• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Biblical support for gay sex? A simple question

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
41
Richmond
Visit site
✟25,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
My homosexual feelings feel like real feelings to me.

My sexual urges feel real to me but do I have to be a lustful fornicator?

How do you know that the gods of Olympus aren't the true gods
They are mere fantasies made by ancient civilizations---mere stories.

and your god the false one? Because he says so? Not a good enough reason.

Whats wrong when my Creator says no? I'm just pottery and he is the potter.

Homosexuals feel love for each other, not just lust.
Greek definition would define homosexuality as eros and agape, you may unconditionally love your partners, but the sexual attraction would be defined as eros love, which is sinful.

"Counterfeit wheat"?
You love the idea of other people burning for their 'sins', don't you?
no, i prefer not to get into other peoples lives, but were talking about how the bible labels homosexuality a sin and certain people on here who don't believe in god like yourself believe they must be "good" people, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brennin
Upvote 0

D.W.Washburn

The Artist Formerly Known as RegularGuy
Mar 31, 2007
3,541
1,184
United States
✟32,408.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I don't support gay marriage at all.

Perhaps not, but you are a relativist. You dismiss the rules concerning slavery in the Bible as a product of their time and culture.

Why then do you insist that the rules concerning homosexual behavior still apply today?
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
41
Richmond
Visit site
✟25,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Perhaps not, but you are a relativist. You dismiss the rules concerning slavery in the Bible as a product of their time and culture.

Why then do you insist that the rules concerning homosexual behavior still apply today?

I didn't say I support slavery---but then again, it was dealing with matters concerning those times. Does it matter if slavery exists in old testament or not? I guess that makes God and the Israelites a bunch of bad guys now, doesn't it. At least there were rules governing slavery in the Law of Moses.

Did God institute slavery? Did God institute divorce? God didn't institute divorce, as it was not always that way from the beginning. Moses simply gave jews, in the law, a certificate because of their hardness of heart for one another.

Likewise, jews supported slavery and thus, Moses had rules governing slavery---for example, jews should free slaves after a certain number of years, whereas, I do not find evidence elsewhere supporting this.

Furthermore, christianity took it further by dealing with the situation if slavery happened to exist. Have you read philimon?

I am not exactly a relativist but taking into account genesis, the time of the law, new covenant times, and modern times. God didn't institute slavery, yet it exists. God didn't institute polygamy, yet it exists. You have to ask yourself these sorts of questions. You can't just look at the bible in black and white and suggest to yourself God supported it because its in there. One could take your view, look at the bible, and suggest God supports divorce because the Jews could do it! But that is not the case, because God didn't create divorce and Jesus didn't exactly condone it, suggesting it was not always like that from the beginning.
 
Upvote 0

D.W.Washburn

The Artist Formerly Known as RegularGuy
Mar 31, 2007
3,541
1,184
United States
✟32,408.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Did God institute slavery? Did God institute divorce? God didn't institute divorce, as it was not always that way from the beginning. Moses simply gave jews, in the law, a certificate because of their hardness of heart for one another.

Likewise, jews supported slavery and thus, Moses had rules governing slavery---for example, jews should free slaves after a certain number of years, whereas, I do not find evidence elsewhere supporting this.

Furthermore, christianity took it further by dealing with the situation if slavery happened to exist. Have you read philimon?

You mean the letter that Paul wrote to a slaveholder when he returned Onesimus, a runaway slave, knowing full well that said slaveholder might punish Onesimus severely? Yes, I've read it many times. It is a masterpiece of understatement. While the Apostle never advocated for the abolition of slavery, he did promote a certain kindness in the treatment of slaves...at least Christian slaves. This does not, of course, make the institution of slavery just.

But this is a rabbit trail, as you well know. I've been asking you about slavery, really, to get at your use of the Scriptures, which you addressed when you said:


I am not exactly a relativist but taking into account genesis, the time of the law, new covenant times, and modern times. God didn't institute slavery, yet it exists. God didn't institute polygamy, yet it exists. You have to ask yourself these sorts of questions. You can't just look at the bible in black and white and suggest to yourself God supported it because its in there. One could take your view, look at the bible, and suggest God supports divorce because the Jews could do it! But that is not the case, because God didn't create divorce and Jesus didn't exactly condone it, suggesting it was not always like that from the beginning.

If I take you correctly, you are saying that context is important in understanding the Scriptures. I agree. I just disagree with your conclusions about homosexuality.

Anyway, I'll be gone for a few days. Everybody play nice while I'm away!
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
41
Richmond
Visit site
✟25,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
This does not, of course, make the institution of slavery just.

Perhaps there is a difference between ancient and modern slavery? I am aware that slaves sometimes were treated bad, sometimes were treated good. I recall some jews in the bible were considered slaves yet were put into high positions within authority and given freedoms. Once again I will have to look into this issue.

But this is a rabbit trail, as you well know. I've been asking you about slavery, really, to get at your use of the Scriptures, which you addressed when you said:

To get my use of the scriputures on slavery, you have to let me look into the scripture and commentaries about the scriptures first before I get into it.

My personal opinion is I can't give you much of an answer regarding it except I know God didn't exactly institute it, although I know that Adam is a creature created by God to tend the garden of Eden and name all the animals. Apostles often call themselves bond-servents of God who do his will. God is often called a christians master---even their king.

I think you don't fully grasp exactly what biblical slavery is and your thinking from a modern point-of-view or something along the lines of black people picking cotton for their white overlords.

If I take you correctly, you are saying that context is important in understanding the Scriptures. I agree. I just disagree with your conclusions about homosexuality.

Conclusions? I argue pornea in greek includes beastiality, fornication and homosexuality. I also argue from a jewish perspective that homosexuality is going to be considered fornication anyway. So that is what my argument comes down to. Jesus was a hebrew and homosexuality was a sin in hebrew culture. Christianity is an export from hebrew culture. Obviously homosexuality is going to be considered a sin.

Sorry my gentile friend, but just because you like the ways of the gentiles doesn't mean you should do them.
 
Upvote 0

timamin

Realigning with God
Sep 21, 2008
8
2
41
✟22,634.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Leviticus 18:22 'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It
is an abomination.
NTB STR
Leviticus 18:23 'Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile
yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to
mate with it. It is perversion.

Leviticus 20:13 'If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be
put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not
inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor
sodomites,
1 Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
I didn't say I support slavery---but then again, it was dealing with matters concerning those times. Does it matter if slavery exists in old testament or not? I guess that makes God and the Israelites a bunch of bad guys now, doesn't it. At least there were rules governing slavery in the Law of Moses.
Which means God supported the institution of slavery.
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
Thats very ignorant of you---there is something concerning that called eugenics, which resulted in darwinism, the holocaust, and modern science today when it comes to population controls.
Red Herring

You claimed that since there in no “gay gene” sexual orientation cannot be inborn. Your argument sadly also applies to race. Confronting the flaw in your argument has nothing to do with eugenics nor does eugenics have anything to do with the topic at hand.



I recall somewhere that genes also exist for skin color. Black traits are often dominant in the gene pool.
Your lack of knowledge about genetics is appalling



That is a speculation in regards to homosexuality. People are not gay from birth.

Can you provide actual evidence to support you claim that sexual orientation is not in-born?





Homosexuality is not genetic but a sociological development over a person's lifetime.
Can you provide actual evidence to support this claim?
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
Conclusions? I argue pornea in greek includes beastiality, fornication and homosexuality. I also argue from a jewish perspective that homosexuality is going to be considered fornication anyway. So that is what my argument comes down to. Jesus was a hebrew and homosexuality was a sin in hebrew culture. Christianity is an export from hebrew culture. Obviously homosexuality is going to be considered a sin.

Sorry my gentile friend, but just because you like the ways of the gentiles doesn't mean you should do them.
And I could argue that Wal-Mart uses mind control devices on people shopping there. I wouldn’t be correct and I couldn’t actually present evidence…but I could argue that
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
Leviticus 18:22 'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It
is an abomination.
NTB STR
Leviticus 18:23 'Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile
yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to
mate with it. It is perversion.

Leviticus 20:13 'If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be
put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Do you follow all the laws of Leviticus?

I doubt it
Do you cut your hair?
Wear clothing made of different fabrics?
Allow people with glasses to attend your church?
Keep slaves?
Eat shellfish?

It is interesting how those who don’t follow the laws of Leviticus are so willing to inflict cherry picked verses out of this book to attack a minority and defend prejudice and discrimination.


Even though you personally do not follow the many laws of Leviticus yet you do not seem to have a problem using Leviticus laws to attack a minority. Why?

Using Leviticus to justify prejudice and discrimination has many issues

First – we live under a new covenant. Jesus did away with the law and put in place his commandment
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. John 13:34

Promoting or justifying discrimination against a minority is not loving. And no matter how one tries to twist the justification it is an act of hate.

If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 1 John 4:20


A further problem is one of translation. Leviticus has many injunctions against engaging in sex – specifically carnal knowledge. However carnal knowledge is not used in either Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the word that is used is shakab. It is popularly translated to mean to lay (lie) with but there is a problem with that translation. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.


Shakab Means "Rape" not copulation, not carnal relations…rape.


Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex, in the way that a man is allowed to force sex upon his wife. In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an abomination.
A man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.



1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not
inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor
sodomites,
1 Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor

revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
The issue here is the mangled translation of the word arsenokoites to mean homosexual.
It is claimed time and again by those seeking to justify personal prejudice that the word obviously means homosexual, but there is no evidence to support this assumption.

For most of the history of Christianity arsenokoites was translated to mean masturbation, the most recent bible to make this translation was 1968. It is only in the last fifty years or so that a shift in the translation of this word to mean homosexual has been seen.

The defense for claiming that arsenokoites means homosexual is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is difficult no matter what language one uses. One can’t just define a compound word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the meaning of understand has anything to do with standing or being under anything. This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to mean a man who sits in a chair. Therefore all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy or even the bed making industry.


Some claim that Paul coined this word by combining two words from the Septuagint because his audience would have no reference or understanding of homosexuality. The ancient Greeks clearly understood the concept and didn’t have to make up words to discuss it either. That aside…the real trouble occurs when one looks at the fact that the words arsen and koite ALSO appear in Leviticus 20:11, Leviticus 20:12, Leviticus 20:15 and a few other places, but none of them are connected to homosexuality. If you're going to use this justification to "prove" arsenokoites means homosexual when used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 then you pretty much have to ignore all the other appearances of arsen and koite and the fact that they were referring to completely separate things

So put all together "kai meta arsenos ou koimêthêsê koitên gynaikos bdelygma gar estin"
is saying nothing about homosexuality or even male to male sex. rather it is condemning adultery, specifically adultery where one of the participants is a sanctified man and then only during the time he is sanctified. Notice there is no prohibition of the sanctified man having intercourse with his wife or wives or even his concubines, rather it is about bringing another woman into the marriage bed during the time he is sanctified, a woman his is not and cannot be married to. And even then that condemnation is limited to changing his status to one of ritual impurity, not sin or even the lesser no-no abomination.

Writers contemporary to Paul used arsenokoites but rarely. Those writings do not support the translation of arsenokoites to mean homosexual either. What does become clear from those writings is that the word means a man who sexually exploits women for money – IE a man who employees prostitutes.
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
39
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Homosexuality is a behavioural trait, and like ALL behavioural traits, there is a genetic component and a socialised component... however, for some people, the genetic tendency is so significant that there is no question of their ever being anything but homosexual, while for others, it is merely a small predisposition.

Any number of articles on the topic have been posted in reputable, rigorous scientific journals.
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
41
Richmond
Visit site
✟25,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Well no left-handed gene exists…
No black gene exists
No Hispanic gene exists
No freckle gene exists
No blond gene exists

So things like skin color can’t be inborn…right?

Red Herring

You claimed that since there in no “gay gene” sexual orientation cannot be inborn. Your argument sadly also applies to race. Confronting the flaw in your argument has nothing to do with eugenics nor does eugenics have anything to do with the topic at hand.




Your lack of knowledge about genetics is appalling





Can you provide actual evidence to support you claim that sexual orientation is not in-born?





Can you provide actual evidence to support this claim?

Your right, I lack knowledge about genetics, but it doesn't take rocket science to figure out it out.

I base my belief that homosexuality is a sin because I accept God's worth by faith and based on the definition of the greek word pornea, also I deduce my reasoning on hebrew culture, which is good enough for me. But if you want to reject God's word for man's word, thats your choice. You can try to argue from a worldly point of view. But hey, if were going to argue from a secular point of view, you might as well promote athiesm, fornications, internet piracy, and buddhism and yoga.

1 Black women + 1 Black man = 1 black child

1 Black women + 1 white man = mixed traits between asian and black.

1 White women + 1 white man = 1 white child.

1 asian women + 1 black man = mixed traits between asian and black.

1 black man + 1 black women (who has one white ancestor) = potentially mixed traits or dominate black traits. (I saw on the show Maury where a black couple went on the show to have a dna test because their child was white and the man thought his wife cheated on him, but it turns out the white child belonged to both the black man and the black women).

It doesn't get any more clear than that.

You can even pick and mix it up with size, eye color, and even hair color, as well as diseases. But wait, homosexuality isn't classified as a disease anymore, so that would be out of the picture.

So how do you classify homosexuality? Would you classify it as an interest? Ok then, lets be fair and classify it with other "interests".

If my mother likes painting and my dad doesn't, but rather likes porn, is there a chance I can inherit both their interests and become someone who enjoys both porn and art? Perhaps I would inherit neither of them, or one or the other?

What about video games? Can a person inherit that too. What about beliefs in religion? Perhaps christianity, buddhism, and islam are genetic because its hard to give them up?

What about social lifestyles or beliefs and feelings? Do I inherit my dad's anger problem or is that a result of something else? Does someone someone inherit fornication because their dad has two wives and they have a lot of harlots in their family?

Perhaps I can inherit other social things like lust, and love for money, and gluttony. Oh wait, children are that way because of how they interact with their parents and others around them.

The only thing genetic I can find all in common with this is that we inherit sin from Adam, therefore, we tend to develop ourselves in sinfully. Lying is not exactly considered genetic, yet everyone does it! People often find it difficult to live without it! Yet no "liar gene" exists.


^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^


Before you give me the "no gay gene exists but it must be there!" talk, you need to think out of your fantasy box and consider homosexuality just a social phenomenon.
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
41
Richmond
Visit site
✟25,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
"That would be nice, except race is not genetic, since no black gene exists."

Genetic factors may include a complex of genes, no one gene in that complex being essential in determining the quality that they together determine. From a purely genetic point of view it is said that there is no such thing as race, since samples all of the alleles (variant genes) that determine "racial" characteristics can be found in populations of members of each of the races. There are no alleles that show up only among "blacks"; no alleles that show up only among Asians; no alleles that show up only among Western Europeans, etc.

And yet, a black couple will give birth to a black baby, an Asian couple to an Asian baby, etc. It is because enough of the alleles that proportionately show up more in that population than in any other population have been inherited.

Similarly, a single, identifiable "gay gene" is not necessary to show that homosexuality has a genetic component. It is enough to show that it runs in families, even after adjusting for "nurture" factors such as religion and culture, etc. There have been enough studies of siblings raised in separate adoptive families to strongly indicate a genetic factor as a predisposition toward a gay orientation. As certainly as science can "prove" anything genetic that is not caused by a single defective gene, it has proven a genetic basis for homosexuality.

From the way you think I guess I can argue no "liar gene" exists either but can be accounted for a combination of genes. But that would justify lying because your "born" that way and can't change yourself.

Lieing is something children seem to be "born" with because it happens at a very early age as they develop. Perhaps that is proof it is genetic too. Can you imagine people justifying their lies simply because they were "born" that way. Oh boy, that would be quite a thing!

But the truth is, people lie because they are born sinners. Just because some liers cannot change their ways and cannot stop practicing and loving it even if they try does not mean they can excuse themselves from it.

I know some of you will take what I said, twist it around and argue lieing is obviously wrong because it hurts others, but hey, I can turn your argument around and say it also protects others from harm. But regardless, God's word calls lieing evil and even says those who practice it put themselves in danger of going to hell.

The thing about homosexuality is the apostles and others charge that it is wrong simply because it isn't natural and it is a defilement of your body, which is God's temple. Even so, sexual immorality is so sinful that it may invoke God's judgement upon those who practice it. Through out the bible sexual immorality is called sinful and is one of the few things the apostles charged gentiles abstain from if they put their faith in Jesus Christ. (animals are not good examples because they fornicate, do not become married, and often at times practice polygamy). So you make up your mind. You can follow the ways of the world and trust man's word more because you don't like what you hear about the bible (for those who want to rely on something else other than "bible says" because of their lack in faith) or you can put your faith in Jesus and do what the word says (James Chapter 1).
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
41
Richmond
Visit site
✟25,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Before you dismiss the cumulative consensus of hundreds of highly educated scientists and biologists, I suggest that you do a lot of reading to find out what modern cosmology and modern biology actually say. Otherwise you will just come across as breathtakingly stupid, which I am sure is not the case.

My girlfriend takes biochemistry and is in university and is against homosexuality.
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
41
Richmond
Visit site
✟25,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
And I could argue that Wal-Mart uses mind control devices on people shopping there. I wouldn’t be correct and I couldn’t actually present evidence…but I could argue that

Yes *rolls eyes* they use mind control devices and the bat human is alive too and Jay Leno is an alien.

Also does the "God of Israel" mean anything to you? Does "do not follow the way of the gentiles" mean anything to you? Or is world opinion more important than what the "bible sayz"?
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
41
Richmond
Visit site
✟25,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Furthermore Regularguy,

I did do some research on slavery during the biblical times and it appears as if it can be justified, although it comes down to how people were treated more than anything.

I know servitude is justifyable.

Furthermore, from what I gathered I noticed that people often sold themselves into slavery willingly as a result of poverty or because they were humbled and afraid of being considered an enemy, or because they took up the trade themselves.

I also noticed through out the bible God constantly reminded Israel that He freed them from "the land of slavery" which was Egypt.

Slavery/servitude still exists today. Someone sells themselves to a family and they serve and take care of them and give up free time and some rights. But at the same time the family feeds them, gives them a place to stay and takes care of them (usually in love).

Joseph was pharoah's slave and was treated well, being put into a position of authority. Christians are considered servents/slaves of God (with God being our Master). We do not our will but God's will. I guess you find a problem with that too?

In the book of daniel we find certain jews being slaves and also being put in high positions of authority.

Those are some examples.

I think what your really against is cruel and harsh treatment of individuals.

Because if someone willingly sells themselves and is treated well, does it matter if the slavery is a practice or not?
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
39
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Homosexuality is a behavioural trait, and like ALL behavioural traits, there is a genetic component and a socialised component... however, for some people, the genetic tendency is so significant that there is no question of their ever being anything but homosexual, while for others, it is merely a small predisposition.

Any number of articles on the topic have been posted in reputable, rigorous scientific journals.

Bump.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Your right, I lack knowledge about genetics, but it doesn't take rocket science to figure out it out.

I base my belief that homosexuality is a sin because I accept God's worth by faith and based on the definition of the greek word pornea, also I deduce my reasoning on hebrew culture, which is good enough for me. But if you want to reject God's word for man's word, thats your choice. You can try to argue from a worldly point of view. But hey, if were going to argue from a secular point of view, you might as well promote athiesm, fornications, internet piracy, and buddhism and yoga.

1 Black women + 1 Black man = 1 black child

1 Black women + 1 white man = mixed traits between asian and black.

1 White women + 1 white man = 1 white child.

1 asian women + 1 black man = mixed traits between asian and black.

1 black man + 1 black women (who has one white ancestor) = potentially mixed traits or dominate black traits. (I saw on the show Maury where a black couple went on the show to have a dna test because their child was white and the man thought his wife cheated on him, but it turns out the white child belonged to both the black man and the black women).

It doesn't get any more clear than that.

You can even pick and mix it up with size, eye color, and even hair color, as well as diseases. But wait, homosexuality isn't classified as a disease anymore, so that would be out of the picture.

So how do you classify homosexuality? Would you classify it as an interest? Ok then, lets be fair and classify it with other "interests".

If my mother likes painting and my dad doesn't, but rather likes porn, is there a chance I can inherit both their interests and become someone who enjoys both porn and art? Perhaps I would inherit neither of them, or one or the other?

What about video games? Can a person inherit that too. What about beliefs in religion? Perhaps christianity, buddhism, and islam are genetic because its hard to give them up?

What about social lifestyles or beliefs and feelings? Do I inherit my dad's anger problem or is that a result of something else? Does someone someone inherit fornication because their dad has two wives and they have a lot of harlots in their family?

Perhaps I can inherit other social things like lust, and love for money, and gluttony. Oh wait, children are that way because of how they interact with their parents and others around them.

The only thing genetic I can find all in common with this is that we inherit sin from Adam, therefore, we tend to develop ourselves in sinfully. Lying is not exactly considered genetic, yet everyone does it! People often find it difficult to live without it! Yet no "liar gene" exists.


^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^


Before you give me the "no gay gene exists but it must be there!" talk, you need to think out of your fantasy box and consider homosexuality just a social phenomenon.

And I'm glad you admit that you lack knowledge about genetics. But you have missed my mini "Genetics for Dummies" lesson that I posted when you first claimed "That would be nice, except race is not genetic, since no gay gene exists."

"That would be nice, except homosexuality is not genetic, since no black gene exists."

Edited to note that you "addressed" my previous post while I was composing this one

Genetic factors may include a complex of genes, no one gene in that complex being essential in determining the quality that they together determine. From a purely genetic point of view it is said that there is no such thing as race, since samples all of the alleles (variant genes) that determine "racial" characteristics can be found in populations of members of each of the races, and no population has alleles that do not show up in the all of the other populations. There are no alleles that show up only among "blacks"; no alleles that show up only among Asians; no alleles that show up only among Western Europeans, etc.

And yet, a black couple will give birth to a black baby, an Asian couple to an Asian baby, etc. It is because enough of the alleles that proportionately show up more in that population than in any other population have been inherited.

Similarly, a single, identifiable "gay gene" is not necessary to show that homosexuality has a genetic component. It is enough to show that it runs in families, even after adjusting for "nurture" factors such as religion and culture, etc. There have been enough studies of siblings raised in separate adoptive families to strongly indicate a genetic factor as a predisposition toward a gay orientation. As certainly as science can "prove" anything genetic that is not caused by a single defective gene, it has proven a genetic basis for homosexuality.

In fact, many studies seem to say that of many things that are undeniably genetic, things such as eye color, hair color, height, etc. there is only thing that occurs more consistently among identical twins raised apart than their orientation, and that is their eye color. So, in a sense, orientation is even more genetic than race.

Edited to add (concerning your "liar gene" contention): actually yes, we have be (take your pick) shaped by evolution/intellegently designed to seek what seems "good," and avoiding punishment seems good, so you could say that we have a "genetic predisposition" toward lying when it will help to avoid unpleasantness. The difference is that as we mature, we learn, through a more enlightened self-interest that all too often our lies will come back to us and the unpleasantness involved will only multiply. Then that same genetic predisposition becomes a basis for greater honesty. It is the same impulse for the same goal, it is our understanding that has changed. There is no way that any amount of preaching will change either the genetic impulse or the genetic goal of orientation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
Your right, I lack knowledge about genetics, but it doesn't take rocket science to figure out it out.
Yet you make elementary mistakes in your claims about genetics

I base my belief that homosexuality is a sin because I accept God's worth by faith and based on the definition of the greek word pornea, also I deduce my reasoning on hebrew culture, which is good enough for me. But if you want to reject God's word for man's word, thats your choice. You can try to argue from a worldly point of view. But hey, if were going to argue from a secular point of view, you might as well promote athiesm, fornications, internet piracy, and buddhism and yoga.

1 Black women + 1 Black man = 1 black child

1 Black women + 1 white man = mixed traits between asian and black.

1 White women + 1 white man = 1 white child.

1 asian women + 1 black man = mixed traits between asian and black.

1 black man + 1 black women (who has one white ancestor) = potentially mixed traits or dominate black traits. (I saw on the show Maury where a black couple went on the show to have a dna test because their child was white and the man thought his wife cheated on him, but it turns out the white child belonged to both the black man and the black women).

It doesn't get any more clear than that.
Clear as mud

You can even pick and mix it up with size, eye color, and even hair color, as well as diseases. But wait, homosexuality isn't classified as a disease anymore, so that would be out of the picture.

So how do you classify homosexuality? Would you classify it as an interest? Ok then, lets be fair and classify it with other "interests".
this same tactic is and has been used by racists for generation. A racist will compare a person of color or being a person of color to a disese to try to justify their own petty personal prejudices and hatreds.




What about social lifestyles or beliefs and feelings? Do I inherit my dad's anger problem or is that a result of something else? Does someone someone inherit fornication because their dad has two wives and they have a lot of harlots in their family?

Perhaps I can inherit other social things like lust, and love for money, and gluttony. Oh wait, children are that way because of how they interact with their parents and others around them.
None of which has anything to do with the topic


The only thing genetic I can find all in common with this is that we inherit sin from Adam, therefore, we tend to develop ourselves in sinfully. Lying is not exactly considered genetic, yet everyone does it! People often find it difficult to live without it! Yet no "liar gene" exists.


^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^
Just like there is no black gene…so according to you race cannot be inborn


Before you give me the "no gay gene exists but it must be there!" talk, you need to think out of your fantasy box and consider homosexuality just a social phenomenon.
To do so would be dishonest. I remind you that you are the one making claims abotu sexual orientation and genes

On the topic of honesty can you be honest enough to provide actual evidence that sexual orientation is not inborn?
 
Upvote 0