Homosexuality: Choice and/or genetic?

HaloHope · Dec 5, 2009

Voted both, I think homosexuality can be a mix of genetics and environment and also purely genetics. I'm not entirely sure what caused my own sexuality, but I know for sure ive always been attracted to the same-sex.

Of course acting on sexual attraction is a choice but in the end I believe that there is no moral issue behind entering into a same-sex relationship with the person you wish to spend the rest of your life with if you are homosexual.

david_x · Dec 5, 2009

BigBadWlf said:
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.

I didn't say that, did I.

OllieFranz · Dec 5, 2009

david_x said:
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.

It would be if he had claimed that the fact that racists "misinterpreted" or twisted the Scriptures proves that the anti-gays are "misinterpreting" and twisting them as well.

But what he does claim is that the arguments that the anti-gays use have exactly the same logical form as the arguments that the racists used. That being the case, it is possible and even likely -- but not proven -- that the anti-gays are "misinterpreting" and twisting the Scriptures in the same way that the racists did.

The proper response is not to attack a strawman of his logical inferences, but to provide evidence, if such can be found, that the anti-gays' position is not a "misinterpretation" and twisting of the Scriptures.

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

But since (in your words) "you messed up before," that is all the more reason to test your claims now and make sure that you are not falling into the same trap.

Unfortunately, most anti-gays are so sure of themselves that they never stop to examine the evidence or their own motives. They are blind to these issues, and lead others blindly into the pit.

ChristFollower2009 · Dec 5, 2009

Well, one definitely does not choose to be homosexual so I voted that it is genetic.

david_x · Dec 5, 2009

OllieFranz said:
It would be if he had claimed that the fact that racists "misinterpreted" or twisted the Scriptures proves that the anti-gays are "misinterpreting" and twisting them as well.

But what he does claim is that the arguments that the anti-gays use have exactly the same logical form as the arguments that the racists used. That being the case, it is possible and even likely -- but not proven -- that the anti-gays are "misinterpreting" and twisting the Scriptures in the same way that the racists did.

The proper response is not to attack a strawman of his logical inferences, but to provide evidence, if such can be found, that the anti-gays' position is not a "misinterpretation" and twisting of the Scriptures.

I forgot I was in the Christian only section for a minute there, Bible is in on this one.

But since (in your words) "you messed up before," that is all the more reason to test your claims now and make sure that you are not falling into the same trap.

Unfortunately, most anti-gays are so sure of themselves that they never stop to examine the evidence or their own motives. They are blind to these issues, and lead others blindly into the pit.

I assure you I am cautious.

ebia · Dec 5, 2009

BigBadWlf said:
You (or possible steelbreeze) have said/implied that inequity isnt biological

No, what I said was that the reason we treat people of differing races equally is not 'because their skin colour is inborn'.

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

I can only repeat what I said before.

And the origin of sexual orientation is relevant.

Whether it's a choice or not is clearly relevant. Assuming it isn't, I don't see that it's particulary relevant whether it's genetics, factors during pregancy, or factors during early childhood, or (far more likely) some complex combination of some or all of the above.

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?

You would have to ask those who do.

But, while comparisons with racism should certainly be used as cautions, they don't answer the question completely. "Some biological diversity is a good thing" does not necessarly imply "all biological diversity is a good thing". Comparisons are useful, but they only take one so far.

(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.

That people have interpreted scripture should be cautionary, but it does not show that all morals based on or justified from scripture are wrong.

Which would make sexual orientation inbornjust like skin color

It would make it at least partly inborn. But I really don't see that it matters whether it's inborn or not, so long as it's not under the person's control.

ebia · Dec 5, 2009

BigBadWlf said:
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.

If one took the time to adjust those statement so that they didn't assume what you want to prove - that it is a case of justifying already held prejudices - then yes; it is, at least in theory, entirely possible that Christians in the first case were wrong and the other Christians in the second case were right. That scripture really does have a problem with some behaviours and not others and yet people have used to to justify condeming some of the former (and ignoring plenty of the latter).

ebia · Dec 5, 2009

BigBadWlf said:
You didnt answer the question:

Because there is a more fundamental question that needs to be answered first: what is the role of scripture in providing a moral corrective?

BigBadWlf · Dec 5, 2009

ebia said:
[/font][/size][/color]
No, what I said was that the reason we treat people of differing races equally is not 'because their skin colour is inborn'.

So why do we treat people of different races equally but not other minorities?

That people have interpreted scripture should be cautionary, but it does not show that all morals based on or justified from scripture are wrong.

So why are people who interpret scripture to support racism wrong but people who interpret scripture to support their anti-gay feelings not wrong?

BigBadWlf · Dec 5, 2009

ebia said:
If one took the time to adjust those statement so that they didn't assume what you want to prove - that it is a case of justifying already held prejudices - then yes; it is, at least in theory, entirely possible that Christians in the first case were wrong and the other Christians in the second case were right.

It is equally valid to assume that other Christians in the second case are wrong and Christians in the first case are right. Again why is one group assumed to be wrong but the other group is assumed to be right

ebia · Dec 5, 2009

BigBadWlf said:
So why do we treat people of different races equally but not other minorities?

Because they are all people made in the image of God.

So why are people who interpret scripture to support racism wrong but people who interpret scripture to support their anti-gay feelings not wrong?

I need a response to my question "what is the role of scripture in providing a moral corrective?" first.

ebia · Dec 5, 2009

BigBadWlf said:
It is equally valid to assume that other Christians in the second case are wrong and Christians in the first case are right.

If all one is going to do is make an uncritical guess, yes.

If two people make similar but not identical statements such that either, both or neither might be true, and all one is going to do is assume an answer...

BigBadWlf · Dec 5, 2009

ebia said:
Because they are all people made in the image of God.

And gays and lesbians arent?

I need a response to my question "what is the role of scripture in providing a moral corrective?" first.

Why should it matter?
Both positions try to take the moral high ground and claim that homosexuality or racial equality are wrong on moral grounds

So once again why are people who interpret scripture to justify their racial prejudices wrong but people who interpret scripture to justify their anti-gay prejudices are right?

ebia · Dec 5, 2009

BigBadWlf said:
And gays and lesbians arent?

Did I say that?

Why should it matter?

It matters because it's verging on impossible to carry out the necessary discussion in generalities. For simplicity and brevity we need somekind of answer to that to proceed with applying scripture (or not) to the questions at hand.

When you've answered that question I will try to answer yours, but I can't proceed until you do.

BigBadWlf · Dec 5, 2009

ebia said:
[/size][/font]
Did I say that?

It matters because it's verging on impossible to carry out the necessary discussion in generalities. For simplicity and brevity we need somekind of answer to that to proceed with applying scripture (or not) to the questions at hand.

When you've answered that question I will try to answer yours, but I can't proceed until you do.

A very sad cop out

catzrfluffy · Dec 6, 2009

ebia · Dec 6, 2009

BigBadWlf said:
A very sad cop out

It's not a cop-out. I want to get to your question, but I need a starting point to do it. What's the problem with answering my question?

marlowe007 · Dec 6, 2009

I'd say 'neither'....Reparative therapy doesn't work. You'll never turn 'em straight, presumably without some yet-as-undiscovered hormone therapy. While homosexuality may not be genetic*, it does appear to have external causes - most probably something to do with the sex hormones.

*Genetic, as in determined by DNA. There's no evidence to support this claim. What evidence does exist shows that homosexual men have brains different from heterosexual men. Brain differences between people aren't necessarily genetic, but can be created by other things like disease or damage - think of fetal alcohol syndrome. If homosexuality is inborn due to brain abnormalities, that would go a long way in explaining why it persists every generation instead of dying out, as a trait that encourages non-reproduction would be expected to do.

Ave Maria · Dec 8, 2009

I believe that it is genetic. I do not believe that a person can choose to be a homosexual.

BigBadWlf · Dec 8, 2009

I have a question for the people who voted that homosexuality is a choice….what evidence is there that homosexuality is a choice?

Homosexuality: Choice and/or genetic?

What do you think of the orgins of homosexuallity?

Choice

Genetic

Both

Senior Member

I So Hate Consequences!!!!

Senior Member

Member

I So Hate Consequences!!!!

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

BigBadWlf

Guest

BigBadWlf

Guest

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

BigBadWlf

Guest

Senior Contributor

BigBadWlf

Guest

i come bearing .gifs

Senior Contributor

Veteran

Ave Maria Gratia Plena

BigBadWlf

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency