Is Homosexuality Wrong from a non Biblical perspective?

[Blackmarch]

What makes you think that senario is likely enough to even consider?

The OP asked if there was anything non biblical that makes Homosexuality wrong.

Of course it's a silly scenario, with chance of happening that's virtually nil. But it's not impossible.
Aother silly scenario (at least for the time being) is that all people will practice hetero sexuality. Again the chance of this happening is also about the same.
But what if the trends of increased instances of homosexuality keep increasing? is it possible that it could get to the point what everyone would choose (or become) homosexual? yes... if so which extreme would be wiser?
Why even go through that? kinda the same reason people when checking trends over-jump what the real numbers are indicating, and use worst case scenario numbers instead.

If you want more realistic reasons they were also given in my post a few relies back

 

[SimplyMe]

The OP asked if there was anything non biblical that makes Homosexuality wrong.

Of course it's a silly scenario, with chance of happening that's virtually nil. But it's not impossible.
Aother silly scenario (at least for the time being) is that all people will practice hetero sexuality. Again the chance of this happening is also about the same.

So if, by your own admission, this scenario is "silly", why even bring it up?

But what if the trends of increased instances of homosexuality keep increasing?

What evidence have you seen that suggests that homosexuality is increasing (as required by forum fules)?

is it possible that it could get to the point what everyone would choose (or become) homosexual?

What evidence is there that homosexuals "choose" their orientation?

yes... if so which extreme would be wiser?

What is the point of answering a hypothetical question based on extremes when the hypothetical, in your own words, is "silly"?

Why even go through that? kinda the same reason people when checking trends over-jump what the real numbers are indicating, and use worst case scenario numbers instead.

If you want more realistic reasons they were also given in my post a few relies back

I'm sorry, I must have missed them. You mentioned the possibility of all people becoming homosexual, which you have now admitted was silly. The argument was based on the idea that homosexuals do not reproduce. OTOH, many gay couples do reproduce; gay males finding a woman willing to carry a child for them, lesbians being artificially inseminated. If we assume that at some point in the future all people will become gay, it is not an automatic conclusion that the species would die out or seriously decline.

The only other idea I noticed was your mentioning that there are non-Christian societies that believe homosexuality is wrong. Of course, go back a few hundred years and most societies -- including Christian ones -- believed that slavery was okay. Did that make it correct? Do those societies have anything other than religion or social bias to justify their position on homosexuality?

 

[beechy]

Hi. I do not personally believe homosexuality is wrong. However, I was observing an interesting discussion on another forum between fool who posts here, and a gay participant. Fool was discussing the health pitfalls in male homosexuality, i.e., damage that males do to very delicate tissues in the anus which causes them to be more susceptible to certain diseases of the colon, etc.

However, this argument does not fit well for females who are gay because they basically practice the safest sex there is. Their risk for STDs, AIDS for example, is basically nill if they have sex exclusively with females who have sex with females. The person he was talking with was a male homosexual Buddhist who said homosexuality was not in violation to his Buddhist precepts which basically said "don't harm anyone." Fool's argument was he was harming someone, himself.

I found myself interested and intrigued by the discussion. I usually take a no holds barred, "insomuch as ye harm none do as ye will" approach. (I use that quote a lot.) But I had never looked at it like that before. And my philsophies and politics tend to be very liberal. It was the first time I'd seen the argument presented without the standard far right wing hype and histeria type of bias you usually see connected to arguments against homosexuality.

The "anal sex carries health risks" argument makes little sense to me as a reason homosexuality is "bad" or "wrong." There are lots of things that carry potential health risks which we don't label as "wrong." Like football. Or driving. Or straight sex ("Having sex may also cause urinary tract infections in women because bacteria can be pushed into the urethra").

 

[beechy]

There are a lot reasons for society to think that homosexuality is wrong without turning to the bible.

1. Once its considered o.k. it leads to what we have now: Homosexual marriage and it doesn't benefit society for these reasons:

a. No procreation

Why is "no procreation" a reason homosexuality is wrong?

b. More disease

Are you talking about AIDS rates in gay men? In 2003, the rate of AIDS diagnoses for African American women was 25 times higher than it was for white women. Is being a black woman "wrong" too? On the other hand, the rate of AIDS among lesbians as a group is among the lowest in the nation. So, by your logic, is it "right" to be a lesbian?

c. Deviate behavior becomes legitimized.

Not everyone (including me) thinks homosexuality is "deviate (or deviant ) behavior."

2. Health care costs for you and I will go up.

Why?

3. Our kids will be brought up to believe its normal.

So?

There are more, but the point is society in no way benefits from it.

Some people are attracted to and fall in love with persons of the same sex. If our society values freedom, and values relationships, and values love, then there is value to homosexual relationships. And why does whether or not you or anyone else think "society benefits" from something make it right or wrong? Does society benefit from video games? Does it benefit from blonde hair? Does it benefit from bars? Does it benefit from McDonalds?

 

[beechy]

Plain and simple, of course it is wrong, it is against nature. It doesn't make psychological sense. Even King Solomon or David (little unsure) said "there are three things that are too amazing for me, four that I do not understand... the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a snake on the rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a woman." (Prov 30: 18, 19)

What does it mean for something to make "psychological sense"? And how is that standard the arbiter of right and wrong?

 

[beechy]

From a neutral stance without using what god has commanded.. dunno, and would depend on the situation..
although were homosexuality were to be practiced by every person their whole lives, the world's human population would seriously decline.
So if someone is rooting for human depopulation, especially to those sort of levels then yes it would seem good for them,
But to someone who is on the other end of the line, it would like wise be wrong.

I don't think anyone has ever argued that heterosexuality should be eliminated. Is the real concern that if homosexuality was deemed acceptable, then everybody would be homosexual? Is that true for all of the heterosexuals posting to this thread? If homosexuality was all of sudden deemed universally acceptable, or "not wrong," would you "turn gay"?

And there are also non biblical cultures that believe homosexuality is wrong.

That doesn't seem like a reason for why homosexuality is wrong ...

 

[beechy]

Reread the post, and Please note the extreme case scenario provisos.

Were everyone to practice it (not just accept, and not being bisexual).. there would be serious lack of children.

How do your "extreme case scenarios" contribute to the argument that homosexuality is wrong?

 

[beechy]

The OP asked if there was anything non biblical that makes Homosexuality wrong.

Of course it's a silly scenario, with chance of happening that's virtually nil. But it's not impossible.
Aother silly scenario (at least for the time being) is that all people will practice hetero sexuality. Again the chance of this happening is also about the same.
But what if the trends of increased instances of homosexuality keep increasing? is it possible that it could get to the point what everyone would choose (or become) homosexual? yes... if so which extreme would be wiser?
Why even go through that? kinda the same reason people when checking trends over-jump what the real numbers are indicating, and use worst case scenario numbers instead.

If you want more realistic reasons they were also given in my post a few relies back

"Why even go through that?" Because there are people out there who have fallen in love with, and will continue to fall in love with, someone of the same sex. If homosexuality were deemed acceptable would you "choose" or "become" (or whatever it is you're worried about) gay?

Maybe we should crack down on liberal arts majors in universities. Because, who knows, maybe someday more and more kids will decide they want to be art and history majors rather than having to take calculus and chemistry, and then there would be no more civil engineers, and slowly but surely over time our nation's freeways and bridges would collapse and each city and state would gradually become isolated from its neighbors and little tribe-like factions will start to form and wars will break out between neighboring towns ... and ... and ... and ... AAAAHHHH!!!! Why should we even put ourselves through that?!?! Quick, I vote we start by shutting down all the art and music colleges so kids won't even be tempted to go there! Shall we start with Julliard?!?!

 

[Brennin]

Does society...benefit from blonde hair?

Yes!

 

[kopilo]

Why?

Health costs (just like every other goods and services) will increase for everyone due to inflation, this is a natural trait of a turbulant and growing economy.

Does society...benefit from blonde hair?

Yes!

>insert blond joke<

 

[kopilo]

I don't think anyone has ever argued that heterosexuality should be eliminated. Is the real concern that if homosexuality was deemed acceptable, then everybody would be homosexual? Is that true for all of the heterosexuals posting to this thread? If homosexuality was all of sudden deemed universally acceptable, or "not wrong," would you "turn gay"?

No, I'm already fruity enough.

 

[Blackmarch]

So if, by your own admission, this scenario is "silly", why even bring it up?

Many other silly things are posted in debates on all sides, why not? There are many things that this one sees as silly, but others see as serious.

What evidence have you seen that suggests that homosexuality is increasing (as required by forum fules)?

Increased popularity and acceptance of it, numbers reported in various news organizations- now whether this increase is due to more reporting (and people coming out in the open), or due to actual instances is largely unkown (because of lack of data). Either way it's an increase of numbers, hence the word seems was used instead of is or are.

What evidence is there that homosexuals "choose" their orientation?

Some do, some may not (but saying all do, or all do not is certainly erroneous), but my arguance would be that many have the ability to choose the environments that will influence them to become such (or environments would influence them to be "straight").

What is the point of answering a hypothetical question based on extremes when the hypothetical, in your own words, is "silly"?

My definitions and others definitions of what is considered silly aren't the same, but even silly things, or things that seems illy now, may end up not being so silly.

I'm sorry, I must have missed them. You mentioned the possibility of all people becoming homosexual, which you have now admitted was silly.

The argument was based on the idea that homosexuals do not reproduce. OTOH, many gay couples do reproduce; gay males finding a woman willing to carry a child for them, lesbians being artificially inseminated. If we assume that at some point in the future all people will become gay, it is not an automatic conclusion that the species would die out or seriously decline.

sorry for not defining ot further.. those individuals would fall under bisexual, my posts were on ones who feel such hetero interactions disgusting/repulsive.

The only other idea I noticed was your mentioning that there are non-Christian societies that believe homosexuality is wrong. Of course, go back a few hundred years and most societies -- including Christian ones -- believed that slavery was okay. Did that make it correct? Do those societies have anything other than religion or social bias to justify their position on homosexuality?

You fail to define right or wrong, th OP does this partially by saying that you can't use the BIble, so that morality can't be used, however this is basically a negative, and leaves room for other sources.
So to answer, technically there is nothing right or wrong except to whatever according to the prevailing morality of an a person/being or group that is able to be enforced. So if that prevailing morality said that slavery was OK, then it is. Therefore what those cultures believe as right or wrong has weight, the question is how much? Of course if there's a god, then in the end that being would be able to enforce his/it's morality.

 

[Blackmarch]

I don't think anyone has ever argued that heterosexuality should be eliminated. Is the real concern that if homosexuality was deemed acceptable, then everybody would be homosexual? Is that true for all of the heterosexuals posting to this thread? If homosexuality was all of sudden deemed universally acceptable, or "not wrong," would you "turn gay"?

As this one currently sees it as disgusting, preferrably not, however were you to change enough variables dealing with history, biology, and GOd, then this one can't say.

That doesn't seem like a reason for why homosexuality is wrong ...

What does?.. now remember you can't use the Bible (and presumeably the God of the Bible) from the OP. YOu must also then define how what is right and what is wrong is brought about.

 

[beechy]

As this one currently sees it as disgusting, preferrably not, however were you to change enough variables dealing with history, biology, and GOd, then this one can't say.

Um, ok "this one." I fail to see how your line of "reasoning" contributes to this discussion. Generally speaking, I suppose if enough "variables dealing with history, biology, and God" were changed then all sorts of wildly unpredictable things could be different. (Have you ever seen the Simpsons episode where Homer goes back in time and every time he alters one tiny little thing in history, like picking a flower, or giving the dinosaurs the flu, then the fate of the entire planet is changed?) So what? Please see my post #68.

This kind of out of control, unfounded hysteria is not a sound basis for public policy or, I would argue, private action. Do you confine yourself to your home so as to avoid the possibility that when you step outside you'll trip on your shoe laces while crossing the street and land on a young child who had entered the cross walk to get her runaway ball just as a drunk driver hurtles into the the intersection, killing you both?

What does?.. now remember you can't use the Bible (and presumeably the God of the Bible) from the OP. YOu must also then define how what is right and what is wrong is brought about.

I was responding to your statement that there are "non biblical cultures that believe homosexuality is wrong."

 

[SimplyMe]

Many other silly things are posted in debates on all sides, why not? There are many things that this one sees as silly, but others see as serious.

There are silly things posted in various debates, though the more serious tend to show the many flaws in the silly argument, just as has happened with yours. The problem is that by arguing a silly point -- one you agree is silly -- makes you appear less than honest. Those who believe the silliness they post, we all have our opinions of them, especially if they refuse to see.

Increased popularity and acceptance of it, numbers reported in various news organizations- now whether this increase is due to more reporting (and people coming out in the open), or due to actual instances is largely unkown (because of lack of data). Either way it's an increase of numbers, hence the word seems was used instead of is or are.

I'll agree that more gays are out and living their lives in the open. I happen to think that is a good thing that more people don't feel the need to lie about who they are. As for the number of people that are actually homosexual, I don't think that number has changed greatly. And while most people disagree with Kinsey's 10% number, it does help show that what we are currently seeing is not an increase in homosexuals but an increase in awareness that homosexuals exist.

Some do, some may not (but saying all do, or all do not is certainly erroneous), but my arguance would be that many have the ability to choose the environments that will influence them to become such (or environments would influence them to be "straight").

I'm going to disagree with you slightly, though it's mostly terminology. For those who can "choose" their orientation, I would submit that they are actually bi-sexual who, based on societal reasons, feel a need to choose one of the two extremes.

I've seen no evidence to indicate that people can change their base orientation. Instead it seems that some, mostly bisexuals, can choose to live only a "portion" of their sexuality and even change within their orientation depending on circumstances.

My definitions and others definitions of what is considered silly aren't the same, but even silly things, or things that seems illy now, may end up not being so silly.

While that's possible, since you also believe it is silly it still weakens your argument here and now.

sorry for not defining ot further.. those individuals would fall under bisexual, my posts were on ones who feel such hetero interactions disgusting/repulsive.

I don't believe a persons feelings about sex have anything to do with their desire for children. There have been many women throughout history who, it is claimed, had no enjoyment/interest in heterosexual sex yet still had many children. Further, there is no need in today's society to have sex to have a child.

You fail to define right or wrong, th OP does this partially by saying that you can't use the BIble, so that morality can't be used, however this is basically a negative, and leaves room for other sources.
So to answer, technically there is nothing right or wrong except to whatever according to the prevailing morality of an a person/being or group that is able to be enforced. So if that prevailing morality said that slavery was OK, then it is. Therefore what those cultures believe as right or wrong has weight, the question is how much? Of course if there's a god, then in the end that being would be able to enforce his/it's morality.

Yet the Bible is still rather a subjective method of defining morals. While there are many things considered moral absolutes, there are many other ambiguous messages. I'd suggest that people's view of "Biblical morality" is a reflection of their personal morality. For that matter, the Bible clearly appears to condone slavery.

The Christians who are in the KKK have no problem finding scripture that they claim justifies racial discrimination. A lower court only about 40 years ago ruled that interracial marriages should be banned because of the Bible -- though they were overturned by the Supreme Court (Loving v. Virginia). The Westboro church claims that we should kill gays based on what the Bible claims. And then there are the various topics where people debate what the Bible claims: homosexuality, abortion, divorce, fornication, etc.

As for God having the truth about moral absolutes, the problem is that He's never clearly told us what those absolutes are. I submit that God has allegedly told various prophets the absolute morals (Abraham, Noah, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Muhammad, Cassandra, Buddha, Gordon Hinckley, etc.) but that cannot be considered a clear message as none of these people was ever considered a spokesman for God by the majority of the World. While Christ was God (according to Christians), the fact is still that most of the world does not accept him as God -- especially during His own lifetime. I'm not saying that none of these people weren't prophets, just stating that since we can't agree on which ones are, and often can't agree on what their morality really was, it's questionable to run society on any individuals belief of "God's morals" are.

 

[outlaw]

Increased popularity and acceptance of it, numbers reported in various news organizations- now whether this increase is due to more reporting (and people coming out in the open), or due to actual instances is largely unkown (because of lack of data). Either way it's an increase of numbers, hence the word seems was used instead of is or are.

An increase in awareness or the increased ability of gays and lesbians to live openly and honestly without fear of violence does not mean the population of gays and lesbians is increasing as you previously claimed.

Some do, some may not (but saying all do, or all do not is certainly erroneous), but my arguance would be that many have the ability to choose the environments that will influence them to become such (or environments would influence them to be "straight").

You have managed to provide no evidence that sexual orientation is a choice. Further you now seem to be claiming (again without supporting references) that not only is sexual orientation somehow a choice but that ones environment affects sexual orientation.

Please read suzybeezy’s post regarding the need for such references
http://www.christianforums.com/t2939301-all-posters-of-em-read-asap-regarding-rule-42.html

sorry for not defining ot further.. those individuals would fall under bisexual, my posts were on ones who feel such hetero interactions disgusting/repulsive.

And who exactly thinks this?

You fail to define right or wrong, th OP does this partially by saying that you can't use the BIble, so that morality can't be used, however this is basically a negative, and leaves room for other sources.
So to answer, technically there is nothing right or wrong except to whatever according to the prevailing morality of an a person/being or group that is able to be enforced.

and using the bible does nothing to change this.

So if that prevailing morality said that slavery was OK, then it is. Therefore what those cultures believe as right or wrong has weight, the question is how much? Of course if there's a god, then in the end that being would be able to enforce his/it's morality.

You of course realize that the bible was used to justify slavery and is still used to justify racism.

 

[Brennin]

You of course realize that the bible was used to justify slavery and is still used to justify racism.

Against whom? The Philistines? Cuz' there is nothing in the Bible to justify racism against black people. (In fact, there is much to militate against it).

 

[morningstar2651]

That logic would also allow for the introduction of diseases to control the population.
The problem is, unfortunately, we have very few monogamous relationships.
No, my opinion comes from the fact that we aren't built that way, so therefore it is deviant.
By far, percentage wise, more homosexuals carry the aids virus.
How is that religious?
Quite an interesting position. If marriage should be so open, why should the state even license it? By your definition, why shouldn't polygamists also have the same right? What about roommates?
Again, if they can do so, why not anyone? Where is the value in a traditional marriage for society?

Do you have evidence? Mine contradicts yours on several points.

 

[outlaw]

Against whom? The Philistines? Cuz' there is nothing in the Bible to justify racism against black people. (In fact, there is much to militate against it).

Please don’t pretend that racism and slavery were not biblically justified or that racism is still not biblically justified.

Liberty and Slavery: Southern Politics to 1860. William Cooper.

Noah’s Curse: the Biblical Justification of American Slavery Stephen Haynes

“Curse of Ham (also called the curse of Canaan) refers to the curse that Noah placed upon Canaan (the son of Ham) after Ham saw Noah naked because of drunkenness in his tent.
Most Biblical scholars see the curse of Ham story as an early Hebrew rationalization for Israel's conquest and enslavement of the Canaanites, who were presumed to descend from Canaan.
Much more controversially, however, the "curse of Ham" has been used by some members of major Abrahamic religions to justify racism and the enslavement of people of African ancestry, who were thought to be descendants of Ham (often called Hamites), either through Canaan or his older brothers. This racialist theory was common during the 18th-20th centuries, but has been largely abandoned even by the most conservative theologians since the mid-20th century.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ham,_son_of_Noah


there is a long history of using the bible to justify racism
a few examples:
“The existence of domestic Slavery was expressly allowed, sanctioned, and regulated by the Supreme Lawgiver, in that divine economy which He gave the Hebrew state. The fact is open and undisputed; the record and proof of it are in the hands of every man who has in his possession a copy of the Bible. All the ingenuity and art of all the Abolitionists in the United States can never destroy the necessary conclusion of this admitted divine sanction of Slavery”
John C. Lord A sermon on the duties men owe to God and to governments./ Delivered at the Central Presbyterian church on Thanksgiving day, 1850

[referring to conscientious objectors to slavery...] “Such honest but mistaken persons should remember, that if the institution of slavery is necessarily and from its nature sinful now, it must always have been so; as universal principles admit of no change, and their argument is, therefore, an impeachment of the benevolence of God, and a denial of the supreme authority of the Gospel, as a system of ethics...
... I would affectionately warn all who have named the name of Christ, and who have been betrayed by passion or sympathy into such a position, to see to it before they take the inevitable plunge ... into the gulf of infidelity.”
Alonzo Potter, Episcopal Bishop of Diocese of Vermont 1854


The pamphlet published in January, 1861, to which you have so kindly referred, is at your service, in its original form; as I have not found, in the numerous answers which it has drawn forth, any reason for changing my opinion. On the contrary, those answers have only strengthened my conviction as to the sanction which the Scriptures give to the principle of negro slavery, so long as it is administered in accordance with the precepts laid down by the Apostles.
John Henry Hopkins. 1863


... [Abolitionists] contend that it is a moral evil -- a positive sin to hold a human being in bondage, under any circumstances whatever, unless as a punishment inflicted on crimes, for the safety of the community. Here, therefore, lies the true aspect of the controversy, and it is evident that it can only be settled by the Bible. For every Christian is bound to assent to the rule of the inspired Apostle, that "sin is the transgression of the law," namely, the law laid down in the Scriptures by the authority of God-the supreme "Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy." From his Word there can be no appeal. No rebellion can be so atrocious in his sight as that which dares to rise against his government. No blasphemy can be more unpardonable than that which imputes sin or moral evil to the decrees of the eternal Judge, who is alone perfect in wisdom, in knowledge, and in love. With entire correctness, therefore, your letter refers the question to the only infallible criterion -- the Word of God. If it were a matter to be determined by my personal sympathies, tastes, or feelings, I should be as ready as any man to condemn the institution of slavery; for all my prejudices of education, habit, and social position stand entirely opposed to it. But as a Christian, I am solemnly warned not to be "wise in my own conceit," and not to "lean to my own understanding." As a Christian, I am compelled to submit my weak and erring intellect to the authority of the Almighty. For then only can I be safe in my conclusions, when I know that they are in accordance with the will of Him...
John Henry Hopkins “Bible View of Slavery” 1858


“The first appearance of slavery in the Bible is the wonderful prediction of the patriarch Noah: "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant." (Gen. 9: 25.) The heartless irreverence which Ham, the father of Canaan, displayed toward his eminent parent, whose piety had just saved him from the deluge, presented the immediate occasion for this remarkable prophecy; but the actual fulfillment was reserved for his posterity, after they had lost the knowledge of God, and become utterly polluted by the abominations of heathen idolatry. The Almighty, foreseeing this total degradation of the race, ordained them to servitude or slavery under the descendants of Shem and Japheth, doubtless because he judged it to be their fittest condition. And all history proves how accurately the prediction has been accomplished, even to the present day.
We come next to the proof that slavery was sanctioned by the Deity in the case of Abraham, whose three hundred and eighteen bond-servants, born in his own house, (Gen. 14: 14,) are mentioned along with those who were bought with his money, as proper subjects for circumcision. (Gen. 17:12[?]) His wife Sarah had also an Egyptian slave, named Hagar, who fled from her severity. And "the angel of the Lord" commanded the fugitive to return to her mistress and submit herself. (Gen. 16: 9.) If the philanthropists of our age, who profess to believe the Bible, had been willing to take the counsel of that angel for their guide, it would have preserved the peace and welfare of the Union.
The third proof that slavery was authorized by the Almighty occurs in the last of the Ten Commandments, delivered from Mount Sinai, and universally acknowledged by Jews and Christians as THE MORAL LAW: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." (Exod. 20: 17.) Here it is evident that the principle of property -- "any thing that is thy neighbor's" -- runs through the whole. ... I am equally aware that the wives of our day may take umbrage at the law which places them in the same sentence with the slave, and even with the house and the cattle. But the truth is none the less certain. The husband has a real property in the wife, because she is bound, for life, to serve and to obey him. The wife has a real property in her husband, because he is bound, for life, to cherish and maintain her. The character of property is doubtless modified by its design. But whatever, whether person or thing, the law appropriates to an individual, becomes of necessity his property.
The fourth proof, however, is yet more express, as it is derived from the direct rule established by the wisdom of God for his chosen people, Israel, on the very point in question, viz.: "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve [new page] and in the seventh year he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself. If he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters, the wife and the children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." (Exod. 21: 2-4.) Here we see that the separation of husband and wife is positively directed by the divine command, in order to secure the property of the master in his bond-maid and her offspring.”
John Henry Hopkins “Bible View of Slavery” 1858

 

[wblastyn]

Some do, some may not (but saying all do, or all do not is certainly erroneous), but my arguance would be that many have the ability to choose the environments that will influence them to become such (or environments would influence them to be "straight").

What kind of environment are you talking about, also how can you choose what environment you are brought up in?