Homosexuality: Choice and/or genetic?

[2ndRateMind]

... Yes. I start with the premise that homosexuality is sinful behaviour and that affects my thinking on the subject...

So you don't, actually, have an argument? What a surprise.

Best, 2RM.

 

[sonofjay817]

So you don't, actually, have an argument? What a surprise.

Best, 2RM.

I didn't mean to insinuate that I have no defense for my stance. I was merely saying that, since this is a Christian site, I didn't start from the ground up with my argument, but I assumed the readers would share a biblical perspective on the topic at hand, so I started from that point. If you want to play this game, how can you claim you know anything at all? What is the nature of knowledge anyway? How do I know you're not just a figment of my imagination? See what I'm getting at? This is why its good to respect the topic of the thread and not get off track.

 

[david_x]

Exactly! Performing a gay act is a choice. Having gay feelings is not a choice. I think its rather silly to suggest it is and people make Christians look bad when they say this. Every person (including Christians) have certain predispositions to various moral failings. Some people have bad tempers, some have gambling problems, some have abusal issues, some are attracted to children, and some are attracted to same sex. People don't choose these, but they do choose to submit to them and they can choose to accept God's grace to overcome them.

Not to disagree, but to edify. You have not been tempted by anything except what is common to all men. This implys that everyone has been tempted by everything. Along with your post, I agree that everyman has his own special struggle be it anger or such. But it is important to remember that everyman has been tempted at some point.

 

[sonofjay817]

Not to disagree, but to edify. You have not been tempted by anything except what is common to all men. This implys that everyone has been tempted by everything. Along with your post, I agree that everyman has his own special struggle be it anger or such. But it is important to remember that everyman has been tempted at some point.

David X, thx for your post. You are correct. The passage as you quoted it does imply that everyone has been tempted by everything. However, upon further analysis, I think you'll find this is not feasible. For starters, you (I'm sure inadvertently) misquoted the scripture. I checked about seven different translations and they all have it, "except what is common to man" not "what is common to ALL men". The inclusion of this one little word vastly changes the meaning. Literally, it would mean that everyone has been tempted to (staying on the theme of sexual temptation)pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, incest, etc. Since I wish to keep this site family friendly, I will not expand on these words, but look them up if you're not familiar with any of them. I think you'll find some among them that haven't ever tempted you in the slightest.

I suppose it does depend on how narrow you want to define a temptation. It may be accurate to say all have been tempted to some sort of sexual temptation, just not every conceivable specific perversion. When you thnk about it, I don't think there would be time for it would be almost endless.

Regardless, we still have no grounds for considering our own personal sins less abhorrent to God than another's. We should always reach out in love and humility knowing that we are hopelessly depraved apart from God's saving and cleansing grace.

 

[david_x]

David X, thx for your post. You are correct. The passage as you quoted it does imply that everyone has been tempted by everything. However, upon further analysis, I think you'll find this is not feasible. For starters, you (I'm sure inadvertently) misquoted the scripture. I checked about seven different translations and they all have it, "except what is common to man" not "what is common to ALL men". The inclusion of this one little word vastly changes the meaning. Literally, it would mean that everyone has been tempted to (staying on the theme of sexual temptation)pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, incest, etc. Since I wish to keep this site family friendly, I will not expand on these words, but look them up if you're not familiar with any of them. I think you'll find some among them that haven't ever tempted you in the slightest.

You saw my age correct? Maybe it's hidden, but from this post you make it out to be like i'm 7. It was patronizing in the least.

To deepen the argument, I don't want to accuse you of anything you aren't comfortable with admitting yet. It's not my intention to make you uncomfortable. It is important that you not have these hindrances when evangelizing or discipling though.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Exactly! Performing a gay act is a choice. Having gay feelings is not a choice. I think its rather silly to suggest it is and people make Christians look bad when they say this. Every person (including Christians) have certain predispositions to various moral failings. Some people have bad tempers, some have gambling problems, some have abusal issues, some are attracted to children, and some are attracted to same sex. People don't choose these, but they do choose to submit to them and they can choose to accept God's grace to overcome them.

Its really sad that belonging to a minority group is considered to be a “moral failing”

 

[BigBadWlf]

The point of the thread is not to provide "proof" that homosexuality is wrong. It is to discuss whether it is a choice or genetic. Yes. I start with the premise that homosexuality is sinful behaviour and that affects my thinking on the subject. If you want to debate the rightness or wrongness of it, i think that is stuff for a different thread.

Yet when we ask for evidence that sexual orientation is a choice…the silence is deafening

 

[BigBadWlf]

ah, this political agenda of homosexual right continue's.
~ Because if one can provide a convincing argument that homosexuality is not a choice , but that they are born that way. That somehow this will disprove the Word of God or christians who actually read the bible an need not look to the word of man over scripture.

I think it has more to do with if homosexuality is inborn as all the evidence shows…then anti-gay discrimination becomes the moral equivalent of racism

~ Well, the bible clearly reveals it is an unatural effection. An God calls those who engage in its practice abomnible.

Not by any literal reading of the bible it does doesn’t.

~ the real argument i see here is whether we are going to twist the Word or adhere to God's admonishment?

It is interesting that you complain of “twisting” the word but that very twisting is what is required to condemn homosexuality

~This is not a conditional issue. Its either God is right in His directive. And, we as the created thing live unto Him within His reign. Or, we choose to live outside His care. Its clearly a choice each individually solely makes for his or her self.

the same can be said for racist interpretation of scripture…either the word of God is correct and people of color are socially inferior to whites or man is twisting the word of God to suit modern political agendas

~ Yet, i will add. That just like in the garden a choice was made to be disobediant to God's word. That one act sent us as a race into a spiral of death. Both, physical and spiritual. Set aside your political agenda and find yourself at war with God? Fighting his word over allowing the redemption of Christ to enter in your life is a sad state of our society and culture.

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” John 13:34
so if one does not set aside one’s anti-gay political agenda one finds oneself at war with God.

 

[sonofjay817]

Yet when we ask for evidence that sexual orientation is a choice…the silence is deafening

If you read my first post on this thread you'll see that I agree, its not a choice.

 

[sonofjay817]

You saw my age correct? Maybe it's hidden, but from this post you make it out to be like i'm 7. It was patronizing in the least.

To deepen the argument, I don't want to accuse you of anything you aren't comfortable with admitting yet. It's not my intention to make you uncomfortable. It is important that you not have these hindrances when evangelizing or discipling though.

What on earth are you talking about? I wasn't patronizing you. Because I was disagreeing with you, I was only trying to be gracious about it. Instead of being offended, it would be more profitable if you pointed out to me where I'm wrong, or if you're wrong, admit it. As to your second paragraph, you lost me.

 

[david_x]

What on earth are you talking about? I wasn't patronizing you. Because I was disagreeing with you, I was only trying to be gracious about it. Instead of being offended, it would be more profitable if you pointed out to me where I'm wrong, or if you're wrong, admit it. As to your second paragraph, you lost me.

If you had made a valid point I would have countered it. From what I read you agreed, then didn't. Who knows what you think.

As for as your being patronizing, telling me to look up common words and not knowing the verse I was paraphrasing was.

 

[sonofjay817]

If you had made a valid point I would have countered it. From what I read you agreed, then didn't. Who knows what you think.

As for as your being patronizing, telling me to look up common words and not knowing the verse I was paraphrasing was.

I suppose I can see how you could take that part as patronizing, but I didn't mean it that way. Its just that I don't know you from Adam and I lot of people wouldn't know what necrophilia is. As for the scripture, you did misquote it. You changed the meaning. ARe you mad because I pointed that out? Prove me wrong and show me what translation says "all men".

 

[sonofjay817]

If you had made a valid point I would have countered it. From what I read you agreed, then didn't. Who knows what you think.

I am afraid I AM forced to patronize you now. C'mon. Isn't it obvious what I was doing? I was saying if the scripture you misquoted did read as you said, your conclusion would have been correct. I then went on to show you why the scripture did not teach what you were saying.

 

[david_x]

I suppose I can see how you could take that part as patronizing, but I didn't mean it that way. Its just that I don't know you from Adam and I lot of people wouldn't know what necrophilia is. As for the scripture, you did misquote it. You changed the meaning. ARe you mad because I pointed that out? Prove me wrong and show me what translation says "all men".

You simply don't know what the word common means then. Men or all men, it's the same thing.

 

[sonofjay817]

You simply don't know what the word common means then. Men or all men, it's the same thing.

There is an important difference in my opinion. It seems to me that "common to man" is saying any possible sin is common to mankind as a whole in the same way you could say blond hair is common to man in that it occurs frequently within the population (well, the white population at least). If someone told me blond hair was common to all men, then, I would take it they were saying all men had blond hair. See, those three letters really do change the meaning.

Its good to get back to civil discourse by the way

 

[William777]

If it were genetics then two identical twins with the same DNA would both have the same inclination, that is not always the case. However, lets say that it is genetics, does that mean you are forced into this? What about a psychopath or some one born with a disorder where he has the desire to kill people or to steal from people, does this mean he should or that he has no choice in the matter?

One could argue that it is in genetics to fornicate like an animal does this mean I have to or that I should? Whether you view homosexuality as right or wrong, or even genetics it still does not change the choice you have now. Which is generally were this argument leads which is justification of the action by venue of genetics. However you view it, the argument is irrelevant.

My 2 cents,

-W

 

[david_x]

There is an important difference in my opinion. It seems to me that "common to man" is saying any possible sin is common to mankind as a whole in the same way you could say blond hair is common to man in that it occurs frequently within the population (well, the white population at least). If someone told me blond hair was common to all men, then, I would take it they were saying all men had blond hair. See, those three letters really do change the meaning.

Its good to get back to civil discourse by the way

I think you need to check the context of the word common then, in this instance I would definitely think it means all men. Much like the biblical scholars have translated it.

 

[dante'sComedy]

~ you wanted science as grounds to disprove biblical truth.
Now you want to quote scripture? Now you've lost me?

~

 

[BigBadWlf]

If it were genetics then two identical twins with the same DNA would both have the same inclination, that is not always the case.

Incorrect. That is not how genetics work. Have specific genes does not mean said genes are active.
Identical twins may have the same genetics but they are not 100% identical.
For example: type I diabetes has a genetic link (a specific gene on Chromosome number 6) yet in identical twins there is not 100% correspondence between said gene and the occurrence of type I diabetes, it is only a 32% correspondence - That is if twin A has type I diabetes then twin 2 has a 32% chance of also having type I diabetes. Homosexuality on the other hand as a 52% correspondence in identical twins and a 25% correspondence in fraternal twins, a very significant correspondence and one of the highest correspondences known among identical twins. The highest correspondence is eye color which has a 98% correspondence. (not all identical twins have the same color eyes)

However, lets say that it is genetics, does that mean you are forced into this? What about a psychopath or some one born with a disorder where he has the desire to kill people or to steal from people, does this mean he should or that he has no choice in the matter?

There is no known genetic component to sociopaths…there is however a pretty well documented historic profile involving specific forms of child abuse and neglect

One could argue that it is in genetics to fornicate like an animal does this mean I have to or that I should?

Its terribly sad that so far you have managed to compare an entire minority to psychotic killers and animals

Whether you view homosexuality as right or wrong, or even genetics it still does not change the choice you have now. Which is generally were this argument leads which is justification of the action by venue of genetics. However you view it, the argument is irrelevant.


My 2 cents,


-W

The only choice gays and lesbians have is the choice to be honest and the choice to live a life of lies and self denial

 

[BigBadWlf]

~ you wanted science as grounds to disprove biblical truth.
Now you want to quote scripture? Now you've lost me?

~

Truth is truth

It is truth that all available evidence says that sexual orientation is in born.

You post reminds me of the response Gallieo got when he invited the clergy to look through his telescope to see the truth for themselves…they refused to look because the fact that Jupiter had moons and the fact that the earth is not the center of the universe denied biblical truth