Homosexuality the early churches view should be ours

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2017
1,792
857
62
Florida
✟116,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You bring up an excellent point that proves mine… Perhaps some of your sexual behaviors have crossed the line into criminal behavior akin to clergy sex abuse.. we have no idea if so or if not...for all any of us know, you may be hiding a lifetime of abuse, and unless you submit to complete transparency, we will always treat your sexual proclivities, rightly, with a high level of righteous suspicion.

You certainly haven’t given me any confidence that My family should feel safe anywhere near you, so I am very happy we are having this discussion on an anonymous Internet forum, Because I have daughters, and again, your evasion and Refusal to answer my question directly Immediately makes me wonder what sort of depravity you are hiding, which gives me reason to treat you with a high level of suspicion when it comes to the potential that you may pose a risk to the community as a potential sexual predator.
Strawman ... since this is an on-line forum where you are defending the right of sinners to violate the commands of God without being bothered by Christians with any talk of sin and we will likely never meet, and I am advocating warning sinners when their actions appear to be violating the Word of God.

I have no problem with people choosing to reject God and worship a "god" of their liking. I just think that people have a right to hear the truth and choose to reject it, rather than being lied to about what the word of God says.
 
Upvote 0

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2017
1,792
857
62
Florida
✟116,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Right, that’s why people were even more horrible to gays before gay pride or being “out” was a thing. That’s why they brutally beat and sometimes killed people just for being gay...
Was this the standard practice for the mainline protestant churches in the 1950's? When someone came forward to confess of "adultery", they were led in repentance and Christ forgave them, but if someone came forward to confess of "homosexuality", the congregation would beat them to death?

Respectfully, we are talking about why the Church is speaking out on HOMOSEXUALITY more than the other sins included alongside it in those lists. While your facts may be correct (I have no idea on the statistics for violence against Gays), I do not see how it is relevant to the question or my answer.
 
Upvote 0

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2017
1,792
857
62
Florida
✟116,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
often very public
  • [Galatians 2:11-14 NASB] But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

It should have been challenged and corrected. It brought shame on the name of Christ.

I do not advocate shunning or stoning people that practice homosexuality, because that is not the JOB DESCRIPTION that God has given us in His Bible. We are ambassadors of the truth, sent out into a lost world to share "Good News". The people we share it with are free to accept or reject that TRUTH, that is not our responsibility, however, we are called to offer this truth in love. If we shun sinners for being sinners, then we cannot obey our LORD and tell them the Good News. If we stone sinners, we have placed ourselves in the role of God, to whom both Judgement and Vengeance belong. It is not our place to punish anyone, with one very specific exception ...

If someone claims to belong to Christ and is living in habitual sin, and refuses to listen accept correction from a christian brother, and rejects correction from the church leadership, and rejects correction from the church body, then we are to expel the errant individual from our fellowship until they repent.
  • [Matthew 18:15-18 NASB] "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,534
4,827
57
Oregon
✟799,454.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If someone claims to belong to Christ and is living in habitual sin, and refuses to listen accept correction from a christian brother, and rejects correction from the church leadership, and rejects correction from the church body, then we are to expel the errant individual from our fellowship until they repent.

Yet how are we going to expel you if you keep your sexual sins hidden in the closet as seems to be your want, and seems to be what you are attempting to teach is the “better way”.

Quit being coy, and quit teaching your brother in Christ to hide his sin from the rest of the body.
Set the proper example. Let us examine your sexual proclivities in the light of day so we may make the proper determination and take the biblically prescribed action.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,534
4,827
57
Oregon
✟799,454.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Strawman ... since this is an on-line forum where you are defending the right of sinners to violate the commands of God without being bothered by Christians with any talk of sin and we will likely never meet, and I am advocating warning sinners when their actions appear to be violating the Word of God.

Rather, I am advocating warning everyone. I don’t believe just because you’re hiding your sin you should be free from admonition for it. I’m curious why you do however.

Ihave no problem with people choosing to reject God and worship a "god" of their liking. I just think that people have a right to hear the truth and choose to reject it, rather than being lied to about what the word of God says.

Then why hide your sins from us?
Is the right that people have to hear the truth not apply to you as well?

It is a well-established truth that the sinner who keeps his transgressions hidden from the community poses a far greater risk to themselves and the community than the sinner who displays his transgressions openly.

Uncover your sins, confess them here and we will decide what appropriate action should be taken. We are not going to countenance the godless liberal notion that hiding your sins means you don’t have to be responsible for them to the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
and still do
Yes and still do! Thanks for saying that.

Although since gays are less likely to be beaten or killed in places where gay pride parades happen, it would lead one to think that there is some connection between gay pride/gay rights, and fewer killings, which I hope everyone can agree are immoral.
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,349
Winnipeg
✟236,538.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The basic premise of the World, or the secular society, is the following premise:

Homosexuality is a biological issue, as such a homosexual has no control over their preference, they are born homosexual, as such it is wrong to class it as a sin, or something wrong.

Blind post.

What is happening, actually, is that research into the origins of homosexuality is showing it to be more psycho-social than biological. Twin studies - studies of monozygotic twins, one of whom is gay - show a less than 50% concordance rate. If homosexuality was entirely genetic, and if genes had the power to direct human behaviour precisely and powerfully, as some like to contend, then the rate of concordance would have been 100%.

Brain studies, hormone studies, and assorted other such studies have been shown to be either faulty in their selection of subjects in some way, or highly inconclusive in their findings concerning the role of genes in this (and, really, any) behaviour.

At most, genes might possibly impose a tendency toward such behaviour, but they don't ever function as a sort of chromosomal programming, forcing a person into homosexual behaviour. Instead, it appears that family, personality, cultural influences, friends, and negative sexual experiences do far more to dispose a man to homosexual conduct than do his genetics.

In any case, we all of us must resist various sinful impulses every day. For some, the temptation to adultery confronts them; for others, the temptation to fornication, or temper, or gossip, or lying, or gluttony, or whatever, faces them. God doesn't say to these so tempted, "If the temptation is strong and persistent, you may yield to it as a victim of your disposition. If the culture and fellow Christians encourage you in your sin, go ahead and do it." No, instead, He offers Himself as the means of escape from the sin and death (Romans 6:23; James 1:15) that is luring them, promising to transform each tempted person such that they may win free of the power of the temptation fully and permanently (1 Corinthians 10:13).

Some want to squirm out from under the explicit and repeated biblical condemnation of homosexuality by way of diminishing the authority of Scripture, making themselves the Final Arbiter of its truth, or they want to argue that all references to homosexuality were only to temple prostitution, not to long-term, monogamous homosexual relationships, or that biblical prohibitions of homosexuality were entirely cultural artifacts, no longer pertinent or binding in today's cultural context. Essentially, they employ the devil's tactic in Eden with Eve when he said to her, "Did God really say...?" (Genesis 3:1)

Of the first objection, there is so much to say it really would require its own thread. But of the second and third objections, Scripture does not ever explicitly attach its condemnation of homosexuality only to temple prostitution or culture. Leviticus 18:22 explicitly prohibits a man lying with a man sexually as with a woman; no mention of temple practices, no caveats of relationship or culture, just the act of a man having sexual relations with another man is forbidden and condemned.

This is true of Romans 1:21-31, as well. Paul does not discuss temple prostitution practices, though he goes into some detail outlining the process of degradation encompassing homosexual acts. Why, if his thought was only to condemn temple prostitution, did he not make this clear? Surely, he knew that homosexuality existed outside of temple practices and that his remarks in Romans 1 could (and would) be easily applied to all homosexual behaviour. Despite this very evident prospect, Paul spreads a net of condemnation of homosexuality in his remarks in Romans 1 that covers all homosexual (and lesbian) conduct.

Does what I've written here mean I hate homosexuals or that I am irrationally fearful (homophobic) of them? No. We are all of us sinners, by God's grace winning free of the wicked things that lure us into sin and death. I have worked with, and trained (I taught a martial art for 20+ years), homosexuals. My brother-in-law - with whom I get along perfectly well - is homosexual. I have extended God's love and grace to those who are caught in this sin just as God has done with me, caught, as I have been, in my own sins.

But, for all of His love and grace, God does not approve, or tolerate, my sin. He hates sin - all of it - and will judge and punish all sin from which we have not repented, that we have not confessed as sin, and from which we have not sought His cleansing forgiveness through Christ. That includes gossip and gluttony just as much as it does homosexual acts.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or 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 effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If someone claims to belong to Christ and is living in habitual sin, and refuses to listen accept correction from a christian brother, and rejects correction from the church leadership, and rejects correction from the church body, then we are to expel the errant individual from our fellowship until they repent.
How in the world do you know that people are “living in sin?” It’s not like cheaters and inappropriate content addicts and domestic abusers are open about it. And will continue to hide it if they are going to get expelled for admitting it.

My father was a minister and abused his wife and children. No one held him accountable and no one tried to make sure that he wasn’t being abusive. It wasn’t discussed, but homosexuality was discussed all of the time.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: parousia70
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,534
4,827
57
Oregon
✟799,454.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What is happening, actually, is that research into the origins of homosexuality is showing it to be more psycho-social than biological. Twin studies - studies of monozygotic twins, one of whom is gay - show a less than 50% concurrence rate.

Actially, those studies show a greater than 65% concurrence rate:
Homosexual orientation in twins: a report on 61 pairs and three triplet sets - PubMed

"Thirty-eight pairs of monozygotic twins (34 male pairs and 4 female pairs) were found to have a concordance rate of 65.8% for homosexual orientation.....These findings are interpreted as supporting the argument for a biological basis in sexual orientation."
 
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Blind post.

What is happening, actually, is that research into the origins of homosexuality is showing it to be more psycho-social than biological. Twin studies - studies of monozygotic twins, one of whom is gay - show a less than 50% concurrence rate. If homosexuality was entirely genetic, and if genes had the power to direct human behaviour precisely and powerfully, as some like to contend, then the rate of concurrence would have been 100%.
that is an incorrect understanding of genetics. in monozygotic twins very few genetically determined traits have 100% concurrence in identical twins. Eye color for example has a 98% concurrence. Right/left handedness has an 80% concurrence in identical twins. Birth onset juvenile diabetes has only a 30% concurrence
The 50% concurrence rate is actually quite high


There is a difference between having a gene or set of genes and having those genes be active. the difference usually is found in the epigenome which is responsible for turning genes on and off

Brain studies, hormone studies, and assorted other such studies have been shown to be either faulty in their selection of subjects in some way, or highly inconclusive in their findings concerning the role of genes in this (and, really, any) behaviour.
this is a talking point from any number of anti-gay groups and is not based in fact

At most, genes might possibly impose a tendency toward such behaviour, but they don't ever function as a sort of chromosomal programming, forcing a person into homosexual behaviour. Instead, it appears that family, personality, cultural influences, friends, and negative sexual experiences do far more to dispose a man to homosexual conduct than do his genetics.
after decades of searching no one has been able to identify a single social or experiential factor that contributes to homosexuality.

Does what I've written here mean I hate homosexuals or that I am irrationally fearful (homophobic) of them? No. We are all of us sinners, by God's grace winning free of the wicked things that lure us into sin and death. I have worked with, and trained (I taught a martial art for 20+ years), homosexuals . My brother-in-law - with whom I get along perfectly well - is homosexual. I have extended God's love and grace to those who are caught in this sin just as God has done with me, caught, as I have been, in my own sins.

But, for all of His love and grace, God does not approve, or tolerate, my sin. He hates sin - all of it - and will judge and punish all sin from which we have not repented, and have not confessed as sin, and have not sought His cleansing forgiveness through Christ. That includes gossip and gluttony just as much as it does homosexual acts.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or 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 effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
[/QUOTE]“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” Anne Lamott
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Sparagmos
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,349
Winnipeg
✟236,538.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Bailey and Pillard—
The Famous “Twins” Study

One of the most frequently cited studies used in promoting the genetics of sexual orientation is a 1952 study by Kallmann. In this famous work, he reported a concordance rate (or genetic association) of 100% for sexual orientation among monozygotic (identical) twins (1952, 115:283). This result, if true, would prove nearly insurmountable for those people who doubt the biological causation of homosexuality. However, Kallmann subsequently conjectured that this perfect concordance was an artifact, possibly due to the fact that his sample was drawn largely from mentally ill and institutionalized men (see Rainer, et al., 1960, 22:259). But Kallmann’s research opened the door to twin studies in regard to sexual orientation.

Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, researchers at Northwestern University and the Boston University School of Medicine, carried out a similar experiment, examining 56 pairs of identical twins, 54 pairs of fraternal twins, 142 non-twin brothers of twins, and 57 pairs of adoptive brothers (1991, 48:1089-1096). Bailey and Pillard were looking to see if homosexuality was passed on through familial lines, or if one could point to environmental factors as the cause. Their hypothesis: if homosexuality is an inherited trait, then more twin brothers would be expected to have the same orientation than non-twin or non-biological brothers.

Their Reported Findings
• 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were homosexual

• 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual

• 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were homosexual

• 9.2% of non-twin biological siblings reported homosexual orientations (Bailey and Pillard, 1991, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation”)

• 48% of identical twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual

• 16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual

• 6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (Bailey and Benishay, 1993, “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation”)

Problems with Bailey and Pillard’s Study
While the authors acknowledged some of the flaws with their research, they still were quoted in Science News as saying: “Our research shows that male sexual orientation is substantially genetic” (as quoted in Bower, 1992, 141:6). However, the most glaring observation is that clearly not 100% of the identical twins “inherited” homosexuality. If there was, in fact, a “gay gene,” then all of the identical twins should have reported a homosexual orientation. And yet, in nearly half of the twins studied, one brother was not homosexual. In a technical-comment letter in Science, Neil Risch and colleagues pointed out: “The biological brothers and adoptive brothers showed approximately the same rates. This latter observation suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families” (1993, 262:2063). In fact, more adoptive brothers shared homosexuality than non-twin biological brothers. If there was a genetic factor, this result would be counter to the expected trend. Byne and Parsons noted:

However, the concordance rate for homosexuality in nontwin biologic brothers was only 9.2—significantly lower than that required by simple genetic hypothesis, which, on the basis of shared genetic material, would predict similar concordance rates for DZ [dizygotic] twins and nontwin biologic brothers. Furthermore, the fact that the concordance rates were similar for nontwin biologic brothers (9.2%) and genetically unrelated adoptive brothers (11.0%) is at odds with a simple genetic hypothesis, which would predict a higher concordance rate for biological siblings (1993, 50:229).

A more recently published twin study failed to find similar concordance rates. King and McDonald studied 46 homosexual men and women who were twins. The concordance rates that they reported were 10%, or 25% with monozygotic twins—depending on whether or not the bisexuals were included along with the homosexuals. The rates for dizygotic twins were 8% or 12%, again, depending on whether bisexuals were included (King and McDonald, 1992). Byne and Parsons commented: “These rates are significantly lower than those reported by Bailey and Pillard; in comparison of the MZ [monozygotic] concordance rate, including bisexuals (25%), with the comparable figure from Bailey and Pillard (52%)” (p. 230). They went on to observe: “Furthermore, if the concordance rate is similar for MZ and DZ twins, the importance of genetic factors would be considerably less than that suggested by Bailey and Pillard” (p. 230, emp. added).

Another factor that may have had a drastic affect on the results of this study (and other similar studies) centers on methodology. Bailey and Pillard did not study a random sample of homosexuals. Instead, the subjects were recruited through advertisements placed in homosexual publications. This method can be deemed questionable because it is highly dependent on the readership of those publications and on the motives of those who respond. Thus, it may lead to skewed results—for example, inflated rates of concordance in identical twins owing to preferential participation (see Baron, 1993). Hubbard and Wald observed:

The fact that fraternal twins of gay men were roughly twice as likely to be gay as other biological brothers shows that environmental factors are involved, since fraternal twins are no more similar biologically than are other biological brothers. If being a fraternal twin exerts an environmental influence, it does not seem surprising that this should be even truer for identical twins, who the world thinks of as “the same” and treats accordingly, and who often share those feelings of sameness (1997, p. 97).

In summarizing their findings, Byne and Parsons stated: “Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking” (50:228). Commenting on Bailey and Pillard’s report, researchers Billings and Beckwith wrote:

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment (1993, p. 60).

When evaluated scientifically, twin studies fail to provide any valid support for the longed-for “gay gene.”
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,078
3,768
✟290,767.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
To be honest, lack of continuity with the early church doesn’t bother me on issues of gender and sex. There’s lots of wisdom in the tradition, but not in this area.

I’m not speaking here of Paul. He thought it was best to be unmarried in order to be free for service, but there was nothing wrong in sex for him. But Augustine was offended by sex, because the emotions involved, and even the physical effects, weren't under rational control. For him, it was only justified by the need to procreate. This approach continued in traditional Christianity. Homosexuality, of course, is the ultimate in non-procreative sex.

Jesus, however, saw the purpose of marriage as two becoming one flesh. That’s referred to by theologians as the “unitive” purpose for sex. Even in traditional theology, it was fine for people who for various reasons couldn’t have children to marry. So Jesus’ perspective wasn’t entirely lost. But the unhealthy view of sex from Augustine and other early Christians persisted in various forms.

So saying that this is non-traditional doesn’t bother me in the slightest.

How did the Church become so fundamentally mistaken on this topic essential to her existence until the modern age? An age where Christians weren't at the forefront of defending this so called justified homosexual expression, but secularists? The attempts I see made by Christians to justify all sorts of sexual practices do not seem to arise from Christianity itself, but are positions outside of it being forced upon Christendom with bad reasoning.

If the Church was wrong on the morality of sex for virtually it's entire existence, what else has she been wrong about? Perhaps sex outside of marriage was never wrong. What's wrong with Prositution as long as two parties consent? Why shouldn't Christians embrace the sexual revolution totally?
 
  • Like
Reactions: aiki
Upvote 0

Alex Reynolds

Active Member
Jan 18, 2021
53
26
27
Winchester
Visit site
✟9,676.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Independence-Party
This is my personal opinion, I do not think it is straight up a sin to be a homosexual, I think the true sin in it is when a potential family is lost in favor of debauchery or self service, sexuality can be altered through inappropriate content and pollutants that alter the hormones. There are people who try and promote homosexuality and indoctrinate it on children, this is very sinful, and so is thinking your gay when you are not. Transgender, although most unintentionally, make a mockery of the sacred feminine. I personally think what the bible says is more of a safeguard, because the devil always tries to invert man's desires, and homosexuality can be used by the devil no doubt, it is better to be safe than sorry. Like in Sodom, it wasn't just the fact of sodomy, it was more the fact the entire society doing it that angered God.

But what is less Christian than being gay is not practicing forgiveness and mercy, even though to a large degree I think the old Church had it right, however it may need to be put better for others to understand. If you want people to take it seriously, bring it to things that are relatable and practical, don't just say "your going to hell", because it is Gods duty to judge not ours, bring up how it destroys families, which it does, and ultimately goes against what God intended.
 
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Bailey and Pillard—
The Famous “Twins” Study

One of the most frequently cited studies used in promoting the genetics of sexual orientation is a 1952 study by Kallmann. In this famous work, he reported a concordance rate (or genetic association) of 100% for sexual orientation among monozygotic (identical) twins (1952, 115:283). This result, if true, would prove nearly insurmountable for those people who doubt the biological causation of homosexuality. However, Kallmann subsequently conjectured that this perfect concordance was an artifact, possibly due to the fact that his sample was drawn largely from mentally ill and institutionalized men (see Rainer, et al., 1960, 22:259). But Kallmann’s research opened the door to twin studies in regard to sexual orientation.

Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, researchers at Northwestern University and the Boston University School of Medicine, carried out a similar experiment, examining 56 pairs of identical twins, 54 pairs of fraternal twins, 142 non-twin brothers of twins, and 57 pairs of adoptive brothers (1991, 48:1089-1096). Bailey and Pillard were looking to see if homosexuality was passed on through familial lines, or if one could point to environmental factors as the cause. Their hypothesis: if homosexuality is an inherited trait, then more twin brothers would be expected to have the same orientation than non-twin or non-biological brothers.

Their Reported Findings
• 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were homosexual

• 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual

• 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were homosexual

• 9.2% of non-twin biological siblings reported homosexual orientations (Bailey and Pillard, 1991, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation”)

• 48% of identical twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual

• 16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual

• 6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (Bailey and Benishay, 1993, “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation”)

Problems with Bailey and Pillard’s Study
While the authors acknowledged some of the flaws with their research, they still were quoted in Science News as saying: “Our research shows that male sexual orientation is substantially genetic” (as quoted in Bower, 1992, 141:6). However, the most glaring observation is that clearly not 100% of the identical twins “inherited” homosexuality. If there was, in fact, a “gay gene,” then all of the identical twins should have reported a homosexual orientation. And yet, in nearly half of the twins studied, one brother was not homosexual. In a technical-comment letter in Science, Neil Risch and colleagues pointed out: “The biological brothers and adoptive brothers showed approximately the same rates. This latter observation suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families” (1993, 262:2063). In fact, more adoptive brothers shared homosexuality than non-twin biological brothers. If there was a genetic factor, this result would be counter to the expected trend. Byne and Parsons noted:

However, the concordance rate for homosexuality in nontwin biologic brothers was only 9.2—significantly lower than that required by simple genetic hypothesis, which, on the basis of shared genetic material, would predict similar concordance rates for DZ [dizygotic] twins and nontwin biologic brothers. Furthermore, the fact that the concordance rates were similar for nontwin biologic brothers (9.2%) and genetically unrelated adoptive brothers (11.0%) is at odds with a simple genetic hypothesis, which would predict a higher concordance rate for biological siblings (1993, 50:229).

A more recently published twin study failed to find similar concordance rates. King and McDonald studied 46 homosexual men and women who were twins. The concordance rates that they reported were 10%, or 25% with monozygotic twins—depending on whether or not the bisexuals were included along with the homosexuals. The rates for dizygotic twins were 8% or 12%, again, depending on whether bisexuals were included (King and McDonald, 1992). Byne and Parsons commented: “These rates are significantly lower than those reported by Bailey and Pillard; in comparison of the MZ [monozygotic] concordance rate, including bisexuals (25%), with the comparable figure from Bailey and Pillard (52%)” (p. 230). They went on to observe: “Furthermore, if the concordance rate is similar for MZ and DZ twins, the importance of genetic factors would be considerably less than that suggested by Bailey and Pillard” (p. 230, emp. added).

Another factor that may have had a drastic affect on the results of this study (and other similar studies) centers on methodology. Bailey and Pillard did not study a random sample of homosexuals. Instead, the subjects were recruited through advertisements placed in homosexual publications. This method can be deemed questionable because it is highly dependent on the readership of those publications and on the motives of those who respond. Thus, it may lead to skewed results—for example, inflated rates of concordance in identical twins owing to preferential participation (see Baron, 1993). Hubbard and Wald observed:

The fact that fraternal twins of gay men were roughly twice as likely to be gay as other biological brothers shows that environmental factors are involved, since fraternal twins are no more similar biologically than are other biological brothers. If being a fraternal twin exerts an environmental influence, it does not seem surprising that this should be even truer for identical twins, who the world thinks of as “the same” and treats accordingly, and who often share those feelings of sameness (1997, p. 97).

In summarizing their findings, Byne and Parsons stated: “Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking” (50:228). Commenting on Bailey and Pillard’s report, researchers Billings and Beckwith wrote:

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment (1993, p. 60).

When evaluated scientifically, twin studies fail to provide any valid support for the longed-for “gay gene.”
Birth onset type I diabetes has a specific genetic cause. specifically a particular gene located on Chromosome 6. Yet in identical twins the concurrence rate is only 30%.
 
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,660
7,879
63
Martinez
✟905,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Please move this if it is inappropriate for this forum.

I would like to contest for the faith.

The basic premise of the World, or the secular society, is the following premise:

Homosexuality is a biological issue, as such a homosexual has no control over their preference, they are born homosexual, as such it is wrong to class it as a sin, or something wrong.

This however is not the truth. It is an opinion of man. God’s word, or the way he describes the sin is entirely different. Any church that accepts the sin of homosexuality has deviated away from God’s word and seeks to please man.

O you who are false to God, do you not see that the friends of this world are not God's friends? Every man desiring to be a friend of this world makes himself a hater of God. - Jas 4:4

So what does God’s word say about homosexuality. I will give a brief description of it here before moving to the bible’s description of it.

The bible basically says that the sin shows it’s presence the most where a person has chosen to remove themselves from the knowledge of God. Where they have chosen to ignore his commands, and call consistently. They have chosen, witchcraft, sexual sin, hatred, unloving attitudes, over God’s call to live with restraint, and true gentleness. As such the worlds view that homosexuality is love, is far removed from the truth, it actually shows a rejection of God’s love.

It is not however a sin that is unpardonable, meaning that a person can leave that life style and receive God. But no man may live in the sin and think they have the forgiveness of God. For God lists it as an abomination.

The civil law of God given by Moses, states:

And if a man has sex relations with a man, the two of them have done a disgusting thing: let them be put to death; their blood will be on them. - Lev 20:13

This shows that God does not want people to be homosexual, any law that promotes homosexuality is against God. One of the primary reason is that God has shown through scripture that homosexuality manifests it’s self in the rejection of God, and his commands. Now the bible says that God is love. That his attributes are:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, a quiet mind, kind acts, well-doing, faith, Gentle behaviour, control over desires: against such there is no law. Gal 5:22-23

A person who has moved into the sin of homosexuality according to the bible has in the past been exposed to God’s love and word, but have chosen to ignore it and rather give into passion, and lust. As such, being a God rejector, and a hater of what is good, should have no part in church ministry.

Because, having the knowledge of God, they did not give glory to God as God, and did not give praise, but their minds were full of foolish things, and their hearts, being without sense, were made dark. Seeming to be wise, they were in fact foolish, And by them the glory of the eternal God was changed and made into the image of man who is not eternal, and of birds and beasts and things which go on the earth. For this reason God gave them up to the evil desires of their hearts, working shame in their bodies with one another: Because by them the true word of God was changed into that which is false, and they gave worship and honour to the thing which is made, and not to him who made it, to whom be blessing for ever. So be it. For this reason God gave them up to evil passions, and their women were changing the natural use into one which is unnatural: And in the same way the men gave up the natural use of the woman and were burning in their desire for one another, men doing shame with men, and getting in their bodies the right reward of their evil-doing. And because they had not the mind to keep God in their knowledge, God gave them up to an evil mind, to do those things which are not right; Being full of all wrongdoing, evil, desire for the goods of others, hate, envy, putting to death, fighting, deceit, cruel ways, evil talk, and false statements about others; Hated by God, full of pride, without respect, full of loud talk, given to evil inventions, not honouring father or mother, Without knowledge, not true to their undertakings, unkind, having no mercy: Who, though they have knowledge of the law of God, that the fate of those who do these things is death, not only go on doing these things themselves, but give approval to those who do them. - Rom 1:21-32
Did you forget to mention the many homosexual Christians who remain celibate?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,349
Winnipeg
✟236,538.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
that is an incorrect understanding of genetics. in monozygotic twins very few genetically determined traits have 100% concurrence in identical twins. Eye color for example has a 98% concurrence. Right/left handedness has an 80% concurrence in identical twins. Birth onset juvenile diabetes has only a 30% concurrence
The 50% concurrence rate is actually quite high

But this assumes that one's behaviour is essentially identical in category to one's physical characteristics. This, it seems to me, is a kind of Begging the Question. You must assume that homosexuality is as genetically-concrete as blue eyes in order to argue that the percentage of concurrence of eye-color in monozygotic twins has any bearing on the concurrence of homosexual behaviour in such twins. But I don't make that assumption. There is a clear and obvious difference between a physical characteristic of a human being and their behaviour which is why we don't allow arguments from genetics to constantly mitigate against the prosecution of a person for criminal behaviours like murder, or child rape, or drunk driving, or theft, etc.
 
Upvote 0

FutureAndAHope

Just me
Site Supporter
Aug 30, 2008
6,362
2,912
Australia
Visit site
✟735,352.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.' Leviticus 20:13

a death sentence seem like a pretty harsh penalty

Di you read the document? Or just the first sentence?
 
Upvote 0

FutureAndAHope

Just me
Site Supporter
Aug 30, 2008
6,362
2,912
Australia
Visit site
✟735,352.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Did you forget to mention the many homosexual Christians who remain celibate?
I don't personally believe in Homosexual Celibacy. It is based on the false premise that homosexuals can be nothing but homosexuals. God's word presents homosexuality as a sin God gives people over to when they reject Him, do you not think he has the power to reverse the power of sin when a person repents of their past rejection of God.
 
Upvote 0

Anthony2019

Pax et bonum!
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2019
5,957
10,894
Staffordshire, United Kingdom
✟776,545.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
This evening I have been watching a video shared on our Diocesan website. It is a video of a priest in the Church of England recalling the tragedy of a young member of their congregation who had taken her life.

She was described as someone who had tried to follow her Christian faith, but struggled to reconcile this with the fact that she was gay. The news of the tragedy caused tremendous shock and sadness to the congregation as well as the wider community.

The church, which was devastated at the loss of such a young person's life, collectively agreed that it needed to do everything possible to prevent a similar tragedy happening again.

What became apparent to them was that while the teenager was struggling, there was no safe space for her to discuss her feelings openly in the church. The church was a welcoming and accepting congregration, but the issue of sexuality was too awkward to generate open discussions. In response to the tragedy, the church decided to introduce meetings where the topic of sexuality could be discussed openly, listening to a wide range of views across the congregation, to try to understand the various theological approaches.

As a result, the church felt it needed to reaffirm itself as a welcoming and inclusive church, where everyone was to be welcomed, regardless of their socio-economic background, their ethnicity, mental health, physical or learning ability, their gender or sexual orientation.

Not everyone agreed with this affirmation on full inclusion. A number of people sadly left, but the majority respected the church's position.

As a result, new people started coming to the church. People from a wide variety of backgrounds and circumstances. They felt it was a safe place where they could come just as they were. The priest described the way that worship in the church had changed and he stated that it had changed for the better. People became more open with themselves and the worship became more authentic.

My diocese has a policy of full inclusion - that every church should offer welcome to all, regardless of their circumstances. Everyone is welcome at the table. In the words of our Bishop, "there is nothing wrong with the theology of welcome". It is tragedies, such as the one in this story, that has inspired me to extend the love of Christ to all people, without exception, and to treat all human life as sacred, and made in the image of God. It has taught me that to love my neighbour as myself, I have to learn to listen. I think at times we spend a lot of time doing the talking, espousing our own points of view. We have all the answers but we are not good at listening to the questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PloverWing
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
But this assumes that one's behaviour is essentially identical in category to one's physical characteristics. This, it seems to me, is a kind of Begging the Question. You must assume that homosexuality is as genetically-concrete as blue eyes in order to argue that the percentage of concurrence of eye-color in monozygotic twins has any bearing on the concurrence of homosexual behaviour in such twins. But I don't make that assumption. There is a clear and obvious difference between a physical characteristic of a human being and their behaviour which is why we don't allow arguments from genetics to constantly mitigate against the prosecution of a person for criminal behaviours like murder, or child rape, or drunk driving, or theft, etc.
but your claim was that since identical twins don't have a 100% correlation that is proof that orientation is not genetic but the simple fact is that there is almost no trait that has a 100% correlation in identical twins. SO it is your initial premise that is flawed
 
  • Winner
Reactions: parousia70
Upvote 0