What science says about homosexuality

[Zaac]

Nope, they can't. Which is why you hear nothing but deafening silence when you provide them with actual evidence.

As a Christian, science could "prove" that homosexuality is not a choice and it wouldn't mean anything from a Christian standpoint.

God's word speaks to people CHOOSING to fornicate with those of the same sex.

So in that regard "proving" such a thing scientifically in no way affects what God says is sin.

 

[ragarth]

As a Christian, science could "prove" that homosexuality is not a choice and it wouldn't mean anything from a Christian standpoint.

God's word speaks to people CHOOSING to fornicate with those of the same sex.

So in that regard "proving" such a thing scientifically in no way affects what God says is sin.

Ah, I understand you completely. Curse and mark of Cain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ke1985]

i thought homosexuality was proven..what happened to everyone?

Got nothing to say!

 

[KCKID]

As a Christian, science could "prove" that homosexuality is not a choice and it wouldn't mean anything from a Christian standpoint.

God's word speaks to people CHOOSING to fornicate with those of the same sex.

So in that regard "proving" such a thing scientifically in no way affects what God says is sin.

Back to square one, Zaac. AND, we ALWAYS come back to square one. YOU are a sinner ...correct? So, why is a homosexual MORE of a sinner than you are? The question is real, by the way. I can never figure this one out. I mean, "I" can't point the finger at anyone because I'm unworthy ...how come you can?

 

[Inviolable]

Back to square one, Zaac. AND, we ALWAYS come back to square one. YOU are a sinner ...correct? So, why is a homosexual MORE of a sinner than you are? The question is real, by the way. I can never figure this one out. I mean, "I" can't point the finger at anyone because I'm unworthy ...how come you can?

I've always kind of wondered.

If someone had to point out any other sins, would you ask the same question?

 

[Verv]

Nope, they can't. Which is why you hear nothing but deafening silence when you provide them with actual evidence.

A deafening silence of AWESOME:

Humans are wired to mate with people of the opposite gender for the creation of families.

Homosexuals are not.

Thus, they do not have the fundamental goal of procreation for their society.

However, a homosexual in not possessing the deisre to mate with people of the opposite gender is especially awkward before their fellow humans.

 

[LightHorseman]

Yeah, thats right. Anyone different to the majority is an unhealthy person with a disorder. Left handers, red heads and caucasians should all be rounded up and put into camps so they don't contaminate the healthy majority.

 

[Verv]

Yeah, thats right. Anyone different to the majority is an unhealthy person with a disorder. Left handers, red heads and caucasians should all be rounded up and put into camps so they don't contaminate the healthy majority.

what hand you use, what race you are and the color of your hair are irrelevant to the survival of a species.

However, the lack of desire to have a heterosexual mate / family could be quite detrimental and becomes disadvantageous to the nature of the race.

 

[LightHorseman]

what hand you use, what race you are and the color of your hair are irrelevant to the survival of a species.

However, the lack of desire to have a heterosexual mate / family could be quite detrimental and becomes disadvantageous to the nature of the race.

Except that the natural occurence of homosexuality means roughly 5-10% of people will be homosexual. Those rates don't threaten the survival of the species.

Indeed, since you now subscribe to scientific evidence, I'm sure you'll be happy to know that the current consensus suggests that the genetic component of homosexuality actually IMPROVES the reproductivity of female homosexual gene carriers. So in terms of population genetics, homosexuality is somewhat like sickle cell anaemia... someone with a double recessive won't reproduce at all, but someone who carries a single recessive of the gene is more likely to reproduce than someone who isn't carrying the gene at all.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To apersonsaperson.
The research you have cited comes before the APA have admitted there is no consensus of scientific opinion for what you claim. Certainly people do have same sex attractions, but they have all kind of sexual attractions and it doesn't mean that are all right because they are all natural, they arent all natural.
Secondly of course its a lifestyle choice, to follow it or not. To be greedy, a natural tempatition and orientation for me, is likewise something I choose to persue or not.

 

[LightHorseman]

To apersonsaperson.
The research you have cited comes before the APA have admitted there is no consensus of scientific opinion for what you claim. Certainly people do have same sex attractions, but they have all kind of sexual attractions and it doesn't mean that are all right because they are all natural, they arent all natural.
Secondly of course its a lifestyle choice, to follow it or not. To be greedy, a natural tempatition and orientation for me, is likewise something I choose to persue or not.

What do you think the word "natural" means?

Listen, if you want to do something useful and get all worked up about something REALLY disturbed and unnatural? Go google "Yiff" and go tell THOSE guys what you think of them.

 

[ragarth]

what hand you use, what race you are and the color of your hair are irrelevant to the survival of a species.

However, the lack of desire to have a heterosexual mate / family could be quite detrimental and becomes disadvantageous to the nature of the race.

Evidence for maternally inherited factors favourin...[Proc Biol Sci. 2004] - PubMed Result

The Darwinian paradox of male homosexuality in humans is examined, i.e. if male homosexuality has a genetic component and homosexuals reproduce less than heterosexuals, then why is this trait maintained in the population? In a sample of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives (a total of over 4600 individuals), we found that female maternal relatives of homosexuals have higher fecundity than female maternal relatives of heterosexuals and that this difference is not found in female paternal relatives. The study confirms previous reports, in particular that homosexuals have more maternal than paternal male homosexual relatives, that homosexual males are more often later-born than first-born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters. We discuss the findings and their implications for current research on male homosexuality.

The agile gene: how nature turns on ... - Google Book Search
[The Agile Gene by Matt Ridley]
From 3rd paragraph of page 160 to end of 1st paragraph of page 162

What could the mother be reacting to? There are several genes expressed only in males, and some are already known to raise an immune reaction in mothers. Some are expressed prenatally in the brain. One intriguing new possibility is a gene called PCDH22, which is on the Y chromosome, is therefore specific to males, and is probably involved in building the brain. It is the recipe for a protocadherin (see Chaper 5). Could this be the gene that wires the bit of the brain that is peculiar to males? A maternal immune reaction may be sufficient to prevent the wiring of the part of the brain that would eventually encourage a fascination with female bodies.

So we see here two things- Two potential genetic links, and advantage of having gay children.

So, if being gay is a sin, why did god setup this immune response process that manufactures gay men?

 

[Andreusz]

A deafening silence of AWESOME:

it proves that homosexuality is a syndrome that makes people differ from regular human beings due to genetic reasons, making it akin to any other good, old fashioned disorder.

Humans are wired to mate with people of the opposite gender for the creation of families.

Homosexuals are not.

Thus, homosexuals are unhealthy -- they do not have the fundamental goal of procreation for their society. Just as such, a sterile person is unhealthy because they cannot procreate.

However, a homosexual in not possessing the deisre to mate with people of the opposite gender is especially awkward before their fellow humans as they practice something that is fundamentally distasteful to the human being.

Just because something is distasteful to you, doesn't mean it is distasteful to human beings generally.

 

[Zaac]

Back to square one, Zaac. AND, we ALWAYS come back to square one.

If square one is God's word, then yep. Right back at square one.

YOU are a sinner ...correct? So, why is a homosexual MORE of a sinner than you are?

Who said that? That's not what God's word says. The sin of homosexual fornication is no greater than the sin of heterosexual fornication or any other sin.

The question is real, by the way. I can never figure this one out. I mean, "I" can't point the finger at anyone because I'm unworthy ...how come you can?

Apparently I have a better understanding of God's word and what HE gives me permission to do than you do. My God gives me His permission to righteously judge all things as long as I'm not doing so hypocritically.

I may not be able to judge your heart because God alone does that, but I may certainly righteously judge acts. It would be impossible to teach, correct, rebuke and train in righteousness without doing so.

2 Timothy 4:2 NIV says: “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage- with great patience and careful instruction.”

Some of yall have the misguided just flat out wrong notion that you can't say anything to someone about their sin if you too are a sinner. If that's the case and you've got kids, don't ever correct them or discipline them or tell them that they shouldn't do something.

 

[David Brider]

As a Christian, science could "prove" that homosexuality is not a choice and it wouldn't mean anything from a Christian standpoint.

God's word speaks to people CHOOSING to fornicate with those of the same sex.

So in that regard "proving" such a thing scientifically in no way affects what God says is sin.

You do realise, that being homosexual is not the same thing as fornicating, don't you?

David.

 

[Zaac]

You do realise, that being homosexual is not the same thing as fornicating, don't you?

David.

You do realize, don't you, that is the reason I said science proving that homosexuality is not a choice wouldn't change a thing from a Christian standpoint?

God hasn't said anything about folks just "being". It's not a sin to identify as a homosexual anymore than it's a sin to identify as a heterosexual. Though some might think so, Biblically, it just ain't so.

His word speaks to certain ACTS as being sinful. So "proving" that homosexuality is not a choice wouldn't change a thing as far as God's word is concerned.

 

[ragarth]

You do realize, don't you, that is the reason I said science proving that homosexuality is not a choice wouldn't change a thing from a Christian standpoint?

God hasn't said anything about folks just "being". It's not a sin to identify as a homosexual anymore than it's a sin to identify as a heterosexual. Though some might think so, Biblically, it just ain't so.

His word speaks to certain ACTS as being sinful. So "proving" that homosexuality is not a choice wouldn't change a thing as far as God's word is concerned.

So, you're saying god engineered inequalities into man? Some people can have the happiness of marriage while others just aren't meant to?

 

[Kid Fish]

This illustrates my own long held belief that homosexuality is absolutely a disorder, just as it was once classified before the issue became politicized by the gay lobby. So let's agree it is a deformity of the mind(like bi-polar) and let's see if we can cure it.

 

[ragarth]

This illustrates my own long held belief that homosexuality is absolutely a disorder, just as it was once classified before the issue became politicized by the gay lobby. So let's agree it is a deformity of the mind(like bi-polar) and let's see if we can cure it.

So how does being gay adversely effect the lives of those gay individuals in ways that are not directly linked to the disdain and stigma of people like you, and that are not shared by heterosexuals?

 

[Mercy Medical]

How does any of this prove that these changes were there in the womb and at birth?

I'm assuming by this statement you are trying to conclude that homosexuality can be a "learned" thing or that it can develop through nurture.

I have met very, very, very many gay and lesbian individuals in my life time. No two come from the same type of home. I am a lesbian and I came from a strong Christian household where both of my parents were present and where there were very strong family values. I essentially came from a seemingly "perfect" home in today's standards...yet I am a lesbian. My cousin had a very similar situation. Strong Christian home, strong family values and he is now gay. It's not something you just happen to develop in your life or is the cause of some issues in the upbringing. We were very aware that my cousin would be gay as he preferred to play with barbies, cook, and dress up when he was very, very young.