₦airaland Forum

IamaNigerianGuy:
What gives me problems is that you claim to be a medical practitioner and believe second hand accounts. You make claims without looking for or at the official clinical records.
I also have a problem with you believing that the patient 'rose from the dead'. I have attempted to give a logical and medical (though dumbed- down explanation for the event) based on the information in the article.
You bring in many technical terms without sources into your argument. Where are they mentioned in the article ?
Is this the new standard for medical practice in the UK which you exhibit ?

You are obviously a vexed being who attempts to stand toe to toe with God. Heck yeah I am a medical practitioner who loves and believes in God and His miraculous ways. The young man was the person who went through this and he sounds intelligent enough to ask questions and know the details about his condition as this interview clearly showed.

You are trying way too hard to sound "medical".

IamaNigerianGuy:
What gives me problems is that you claim to be a medical practitioner and believe second hand accounts without looking at the official clinical records.
I also have a problem with you believing that the patient 'rose from the dead'. I have attempted to give a logical and medical (though dumbed down explanation for the event)

I asked you a question sir and rather than answering that you chose to take a swipe at my medical profession which is totally ridiculous.

You accuse me of same thing you are doing. You chose to discredit without knowledgeable proof and you conveniently ignored the names he mentioned and the fact that he is easily reachable for sake of authentication.

Do you think his tests in Nigeria and Australia were in error? Under what probability did that happen? Would you think that the Aussie surgeons would begin cutting him open without carrying out their own imaging?

By the way I do not "claim" to be a medical practitioner, I AM!

IamaNigerianGuy:
This is not a miracle. It is a phenomenon well documented in the medical literature. It has happened before and will happen again.

The patient was mistakenly diagnosed as deceased after what was probably a cardiac arrest. He in all likelihood had spontaneous resumption of cardiac and circulatory activity. The technical term is ROSC
"A patient is not dead until he is warm and dead" is what you are taught in emergency medicine courses because cold preserves the vital organs and can allow recovery later.

In 19th century Europe and America , there were so many cases of people mistakenly thought dead who woke up, that a practice was established of keeping the 'corpse' in a room for 24 to 48 hours with a bell beside him/her. Friends and relatives would gather expectantly waiting with hope. If he awoke he was supposed to ring the bell.
That is the origin of the term 'wake keeping'

Are you in the medical profession? I am a medical practitioner here in the UK and can help you out of your high ground ignorance sir.

What about this young man's ordeal is unbelievable? Is it the artificial heart valve he was fitted with as a result of his heart condition which is a heart failure with severe anatomical damage aka ventricular septal defect or is it the fact that imaging was already done and redone even prior to even the minor surgery where they attempted to close the holes and definitely also in Australia even before they tried cutting him open before he died.

What part of all this gives you problems?

jonbellion:
you have completely missed the point!
Specific types of similarity that proves common descent is what I said.For instance, many proteins can have different amino acid sequences without this affecting the way they fold and hence what they do. However, species thought to be more closely related by common descent have sequences more like each other than they do with species that are more distantly related. Why would a common designer make it look like it "evolved" rather than was created?.The theory of evolution depends on similarities. The theory of evolution predicts that species branch off from common ancestors but because this occurs through a slow gradual process, we should observe a vast number of similar traits both genetically and anatomically which we do!
Evolution is a fact okay. Intelligent design is pseudoscientific bullshit. It can't be tested because it doesn't rely on evidence. It just goes for the easy way out without even asking why the designer would even bother using the same materials to make every animal when it can simply create extremely different forms of life that would make evolution impossible to prove. If the earth is even only thousands of years old evolution couldn't even occur and there is no evidence from that expect you want to ignore it all and stick your head in books like the bible, Koran, torah etc- books that know nothing about anything and depict the utmost peak of human ignorance and stupidity. If you want to disprove evolution then follow the scientific method exactly, providing objective, verifiable evidence that withstands repeated peer review showing that all aspects of evolution currently supported by two centuries' worth of evidence are false and get your Nobel prize

Good luck with that

Sorry you missed the point entirely. You seem to have a single tracked never think out of the confined box you are type of mind which is why you only offer me garbage in garbage out.

You say intelligent design is false yet the best prostethic arms, heart, etc were all humanly designed from the so called unintelligently designed functionality of the arm or heart yet have never been able to match the performance or effect of the real deal they were copied from yet these man made prostethics are termed as intelligently made yet that which they copied from and are yet unable to fully design per the original came about by chance? How laughable.

Man would make a robot and call it a super intelligent feat yet the robot was copied from everything human and yet humans are termed to be a product of evolutionary trial and error? The ridiculousness is beyond redemption.

DNA is like what we have in computer upgrades. Mutation is simply an attempt to upgrade or degrade a body in order to match it's environment but even that shows intelligence as it has been set on this path in a pre-programmed manner.

Mutation is a genetic operator used to maintain genetic diversity from one generation of a population of genetic algorithm chromosomes to the next. It is analogous to biological mutation. Mutation alters one or more gene values in a chromosome from its initial state. In mutation, the solution may change entirely from the previous solution. Hence GA can come to a better solution by using mutation. Mutation occurs during evolution according to a user-definable mutation probability. This probability should be set low. If it is set too high, the search will turn into a primitive random search.

The classic example of a mutation operator involves a probability that an arbitrary bit in a genetic sequence will be changed from its original state. A common method of implementing the mutation operator involves generating a random variable for each bit in a sequence. This random variable tells whether or not a particular bit will be modified. This mutation procedure, based on the biological point mutation, is called single point mutation. Other types are inversion and floating point mutation. When the gene encoding is restrictive as in permutation problems, mutations are swaps, inversions, and scrambles.

The purpose of mutation in GAs is preserving and introducing diversity. Mutation should allow the algorithm to avoid local minima by preventing the population of chromosomes from becoming too similar to each other, thus slowing or even stopping evolution. This reasoning also explains the fact that most GA systems avoid only taking the fittest of the population in generating the next but rather a random (or semi-random) selection with a weighting toward those that are fitter.

Mutations result from errors during DNA replication or other types of damage to DNA, which then may undergo error-prone repair (especially microhomology-mediated end joining, or cause an error during other forms of repair, or else may cause an error during replication (translesion synthesis). Mutations may also result from insertion or deletion of segments of DNA due to mobile genetic elements. Mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism. Mutations play a part in both normal and abnormal biological processes including: evolution, cancer, and the development of the immune system, including junctional diversity.

Read this again and again and then tell me that when mutative reactions are 100% expected to happen under certain exposures that those reactions were not preprogrammed to be so intelligently.

What you fail to realise is that humans are the highest level of computers in existence and all other computerised system are designed to mimic humans yet cannot in totality. The genetic codes in man can be likened to the codes which give "life" to computers and keep them running.

DNA is beyond any living human beings understanding or control. We can only theorise as nobody has been able to create a single string of DNA or control it.

I am busy now otherwise I would have loved to show you so much you seem ignorant of.

jonbellion:
fool
The evidence of common descent is not about mere similarity, but rather a very specific pattern of similarity. if they were all specially created for some particular purpose, there's no reason any of them would be similar.

You are wrong sir.
Do all snakes look alike, do they all move the same way? Do they all feed the same way? Do they all kill the same way? If your answer to those questions are all no then ask yourself why they have no specific pattern of similarity despite all being snakes?

Do all insects look alike? Do they all fly or do they all walk on the ground? The ones that fly can they perform the function of the ones that walk and vice versa? How and why did they "choose" to take on specific roles in nature despite all being insects?

Do all fishes look alike? Do they all breed the same way or swim the same? Do they all feed the same way ? Why not?

Do all humans look alike? Do we have twins who are 100% identical " on the outside" yet still unique in the DNA composition? Why?
Do all twins think alike and have equal levels of intelligence? If no, why?

Do all monkeys look alike? Are they all the same size and colour and structure? Do they all make the same sounds and share mannerisms? Why not?

Similarity does not alter purpose. A glass mirror and a shiny steel surface both reflect images very well yet both do not share the same purpose.

Shoes and slippers are for the feet yet are not interchangeable.

The nose and mouth share a function (breathing) yet do not serve the same purpose.

Why do all children not grow up to become footballers or scientists? Why do children at such early ages able to identify their passion and the things they love? Why does going to school not guarantee one of being a genius while so many drop outs became geniuses Afterall we are supposedly all similar so why do we all serve different purposes?

Why do you not reason like every member of your family? Do you all reason alike? Why not?

I deliberately said all I did above to cause your mind to be triggered into doing some proper thinking and not what you have been spoon fed into believing about evolution and genetics. There are too too too many gaps in genetics that voids it.

CatfishBilly:
Like you earlier stated, it's your opinion.

Exactly. Right now the true scientific reason for LGBT is still unknown and have been the "opinions" of many but if you look at it logically and critically you would see the abnormality in it as it does not in any way fit into the human way especially since we are not hermaphroditic by nature but have fully formed individual sexual organs as male or female so it leans more towards a mental disorder.

CatfishBilly:
Wouldn't​ it be normal to be grouped under endocrine disorders since the etiology is hormonal?
There are so many hypothalamic-pituitary-testis/ovary axis sex hormone disorders with mental health implications that are still classified under endocrine​ disorders.
Are there any other endocrine disorders that are classified under mental disorders?

Do not feel bad at the choice of word (mental disorder)

The mind is the seat of decision making so when the hormones are in error it would affect ones decisions mentally or cause a conflict in decisions that's why it's a mental disorder. It does not mean they are insane. Just that they have an impaired decision making process which results in an act known as homosexuality or LGBT.

CatfishBilly:
Fair enough.
So, that we are clear, if it is found that an abnormality in the hypothalamic-pituitary-testis/ovary axis of sex hormones or any misreading of signals, then it's safe to say that it's a mental disorder?

It's a hormonal disorder but the actions are grouped under mental disorder. We know it's a hormonal disorder but due to its many variants it's safer to classify them as mental disorders with sub groupings under non psychotic

onyenze123:
probably.

This is what I found online:

"Three techniques for identifying the cause of, and then eliminating, homosexuality has been described: surgical techniques, use of hormones, and prenatal research. Each derives from the belief that biology is destiny"

This have been tried in the past, it didn't work. something is not right somewhere.

It confirms my theory. However is still work in process.

CatfishBilly:
To the best of my Knowledge​, testosterone and oestrogen have no receptors in the brain, except for feedback inhibition on the pituitary gland, so I don't still see why they should be classified as mental disorders.

I do not have to spell it out for you sir. We both know that without the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), which is produced by the hypothalamus testosterone would not exist. So ultimately the source of testosterone is from your hypothalamus which secretes GnRH. Which was why I said "the brain".

Pastafarian:
the pleasure which they apparently can't derive from straight sex

comprende

How can a "normal" person not derive pleasure from same sex? Anus or vagina which holds better sensory stimulation? For lesbians what's difference between the fingers or tongue of a man or woman? Is the Love Machine better or different from a phallus?

That's why I said "in my opinion " I believe it's all shades of error.

CatfishBilly:
It's your opinion. I respect that.
In the conclusion of the article, it is written that their findings suggest that hormones play a role.
It's not conclusive.
I've also come across research that negates the position of the article, I can't find it now.
So, even if it's because of hormones, that still doesn't make it wrong, if it's wrong, that means all cases of hermaphroditism both true and pseudo should be classified as a mental disorder.

I am also studying it which was why I made bold to say it was my opinion.

If it's found to really be a hormonal disorder then indeed it's a disorder of sorts and those hormones are found in the brain. So no point being angry if referred to as a mental disorder.

Hermaphroditic qualities in animals do not have to mean it must be so with man. So to animals it could be seen to be normal because they need it to survive, Man does not.

onyenze123:
If I remember my biology right, it is called hormonal imbalance. I know pretty well what hormonal imbalance can do.

Now since we NOT fully in charge of how hormones are released in our body, Can we now say homosexuality is abnormal but they (homsexuals) should be treated as 'normal' since they are not in charge of their hormonal system?

Can this be treated medically?

Of course the homosexual as a person is "normal" his actions are not. It could be able to treated in the future since its still being studied and that is if the LGBT community stop their interference.

Pastafarian:
No!

Then how would you know if you would think outside this attraction if per chance you eventually are?

CatfishBilly:
I'm not talking about presence or absence, I'm talking about misinterpreted/misreading signals.
It has been evaluated, that and difference in hormone levels. Nothing was found.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3138231/

My opinion is echoed there. Like I always say, it's my opinion.

Pastafarian:
taking sweet is preference?
preference to what exactly? zobo? biscuits? eggs?

I think you're just trying to force this into your narrative here

a gay is sexually attracted to same sex instead of opposite sex or is more sexually attracted to same sex than opposite sex

there's NO way I can become more attracted to a man more than I do a man "by choice" no matter how long it is I keep taking dicks from men or keep giving dicks to men; all I would need is a simple look at a woman and a reset totally happens

Have you been attracted to a man before sexually?

CatfishBilly:
This your position has been evaluated and researched, no evidence to back it up.

Can you be attracted to anyone without these hormones being activated or present?

Pastafarian:
no matter how I try to "chose" and learn homosexuality by practice I CAN NEVER BE HOOKED because there's NO TENDENCY! none at all

and if it happens that I'm hooked, all I would need is good pu.ssy and I'm back, why? because I would still prefer pussy to dick no matter how many times I receive the dick

do not equate alcohol consumption with "sexual preference"

whoever doesn't drink alcohol, what does he/she prefer alcohol to?

this is preference we are talking about here and your pulling alcohol as examples sounds pretty naive to me as its a totally different thing

gays are attracted to their own sex rather than the opposite sex or more than they do opposite sex, there needs to be attraction, yes some are ready to do it if paid BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE THEM GAY!!!!!, that just shows they can go against their preference for the money just like we have people risking their lives for money

There is always a comparative preference. Not doing it is a preference isn't it? Taking sweets is a preference isn't it?

I also did not say getting paid to have someone stick a phallus in your bum makes you gay....but it's a start. If your will is weak, then it's a start.

onyenze123:
You have a point. Based on this, I can say homosexuality is abnormal. Do you think it is genetic?

Well in both men and women there are hormones that cause attractions called testosterone and oestrogen and by extension, Oxytocin and Vasopressin.

Misinterpreted hormonal signals lead to wrong emotional feelings.

Homosexuality to me is not genetic but a hormonal misinformation or misreading.

Pastafarian:
its very simple, there has to be an attraction in the first place, I have to somehow find a man being naked somehow attractive in a sexual way for me to even think that I have the tendency

I've lived in hostels with fellow "adult" males and at NO time did being attracted to fellow male cross my mind all that happened is us comparing our physique and debating who has the better chances with the "ladies", infact as a confession while I was younger and just reached puberty my dick has this way of "rising" just by seeing an attractive female classmate and I cure the rising by simply removing my gaze and looking at a male classmate instead and it NEVER failed to make my dick lose erection

so what she's saying if I'm being put in an environment where homosexuality is allowed and not frowned upon I can somehow find a man sexually attractive than a woman how

I didn't say that "in totality". An individual's will plays a big role here. There are those who are weak willed so easily get influenced. I have seen people who are not gay say they are ready to take a phallus in the bum and get paid if the offer is right. While there are those who would rather die than do it.

It's all about your will and how strong or weak it is. The whole world does not smoke or take alcoholic beverages and nobody begins taking such without being introduced. If people go ahead to say they cannot do without smoking or alcohol even when it did not come naturally to them how do you think homosexuality is any different?

If they did not find the cigarette or alcohol "attractive " would they partake in it?

What I said was that the chances of becoming or not becoming is hinged on the choice of the individual. Same way people get addicted to masturbation and cannot seem to do without it would they term it as being naturally born into it?

It's something they "chose" to learn and then got hooked.

Before you switch on me and say "Afterall I am a medical person" how then do doctors get sperm samples. Well for me I believe that every sperm cell is precious as without it there can be no human life on earth so if your motive is to make it healthier through the treatment of an infection then good but if the motive is to outrightly waste it then it's your undoing. If you wish to check your fertility then good but if you wish to just pour it away then again it's your undoing. The one you wasted and the time you wasted it may just have been the life of the greatest President that would ever live that you just wasted.

onyenze123:
spacetacular



Good



yes


...





Christians on this thread like analice107 should learn to argue like this, am impressed. That's by the way, back to the discussion.

Some men that are not gay also stick their phallus into the female bum for sexual pleasure. So sticking phallus into the anus is not done by gay people alone

How about lesbians? They don't have phallus to stick anywhere. So you can't conclusively say it is wrong based on this premise.

Please get my point clearly. I mentioned a graduation in sexual experimentation. People tend to experiment and try out new sexual ideas and that's how sexual terms like orgies, threesomes, swinging, sodomy, sexual pleasure through humiliation, etc. came about.

It's not all about sticking something into something. It's simply PERVERSION! when something right is being used for something it's not meant for sexually then does it mean that the recipient or user is using the thing for what it's meant for?

Is the bum meant to receive a phallus? Is the vagina meant to receive a clitoris? Is sexual stimulation proper when a man stimulates another mans phallus or when a lady does same with another lady when you both know that there is a being already in place with everything in him or her to match your sexual organs and physiology. If it was not so then the world would have been either an all woman or an all man or an all hermaphroditic dwelling. Don't you think so?

CatfishBilly:
For people who think that Homosexuality is a mental disorder, I'll just drop this here.
https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/apa-blogs/apa-blog/2016/03/homosexuality-as-a-mental-disorder-simply-not-backed-up-by-science
There is no research whatsoever to back up claims that growing up around homosexuals, could be a trigger, same way that there's no proof that growing up around serial killers, rapists, or schizophrenics could make them develop those traits.
Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in the past doesn't make it one, as newer research came out, it was reclassified. Pre menstrual syndrome and Hysteria were all classified as mental disorders in the past.
I agree 100% with proudafrogal submissions.

No research declassified homosexuality from being a mental illness. A vote did in 1973 under pressure from the gay community.

Can you give me one of such documented researches from APA that supports you?

Do a research into how APA voted to remove homosexuality as a mental illness and it will all make sense to you.

There is no scientific research that prove IT IS NOT A MENTAL ILLNESS and there is NONE that proves it is.

APA never published their so called SCIENTIFIC evidence.

There is ongoing research to determine intrinsic human physiology as causation because modern science is leaning toward prenatal chemistry, genetic and hormonal factors even dominant primitivism as the underlying ‘X” factor for LBG. The old argument of nature vs. nurture is taking a backseat and current thinking is the choice of sexuality is innate to human nature as eye color.

So it's not scientifically proven but they are simply leaning on sexual evolutionary processes ultimately seeing nothing wrong with it if animals such as Lions, Chimpanzee, Bison etc harbour same traits. In a nutshell they are saying "Hey if animals do it and then we find humans doing it then it's alright. Afterall we evolved from same animals so are bound to take along with us some of their sexual behavior".

Most evolutionists see nothing wrong with being LGBT. so those atheists here Who are in support of this are obviously evolutionists.

Pastafarian:
this is Gish Gallop


doesn't negate the fact that there have been great minds who became great despite their being surrounded by smaller minds

doesn't negate the fact that there are lots of doctors who grew up in highly illiterate families and environments

doesn't mean those doctors that came from illiterate and poor families have some psychological things wrong with them

I must've missed the message here, can you be more clear?


this is absolute rubbish, I don't think I can possibly practise sex with a man and enjoy it more than I do with a woman no matter the number of times I would try to give it a try and decieve myself into thinking I'm enjoying it


this is preaching to the choir

Since you know that people "by choice" can either become something else other than what their environment presents and can also "by choice" decide to continue with what their environment presents then where does nature come in?

Also since you cannot enjoy better sex with men and prefer women why then do you call sex with men "Rubbish" especially since you already said you see nothing wrong with it and it is a natural thing.

Do you regard as rubbish people who laugh to loud? Much Louder than you do even though you both laugh out of your mouths? Do you regard as rubbish People who use their noses to sniff faeces instead of roses Afterall the nose is simply doing it's job.

Why is anal intercourse "Rubbish" to you when in the same vein you see nothing wrong with it and some even say they enjoy it.

proudafrogal:
being attracted to same sex is not the same as actually having sex. I know some people under certain circumstances do things they wouldn't do otherwise eg in prisons some men who identify as heterosexuals have sex with their fellow men.
but there are people who are attracted to same sex and they didn't grow up among homosexuals they didn't have those sexual feelings for members of their gender by choice.

Believe it or not as long as you have mind to reason with then EVERYTHING is by choice.

Superpower:
what about gay people that grew up without beign exposed to any form of homosexuality.how did they become gay

Exposure to gay people is not the only trigger. There are other triggers. There are kids who are naturally inquisitive and if not proper guided would extend their inquisitive nature to sexual interests. Today we have those engaged in sodomy, those who only derive sexual pleasure through pain or chocking or even lacerations. It's all due to "pushing the boundaries" of sexual pleasure.

Same way people can move from one pack of cigarettes a day to 8 packs a day. Some move from cigarettes to crack cocaine. It's about pushing the boundaries.

Some women today feel that they no longer can be satisfied by a single phallus so need more so engage in threesomes and multiple penetrations and still feel it's perfectly normal. Would you say those are right?

onyenze123:
Read:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2017/01/i-was-wrong-about-homosexuality/

My position has not been Bible or God based but purely my position so do not try to bring the God factor into it.

The question you should be asking yourself is this, What are the chances that you could become a great mind if you are exposed to people who are also great minds for a major part of your early years?

What are the chances that you would want to become a doctor if you grew up in a family of doctors?

The chances are pretty high yes?

Sexual enjoyment is like an experiment. People discover new techniques to sex everyday which is likened to sexual interests as well. Nobody becomes a full blown sexual expert in the homosexual life. It's a process.

They try something and find they like it and "hey it's not so bad" and they move on to the next step until they become "proudly" gay.

I have seen brothers sexually attracted to their sisters and vice versa but deep down they knew it was not right and willed themselves to come out of such urges.

There is a reason why a female sexual organ is not routed to her anus but to her vagina and there is a reason your faecal matter is routed through your anus. Both play specific roles which cannot be interchanged and indeed must not be.

There is also a reason why men have phallus of different sizes and women have elastic vaginas which are to accommodate what it receives. If the man only had a phallus then it would be OK to stick it anywhere but because the phallus ends with testicles which generate and store sperm and the female has the receptacle for this sperm and what would further process this sperm to become a child then it's foolishness to imagine that the phallus is meant to be stuck into someones bum in the name of sexual preference.

Everything has its match and fit. Ears for hearing, mouth for speaking, etc. Can you will your anus to start speaking like your mouth does simply because in some ways it looks like a mouth?

Superpower:
quote author=spacetacular post=56798579]

Go get yourself some Popcorn then.

The fact is that because Behavioral science has not been accepted as being purely scientific whatever they say is regarded as rubbish especially there are many ways they can use to arrive at their conclusion which unlike pure science requires strict guidelines.

Behavioral science fields like psychology, social neuroscience ethology, and cognitive science are either seen as emerging science or totally "messy" in approach to facts so are often easily disregarded.

However even you know that if you take a human as a baby and place him in the midst of wolves for years he will start acting like wolves "by choice" and not that it came naturally to him as a human.

Same thing goes to homosexuality. are you trying to say growing up around gay people is the cause of homosexuality

No. I am not saying that growing up among gay people can make one gay at all times but it happens often and that in itself proves that homosexuality does not come naturally especially if one can become gay under a controlled environment same way one can become a smoker, an alcoholic, a serial killer, a paedophile etc.

Under the right environment people can become such so how then does natural depravity come in?

proudafrogal:
homosexuality can't be by choice if it was once seen as a mental illness. nobody chooses to be mentally ill

Those engaged in it never knew it to be unnatural so the thought of it being a mental illness was not in their scope of reasoning. They chose to become msm or gay or lesbians etc but also knew they were not born that way but became so somewhere along the journey of their lives.

That point of change was when they made the choice under a certain conditioned mind or environment which even they know.

Pastafarian:
I forsee another popcorn time coming

Go get yourself some Popcorn then.

The fact is that because Behavioral science has not been accepted as being purely scientific whatever they say is regarded as rubbish especially there are many ways they can use to arrive at their conclusion which unlike pure science requires strict guidelines.

Behavioral science fields like psychology, social neuroscience ethology, and cognitive science are either seen as emerging science or totally "messy" in approach to facts so are often easily disregarded.

However even you know that if you take a human as a baby and place him in the midst of wolves for years he will start acting like wolves "by choice" and not that it came naturally to him as a human.

Same thing goes to homosexuality.

Akiintom:
Hey sister bennyann,

You see, when science says something is natural, in this case, homosexuality. It means that research works in biology, psychology and behavioral neuroscience correlate, as far as their independent conclusions are concerned.

Science is not dogmatic or studied by obscurantists. The very reason homosexuality was unlisted as mental condition.

What you Christians are thinking and writing here, in relation to the topic of homosexuality, results from emotional orgies, that's activated by orgasmic intercourse with Yahweh.

Science never said homosexuality is natural. A vote did in 1973.