Homosexuality: Choice and/or genetic?

[david_x]

It's the big three Environment, Genetics, and Will.

 

[ebia]

Can you explain why equality for SOME minorities is ‘legitimate’ but not for others?

I didn't say anything about that either way. All I said was that equality for races isn't derived from the fact that "skin colour is inborn".

 

[ebia]

is there any evidence for these early childhood factors?

I have no idea, but given that's a period when one's synaptic connections are developing rapidly it would be surprising if it wasn't at least a partial factor. Why? Is the possibility contentious in some way? Last time I looked the balance between genetic and other factors was still up in the air so far as science was concerned, though with little doubt both were involved.

 

[blackdragon190]

a rather horrible sin in their eyes.

But we're not talking about sin through the eyes of humans, but sin through the eyes of God.

 

[Jase]

I have no idea, but given that's a period when one's synaptic connections are developing rapidly it would be surprising if it wasn't at least a partial factor. Why? Is the possibility contentious in some way? Last time I looked the balance between genetic and other factors was still up in the air so far as science was concerned, though with little doubt both were involved.

I think there is a fair amount of evidence indicating that hormonal imbalances in prenatal development are a contributing factor to sexual orientation, but based on this poll I would classify that under "genetics". Not sure that's what would be classified as environmental.

 

[The Penitent Man]

I don't think sexual orientation is a choice. People say homosexuality is a choice, but what they fail to realize is that heterosexuality must then also be a choice. I'm a hetero male. I do not remember giving my sexual orientation any conscious thought. It just happened ...

Behaviour is a choice.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I didn't say anything about that either way. All I said was that equality for races isn't derived from the fact that "skin colour is inborn".

Then from what is the inequality of races that so many have championed (and still do)

 

[BigBadWlf]

I have no idea, but given that's a period when one's synaptic connections are developing rapidly it would be surprising if it wasn't at least a partial factor. Why? Is the possibility contentious in some way? Last time I looked the balance between genetic and other factors was still up in the air so far as science was concerned, though with little doubt both were involved.

So you are saying that there is some early childhood factor of which there is no evidence and somehow no one has any idea what such factor(s) might be

 

[BigBadWlf]

It's the big three Environment, Genetics, and Will.

There is plenty of evidence that sexual orientation is inborn. What evidence is there for environment.

And what is this will you speak of?

 

[BigBadWlf]

But we're not talking about sin through the eyes of humans, but sin through the eyes of God.

For centuries racists have happily cited God’s word to support the fact that blacks acting as if they were the social equals to whites was a sin.

How is this different from claiming that the “sin” of homosexuality” is wrong?

 

[brightmorningstar]

The discussion over genetics is pointless as God's purposes are undisputable the Bible is clear that God's pruposes are for man and woman and same sex relations are error. There are no real debates on it theologically as there is just belief in the word of God or disbelief.
The advance of same sex relations has however benefited from the unproven claim that people are born having a same sex attraction. Sadly this is a real deception, as on the one hand it cant be proved and on the other there are people and lives which can testify to being able to change and not being able to change. For the disciple and believer in Jesus Christ there is no option, God created male and female and same sex is error.

 

[ebia]

Then from what is the inequality of races that so many have championed (and still do)

Sorry - I don't understand the question.

So you are saying that there is some early childhood factor of which there is no evidence and somehow no one has any idea what such factor(s) might be

If you find that completely inplausible don't worry about it. It's not directly relevant to anything.

There is plenty of evidence that sexual orientation is inborn. What evidence is there for environment.

Assuming environment includes the uterine environment, then my understanding was 'quite a lot'.

 

[ebia]

For centuries racists have happily cited God’s word to support the fact that blacks acting as if they were the social equals to whites was a sin.

How is this different from claiming that the “sin” of homosexuality” is wrong?

For any given moral question there would seem to be three possibilities:
1. One ignores what scripture has to say and forms one opinion from elsewhere.
2. One forms one's opinion from elsewhere and then manipulates scripture to support it.
3. One genuinely tries to allow God, through scripture, to correct our tendancy to bad choices.

The danger of the first position is that it completely ignores the biblical metanarrative that makes it clear that we need God's corrective. The danger of the 3rd position is that its very easy to slide into the second without noticing. Anyone taking the first position needs to ask themselves some serious questions about where God's corrective would come from if they were mistake. Anyone who thinks they are taking the 3rd position needs to ask themselves some serious questions about where God's corrective would come from if they slid into the 2nd.

Anyone knowingly taking the 2nd needs their .... kicked.

 

[seashale76]

It is likely a combination of nature and nurture which makes one inclined to prefer one sex over another physically. However, choosing to act on that inclination is certainly a choice. It is our choices which define us.

 

[ebia]

I think there is a fair amount of evidence indicating that hormonal imbalances in prenatal development are a contributing factor to sexual orientation, but based on this poll I would classify that under "genetics". Not sure that's what would be classified as environmental.

"environment" is a more accurate classification for that than "genetics" which it simply isn't.

 

[BigBadWlf]

The discussion over genetics is pointless as God's purposes are undisputable the Bible is clear that God's pruposes are for man and woman and same sex relations are error.

That is an opinion.

An identical opinion has (and is) still held by those opposed to racial equality as it is against God’s purposes which are indisputable, the bible being clear that God’s purposes are for people with dark skin to be socially inferior to people with white skin.

Yet today this opinion is denounced by many while they still embrace the same means of condemnation for other minorities…why is that?

There are no real debates on it theologically as there is just belief in the word of God or disbelief.

There is quite a bit of debate. It is always interesting that those who demand a literal interoperation of the bible are the first to reject that literal interpretation on secular orientation because it does not support their views

The advance of same sex relations has however benefited from the unproven claim that people are born having a same sex attraction. Sadly this is a real deception, as on the one hand it cant be proved

The weight of evidence says that homosexuality is inborn…just like skin color.

Once again if you would like to claim that homosexuality is a choice or the result of some social factor or some familial factor then please reference legitimately published studies to back up these claims.
(I ask this all the time form those claiming sexual orientation has some other source but to date not one single person had provided actual evidence to show some alternative origin for homosexuality)

and on the other there are people and lives which can testify to being able to change and not being able to change.

and evidence that any adult has ever changed from homosexual to heterosexual?…well there isn’t any

For the disciple and believer in Jesus Christ there is no option, God created male and female and same sex is error.

"You can tell you have made God in your image when it turns out He hates all the samepeople you do." Ann Lamott

 

[BigBadWlf]

Sorry - I don't understand the question.

You (or possible steelbreeze) have said/implied that inequity isn’t biological
yet for centuries whites considered non-whites inferior (with biblical support). The only difference between non-whites and whites is biological…so where does this inequity stem from?

At the same token gays and lesbians are treated as social inferiors (undeserving of the same rights and deserving of condemnation form ‘good’ Christians) The only difference between heterosexual and homosexuals that can be shown is biological… so where does this inequity stem from?

If you find that completely inplausible don't worry about it. It's not directly relevant to anything.

No I am pointing out the fact that this claim has nothing at all to support it

And the origin of sexual orientation is relevant.

If homosexuality is inborn (just like skin color) then how are Christians able to justify prejudice and discrimination against gays and lesbians without doing exactly what racists do? (and remember racists do not hate black people because of their skin color, rather they take issue with non-whites rejecting God and his law and acting as social equals to whites.

Assuming environment includes the uterine environment, then my understanding was 'quite a lot'.

Which would make sexual orientation inborn…just like skin color

 

[BigBadWlf]

For any given moral question there would seem to be three possibilities:
1. One ignores what scripture has to say and forms one opinion from elsewhere.
2. One forms one's opinion from elsewhere and then manipulates scripture to support it.
3. One genuinely tries to allow God, through scripture, to correct our tendancy to bad choices.

The danger of the first position is that it completely ignores the biblical metanarrative that makes it clear that we need God's corrective. The danger of the 3rd position is that its very easy to slide into the second without noticing. Anyone taking the first position needs to ask themselves some serious questions about where God's corrective would come from if they were mistake. Anyone who thinks they are taking the 3rd position needs to ask themselves some serious questions about where God's corrective would come from if they slid into the 2nd.

Anyone knowingly taking the 2nd needs their .... kicked.

You didn’t answer the question:
For centuries racists have happily cited God’s word to support the fact that blacks acting as if they were the social equals to whites was a sin.

How is this different from claiming that the “sin” of homosexuality” is wrong?

 

[david_x]

For centuries racists have happily cited God’s word to support the fact that blacks acting as if they were the social equals to whites was a sin.

How is this different from claiming that the “sin” of homosexuality” is wrong?

Converse fallacy of accident

Because they were wrong to translate it this way at this time, they are always wrong to translate it. This is obviously false, or science would fall flat on it's face. Thomas Edison would have had some real issues as well.

Bottom line, this is a separate case and it has to be disproved with this "you messed up before" argument.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Converse fallacy of accident

Because they were wrong to translate it this way at this time, they are always wrong to translate it. This is obviously false, or science would fall flat on it's face. Thomas Edison would have had some real issues as well.

Bottom line, this is a separate case and it has to be disproved with this "you messed up before" argument.

So when some Christians choose to interpret the bible to justify their own personal prejudices against minority A they are wrong to do so…

But when some Christians choose to interpret the bible to justify their own personal prejudices against minority B they are OK in doing exactly the same thing.