it is when brethren begin arguing over doctrines and practices that the knock-em out drag-out fights occur.

In this case, we are discussing an overt attack on the civil society and Christianity itself in terms of the culture.

And as the culture goes, so goes Republican liberty.

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don't do it."

"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.

"Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Are you religious?"

He said: "Yes."

I said: "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

"Christian."

"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"

He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."

I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.