Former Aologiest for Gay Theology

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I do it because i have used third party sources directly and want to give attribute to the authors, that is something different than mentioning 26 studies and drawing conclusions from those twenty six studies. Charging for christian counselling is both scripturally and morally reprehensible, but again that is something different from the logic and conclusions based on the scientific data.

It's not different, in fact it's worse, this man is making claims attributed to third party sources and then charging people considerable sums of money to fix problems he alleges are supported by these third party sources.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
It's not different, in fact it's worse, this man is making claims attributed to third party sources and then charging people considerable sums of money to fix problems he alleges are supported by these third party sources.

I dont think thats quite accurate, he like any scientist looks at data and draws conclusions based on that data. He seems to be a logician or a doctor of some description but yes charging people for christian counsel is reprehensible.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Look dude your biological determinism is busted...

Well, in a previous post you have already conceded that, "...the lecturer clearly states that there is a biological element". So, do you think the biological factors contributing to homosexual orientation, such as they are, can be absent in a person who then nevertheless goes on to live his or her life as a homosexual?

Originally posted by FMF
Well, in a previous post you have already conceded that, "...the lecturer clearly states that there is a biological element". So, do you think the biological factors contributing to homosexual orientation, such as they are, can be absent in a person who then nevertheless goes on to live his or her life as a homosexual?

first of all its not a concession, are we clear on that, he cited a study which would seem to indicate some kind of biological element, to what extent its a contributing factor in sexual behavior was not specified. If you watched the video you would know that but you didn't so you don't.

I dont know if people practice homosexuality with the absence of biological factors.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
first of all its not a concession, are we clear on that, he cited a study which would seem to indicate some kind of biological element, to what extent its a contributing factor in sexual behavior was not specified. If you watched the video you would know that but you didn't so you don't.

I dont know if people practice homosexuality with the absence of biological factors.

You've been insisting ~ vehemently so ~ for years that there is no "biological element" in the explanation of homosexuality. And now you accept there is. When did you change your stance? Do you have a link to the study that changed your mind on this issue?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I dont know if people practice homosexuality with the absence of biological factors.

Presumably you don't think that it could be solely and exclusively environmental factors that determined the sexual behaviour of a person who lived his or her life as a homosexual. Would that be right?

Originally posted by FMF
You've been insisting ~ vehemently so ~ for years that there is no "biological element" in the explanation of homosexuality. And now you accept there is. When did you change your stance? Do you have a link to the study that changed your mind on this issue?

no, either you have misinterpreted or misunderstood my position or you have no idea what biological determinism is. Again it may be a battle against ignorance, probably yours.

"Biological determinism" is a term used in some literature to describe the belief that human behavior is controlled solely by an individual's genes or some component of physiology.

I have rejected the idea that human behavior is solely and exclusively controlled by a biological element and have advocated the existentialist idea that we are free moral agents with recourse to the faculty of conscience are are responsible for our own actions. If you can produce any evidence that this is not the case and that we are solely and exclusively at the mercy of our genes ill be happy to consider it.

Originally posted by FMF
Presumably you don't think that it could be solely and exclusively environmental factors that determined the sexual behaviour of a person who lived his or her life as a homosexual. Would that be right?

sorry its enough dealing with your ignorance never mind your presumptions, you presume all you like i prefer empiricism and if you have any questions based on empirics ill be happy to answer them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry its enough dealing with your ignorance never mind your presumptions, you presume all you like i prefer empiricism and if you have any questions based on empirics ill be happy to answer them.

You don't have to discuss this topic if you don't want to. That you have an agenda from which you do not want to be swayed by any on-topic discourse has been made quite clear already with your daft requests for refutations of studies you have not seen and which you cannot provide links to.

Originally posted by FMF
You don't have to discuss this topic if you don't want to. That you have an agenda from which you do not want to be swayed by any on-topic discourse has been made quite clear already with your daft requests for refutations of studies you have not seen and which you cannot provide links to.

you dont have to produce empirics if you dont want to and can instead dish up your usual presumptions, assumptions, insinuations and all other manner of nothingness. Its old hat dude, it holds no interest for people.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, either you have misinterpreted or misunderstood my position or you have no idea what biological determinism is. Again it may be a battle against ignorance, probably yours.

So for all these years, here on this forum, you are now saying that you have been arguing that there is a "biological element" to the explanation of homosexual behaviour. Is this what you mean?.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you dont have to produce empirics if you dont want to and can instead dish up your usual presumptions, assumptions, insinuations and all other manner of nothingness.

Do you have any links to these studies you have invited people to refute?

Originally posted by FMF
So for all these years, here on this forum, you are now saying that you have been arguing that there [b]is a "biological element" to the explanation of homosexual behaviour. Is this what you mean?.[/b]

I have made my position clear i will not do so again.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you have any links to these studies you have invited people to refute?

you have asked this three times previously and it was tedious then as it is tedious now, i have not asked anyone to refute any studies i have asked people to refute the conclusions drawn from those studies and i tell you truly it is really tiresome having to explain your stupidity away again and again.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
"Biological determinism" is a term used in some literature to describe the belief that human behavior is controlled [b]solely by an individual's genes or some component of physiology. I have rejected the idea that human behavior is solely and exclusively controlled by a biological element...[/b]

OK, I understand that your position is "that human behavior is [not] solely and exclusively controlled by a biological element". So, in other words, you are saying that human behavior ~ in this case we are talking about homosexuality ~ is, in part, controlled by a biological element, right?