Villain

I might be missing something but this thread seems to be talking about everything except the origins of logic.

Death is only a negative if you're pro life.

The fact that it happens is irrelevant to your subjective view of it being a negative thing.

Let's be honest, the above are merely your subjective values and there's no reason why others should hold the same.

I'm not suggesting that some people are hard-wired to be capable of changing preference. I'm saying if sexual preference was hard-wired people wouldn't be able to change. I'm not sure what evidence you're talking about but this suggest that you're wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

Yes, I agree only some people do that, but none the less it shows my point that people don't have sexual preference as a purely innate characteristic. If anyone is begging the question it's your position of sexual preference being hard-wired, the above example of SOME people changing preference blows that out of the water. I could choose in either case, the fact that I don't change my choice doesn't mean I have no choice. The choice of preference exists regards of the option that I choose. I also don't need to like any of them in order to choose a preference among them. This is not an example of preference though, you are singling out spinach and saying that you don't like or have some sort of intolerance to it. This is a reason why you would not prefer it to something more desirable but not a reason why you could not make a choice.

What are you trying to infer by capitalising SOME? For the sake of your question let's assume that I can't change the gender that I'm attracted to, how is my original choice invalidated because I still have the same preference? Does choosing oranges every time you're asked to select from apples, oranges and pears mean that you never make a choice? What is causing you to have the 'retching' reaction in the first place?

The idea that a 'homosexual' may want to be heterosexual but is somehow forced to be homosexual makes absolutely no sense. A person either has a preference for homosexuality or heterosexuality or both. It makes no sense to say that a person prefers homosexuality but at the same time prefers heterosexuality but not both. There are multiple options with regards sexual preference as listed in OP. Sexual preference can't be purely innate since people prefer homosexuality at some stage of their lives but later prefer heterosexuality and vice versa. Regardless of this, would you agree that humans are a combination of innate characteristics and externally influences and if so how would anything be considered a choice then? Your canned spinach is a false analogy. A proper analogy would be: which one of these do you prefer - canned spinach, carrots, none, both (spinach and carrots), beef.

The recent topic of 'Is sexual preference a choice?' has spurned some interesting posts. Most people, if not all, who posted were in support that it wasn't a choice, which brings us to this topic. There are different categories available with regards to sexual preference: heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, bisexual, perhaps even bestiality ,but according to that thread, for different reasons, none of them are a choice. If sexual preference isn't a choice what makes something a choice? At what level does an individual qualify for having made a choice?

A religious person is most likely going to have a deity as a first cause, I don't see anything controversial about something like that, if you're not religious then obviously you're not going to give such an idea any value.

The concept of cause is induced, what we know about cause is from our experience of cause. I doubt you have any experience of what God or a spirit or whatever Craig is alluding to, so how can you say what such a thing can or can't cause and what does any of it have to do with logic?

So basically your beef is that he used the word cause in a way that you feel doesn't work.

I'm not sure what logic has to do with the idea of cause, maybe you should elaborate. Secondly, while one might question if there is meaning in the concept you mention, it doesn't follow that since one one can't think of how something might happen, it can't happen.

Which of my multiple personalities are you again ?

Who could possibly say things exist outside them and how would that make them any more or less real?