Gayness

[Cal]

I tend to want to fight bigotry where I find it.... and I often find it here, though there are some very enlightened and bright people here (I'm not saying I'm always one of them )... I get occasional comments about how gayness is this big sin the God will punish with hsi swift wrath. Perhaps He will but, before we jump to any conclusions:

Read both the Minnesota and Australian identical twin studies. I will summarize. They both found a genetic component to homosexuality. The rate of homosexuality among regular brothers or sisters, as well as any other group of people is anywhere from 2 to 5 %. (I know the 5% is the one Kinsey got, with which some disagree--but that is not the point here)

Both the Minnesota and Australian studies took IDENTICAL twins (same genetics) who had been separated at birth and studied their rates of homosexuality. Now, if environment were the only factor at play, you would expect the rate to be the same as non-identical twins (2-5%). But, low and behold, the rate of gayness among identical twins, separated at birth, living in totally different environments is 50%. Did you get that? 50%. What do identical twins have in common, that the other groups don't. Only one thing, GENETICS.

Bottomline: There is a genetic component to gayness. No question. Now is there an environmental one too? Very well could be. Most human behavior is influenced by environment. But to say that gayness cannot be influence by genetics is totally false.

On top of that, it has been shown that the brain of gay people has structures in it that are characteristic of the opposite sex--these are anatomical differences, which are controlled by genes.

Finally, social studies of interviews with many gay people indicate that many if not most, gays feel they were born that way, that they felt no real choice in the matter.

Put all of this together, and the rational person can come to only one conclusion--gayness is not really completely an environmental and personal choice over which one has complete control. Most of these people are born that way.

One last little point: If gayness were this big sin and simply a moral indiscretion, how do you explain that the rate of gayness in humans is similar in rate and quality to gayness in chimpanzees? And is also present in other mammalian groups as well. Did God create gayness? It appears He did. How then is it a sin? Did God create sinful things? Are chimps going to answer to God for being gay?

[Jason]

I read of a study that claims that Adultery is genetic. That I've seen in my own family. So if Alcoholism is genetic, and Homosexuality is genetic, and Adultery is genetic, then what do we do?

Bear our Crosses, friends. Bear them like men and women. I have alcoholism in my family. I have rampant adultury in my family. I even have homosexuals in my family. Does that somehow justify my involvement in any of these things?

NO.

><>

Jason

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

Whether "gayness" is biologically determined is beside the point. Virtually half the human population has a genetic predisposition to violate the Lord's standard for sexuality, namely, faithful marriage. It's called an extra X chromosome.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 29 2005, 01:04 PM

I tend to want to fight bigotry where I find it.... and I often find it here, though there are some very enlightened and bright people here (I'm not saying I'm always one of them )... I get occasional comments about how gayness is this big sin the God will punish with hsi swift wrath. Perhaps He will but, before we jump to any conclusions:

Read both the Minnesota and Australian identical twin studies. I will summarize. They both found a genetic component to homosexuality. The rate of homosexuality among regular brothers or sisters, as well as any other group of people is anywhere from 2 to 5 %. (I know the 5% is the one Kinsey got, with which some disagree--but that is not the point here)

Both the Minnesota and Australian studies took IDENTICAL twins (same genetics) who had been separated at birth and studied their rates of homosexuality. Now, if environment were the only factor at play, you would expect the rate to be the same as non-identical twins (2-5%). But, low and behold, the rate of gayness among identical twins, separated at birth, living in totally different environments is 50%. Did you get that? 50%. What do identical twins have in common, that the other groups don't. Only one thing, GENETICS.

Bottomline: There is a genetic component to gayness. No question. Now is there an environmental one too? Very well could be. Most human behavior is influenced by environment. But to say that gayness cannot be influence by genetics is totally false.

On top of that, it has been shown that the brain of gay people has structures in it that are characteristic of the opposite sex--these are anatomical differences, which are controlled by genes.

Finally, social studies of interviews with many gay people indicate that many if not most, gays feel they were born that way, that they felt no real choice in the matter.

Put all of this together, and the rational person can come to only one conclusion--gayness is not really completely an environmental and personal choice over which one has complete control. Most of these people are born that way.

One last little point: If gayness were this big sin and simply a moral indiscretion, how do you explain that the rate of gayness in humans is similar in rate and quality to gayness in chimpanzees? And is also present in other mammalian groups as well. Did God create gayness? It appears He did. How then is it a sin? Did God create sinful things? Are chimps going to answer to God for being gay?

Is Kinsey your daughter? Is she gay? Is that why you feel the way you do?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 29 2005, 01:30 PM

Cal,

Whether "gayness" is biologically determined is beside the point. Virtually half the human population has a genetic predisposition to violate the Lord's standard for sexuality, namely, faithful marriage. It's called an extra X chromosome.

Everyone knows

Gen. 6: 5

5 ¶ And GOD saw that the awickedness• of man was great in the earth, and that bevery• imagination of the cthoughts• of his dheart was only eevil continually.

Gen. 8: 21

21 And the LORD smelled a sweet asavour•; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again bcurse• the ground any more cfor• man’s sake; for the dimagination• of man’s heart is eevil from his youth; neither will I again fsmite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Ether 3: 2

2 O Lord, thou hast said that we must be encompassed about by the floods. Now behold, O Lord, and do not be aangry• with thy servant because of his weakness before thee; for we know that thou art holy and dwellest in the heavens, and that we are bunworthy• before thee; because of the cfall our dnatures• have become evil continually; nevertheless, O Lord, thou hast given us a commandment that we must call upon thee, that from thee we may receive according to our desires.

The natural man is an enemy to God.

[Jenda]

Homosexuality is an "end of the line"-type of problem. Gays can't reproduce themselves. They can't "go forth and multiply". When they die, there is nobody to carry on their trait (even if it is genetic). I don't think that God creates something that has no chance of survival. Cancer is genetic, too, but it isn't natural.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 29 2005, 12:04 PM

What do identical twins have in common, that the other groups don't. Only one thing, GENETICS.

I completely disagree with this statement, and it might be why the rate of homosexuality among identical twins separated at birth could be so high. That would be environment. Identical twins separated at birth almost invariably talk of knowing that part of them is missing, not knowing what "that part" is. That they have a bond (which they may feel but not know what it means) with someone of the same sex that they don't know about could be what causes them to look for that "missing something" among members of their own sex.

[Cal]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jan 29 2005, 12:22 PM

I read of a study that claims that Adultery is genetic.  That I've seen in my own family.  So if Alcoholism is genetic, and Homosexuality is genetic, and Adultery is genetic, then what do we do? 

Bear our Crosses, friends.  Bear them like men and women.  I have alcoholism in my family.  I have rampant adultury in my family.  I even have homosexuals in my family.  Does that somehow justify my involvement in any of these things? 

NO. 

><>

Jason

Does that justify your involvement? Not if you don't have the gene!

So as to not be too brief in my response: It is one thing to acknowledge that society, with its prejudices and rules of conduct won't "punish" people who stray too far from the accepted norms and rules. In many cases, the behavior has to be punished because it infringes on the rights of others. For example, alcoholism leads to automobile accidents, violence and really poor decisions generally. The behavior that results from alcoholism has to be discouraged for societies' well being.

Adultery also results in serious and direct harm to children, and serious pain to others, disrupting the existing family. Genetic or not, the behavior needs to be discouraged.

Now, let's examine homosexuality with the same measuring stick. First, it doesn't break up families (unless a person who is homosexual is not honest about it up from). No one is forced to marry a homosexual. Homosexuality doesn't lead to violence, automobile accidents, any more than just being human does. Nor does it cause any harm, in an of itself to any children. The only harm to children is if homophobic parents reject their gay child---and in that case the harm comes not from the gayness itself, but from the ignorance and insensitivity of the parent.

As I said before, and you have not disagreed, a certain portion of any primate population, and that includes us, is going to be homosexual. It is not a disease, it causes no liver disease or automobile accidents. The only way it becomes an issue at all is when people arbitrarily decide it is not going to be tolerated. Many societies have tolerated it, with no ill effects.

I would say that more harm has been done to people in the name of punishing gayness, than has come from the gayness it self. Lots of people in the LDS church have been hounded out of the church simply because they were gay. The church has made it clear there is no acceptance of gays in the church. The GA's won't say it that way, but the effect is the same---gayness is a mortal sin, and us good, rightous, tithe-paying, sons of the pioneers aren't going to put up with it in our church.

By the way, the Minnesota and Australian identical twin studies are comprehensive and very scientific. They didn't deal just with homosexuality, they established that a whole host of human traits have genetic components. The Australian studied even showed that political orientation is influence by genetics. As science catches up with the claims of the pius religions dogmas, those dogmas will either parish or have to face some serious questions. For example, how can homosexual behavior be a sin, if God Himself made them that way? I have raised this question before and no one seems to be able to answer it.. (They try, but all I get is, well, read the Old Testament. I do, and I then find out that the God of the Old Testament also condoned slavery--- I can't believe in a God that would condone slavery, so I don't believe in the God of the Old Testament. There could be another one though, and he doesn't condemn gays for being what he made them either.

As to the CROSS you want people to bear---just make sure that you are not the one making the CROSS--I think we all know what God thought of the people that made the last one.

[Blessed]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jan 29 2005, 01:22 PM

I read of a study that claims that Adultery is genetic. That I've seen in my own family. So if Alcoholism is genetic, and Homosexuality is genetic, and Adultery is genetic, then what do we do?

Bear our Crosses, friends. Bear them like men and women. I have alcoholism in my family. I have rampant adultury in my family. I even have homosexuals in my family. Does that somehow justify my involvement in any of these things?

NO.

><>

Jason

Good post!

[Fatboy]

Originally posted by Cal+Jan 29 2005, 04:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jan 29 2005, 04:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@Jan 29 2005, 12:22 PM

I read of a study that claims that Adultery is genetic.  That I've seen in my own family.  So if Alcoholism is genetic, and Homosexuality is genetic, and Adultery is genetic, then what do we do? 

Bear our Crosses, friends.  Bear them like men and women.  I have alcoholism in my family.  I have rampant adultury in my family.  I even have homosexuals in my family.  Does that somehow justify my involvement in any of these things? 

NO. 

><>

Jason

Does that justify your involvement? Not if you don't have the gene!

So as to not be too brief in my response: It is one thing to acknowledge that society, with its prejudices and rules of conduct won't "punish" people who stray too far from the accepted norms and rules. In many cases, the behavior has to be punished because it infringes on the rights of others. For example, alcoholism leads to automobile accidents, violence and really poor decisions generally. The behavior that results from alcoholism has to be discouraged for societies' well being.

Adultery also results in serious and direct harm to children, and serious pain to others, disrupting the existing family. Genetic or not, the behavior needs to be discouraged.

Now, let's examine homosexuality with the same measuring stick. First, it doesn't break up families (unless a person who is homosexual is not honest about it up from). No one is forced to marry a homosexual. Homosexuality doesn't lead to violence, automobile accidents, any more than just being human does. Nor does it cause any harm, in an of itself to any children. The only harm to children is if homophobic parents reject their gay child---and in that case the harm comes not from the gayness itself, but from the ignorance and insensitivity of the parent.

As I said before, and you have not disagreed, a certain portion of any primate population, and that includes us, is going to be homosexual. It is not a disease, it causes no liver disease or automobile accidents. The only way it becomes an issue at all is when people arbitrarily decide it is not going to be tolerated. Many societies have tolerated it, with no ill effects.

I would say that more harm has been done to people in the name of punishing gayness, than has come from the gayness it self. Lots of people in the LDS church have been hounded out of the church simply because they were gay. The church has made it clear there is no acceptance of gays in the church. The GA's won't say it that way, but the effect is the same---gayness is a mortal sin, and us good, rightous, tithe-paying, sons of the pioneers aren't going to put up with it in our church.

By the way, the Minnesota and Australian identical twin studies are comprehensive and very scientific. They didn't deal just with homosexuality, they established that a whole host of human traits have genetic components. The Australian studied even showed that political orientation is influence by genetics. As science catches up with the claims of the pius religions dogmas, those dogmas will either parish or have to face some serious questions. For example, how can homosexual behavior be a sin, if God Himself made them that way? I have raised this question before and no one seems to be able to answer it.. (They try, but all I get is, well, read the Old Testament. I do, and I then find out that the God of the Old Testament also condoned slavery--- I can't believe in a God that would condone slavery, so I don't believe in the God of the Old Testament. There could be another one though, and he doesn't condemn gays for being what he made them either.

As to the CROSS you want people to bear---just make sure that you are not the one making the CROSS--I think we all know what God thought of the people that made the last one.

Any disobedience affects not only ourselves but others. If not directly, then indirectly. It is no sin to be gay, but it is if we act on it. It is not a sin to have feelings towards those of the opposite sex other than your spouse, but it is a sin if you act upon them. These feelings have to be controled even further. In that we don't even think about it. This life is for our spirit to learn to control our mortal body.

[Guest curvette]

Interesting you should post on this topic. I was just watching a "Discovery Health" show about transgendered people. One of the subjects was actually an identical twin. The subject was always very "butch", and definitely the dominant twin. So much so that she eventually had a full surgical transformation into a man. The other was a very feminine housewife/mother. It was interesting to hear about how different their very basic natures were growing up. They were (and continue to be) very close, but I've never heard of identical twins following such drastically different gender paths. It seems contrary to logic.

[Lindy]

Originally posted by Fatboy@Jan 29 2005, 09:19 PM

Any disobedience affects not only ourselves but others. If not directly, then indirectly. It is no sin to be gay, but it is if we act on it. It is not a sin to have feelings towards those of the opposite sex other than your spouse, but it is a sin if  you act upon them. These feelings have to be controled even further. In that we don't even think about it. This life is for our spirit to learn to control our mortal body.

Great statement.....and I will agree with that.

Control is the key word

Knew a guy years ago who was gay....that's what he told everyone anyways.... he became a priest in the Catholic church to help control his feelings.....I know how stupid that sounds now....but he actually did something that he thought would help his spirituality. He did what he thought was best for him.

Edited after thinking.... I also knew a young man, who served with my ex in the military, he couldn't handle the fact that he was gay, he didn't know where to turn or who to ask for help...... he hung himself. Sadly, he also, did what he thought was best for him.

He was in his early twenties.

If it wasn't for self control....where would most of us be today? Honestly.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Fatboy+Jan 29 2005, 09:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Fatboy @ Jan 29 2005, 09:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 29 2005, 04:50 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@Jan 29 2005, 12:22 PM

I read of a study that claims that Adultery is genetic.  That I've seen in my own family.  So if Alcoholism is genetic, and Homosexuality is genetic, and Adultery is genetic, then what do we do? 

Bear our Crosses, friends.  Bear them like men and women.  I have alcoholism in my family.  I have rampant adultury in my family.  I even have homosexuals in my family.  Does that somehow justify my involvement in any of these things? 

NO. 

><>

Jason

Does that justify your involvement? Not if you don't have the gene!

So as to not be too brief in my response: It is one thing to acknowledge that society, with its prejudices and rules of conduct won't "punish" people who stray too far from the accepted norms and rules. In many cases, the behavior has to be punished because it infringes on the rights of others. For example, alcoholism leads to automobile accidents, violence and really poor decisions generally. The behavior that results from alcoholism has to be discouraged for societies' well being.

Adultery also results in serious and direct harm to children, and serious pain to others, disrupting the existing family. Genetic or not, the behavior needs to be discouraged.

Now, let's examine homosexuality with the same measuring stick. First, it doesn't break up families (unless a person who is homosexual is not honest about it up from). No one is forced to marry a homosexual. Homosexuality doesn't lead to violence, automobile accidents, any more than just being human does. Nor does it cause any harm, in an of itself to any children. The only harm to children is if homophobic parents reject their gay child---and in that case the harm comes not from the gayness itself, but from the ignorance and insensitivity of the parent.

As I said before, and you have not disagreed, a certain portion of any primate population, and that includes us, is going to be homosexual. It is not a disease, it causes no liver disease or automobile accidents. The only way it becomes an issue at all is when people arbitrarily decide it is not going to be tolerated. Many societies have tolerated it, with no ill effects.

I would say that more harm has been done to people in the name of punishing gayness, than has come from the gayness it self. Lots of people in the LDS church have been hounded out of the church simply because they were gay. The church has made it clear there is no acceptance of gays in the church. The GA's won't say it that way, but the effect is the same---gayness is a mortal sin, and us good, rightous, tithe-paying, sons of the pioneers aren't going to put up with it in our church.

By the way, the Minnesota and Australian identical twin studies are comprehensive and very scientific. They didn't deal just with homosexuality, they established that a whole host of human traits have genetic components. The Australian studied even showed that political orientation is influence by genetics. As science catches up with the claims of the pius religions dogmas, those dogmas will either parish or have to face some serious questions. For example, how can homosexual behavior be a sin, if God Himself made them that way? I have raised this question before and no one seems to be able to answer it.. (They try, but all I get is, well, read the Old Testament. I do, and I then find out that the God of the Old Testament also condoned slavery--- I can't believe in a God that would condone slavery, so I don't believe in the God of the Old Testament. There could be another one though, and he doesn't condemn gays for being what he made them either.

As to the CROSS you want people to bear---just make sure that you are not the one making the CROSS--I think we all know what God thought of the people that made the last one.

Any disobedience affects not only ourselves but others. If not directly, then indirectly. It is no sin to be gay, but it is if we act on it. It is not a sin to have feelings towards those of the opposite sex other than your spouse, but it is a sin if you act upon them. These feelings have to be controled even further. In that we don't even think about it. This life is for our spirit to learn to control our mortal body.

Easy for you to tell a gay person not to act on who he/she is. Tell me this, what kind of God would provide a "legal" outlet for hetero's and make gay sex a complete sin? Essentially holding gay people to an entirely different set of standards than heteros? Preposterous. We have already established that HE made them that way?

Your God is a God of contradictions. Keep him for yourself. I want nothing to do with him.

Frankly, I think it is MAN who persecutes gays, not God. At least not mine.

[Cal]

Originally posted by curvette@Jan 29 2005, 09:38 PM

Interesting you should post on this topic. I was just watching a "Discovery Health" show about transgendered people. One of the subjects was actually an identical twin. The subject was always very "butch", and definitely the dominant twin. So much so that she eventually had a full surgical transformation into a man. The other was a very feminine housewife/mother. It was interesting to hear about how different their very basic natures were growing up. They were (and continue to be) very close, but I've never heard of identical twins following such drastically different gender paths. It seems contrary to logic.

The Minnesota studies showed a 50% correlation, not a 100% correlelation. Clearly, there can be exceptions. But the fact that identical twins are 50% correlated and the general population is 2% or so, leaves no doubt about the genetic connection.

[Cal]

Originally posted by lindy9556+Jan 29 2005, 11:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lindy9556 @ Jan 29 2005, 11:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Fatboy@Jan 29 2005, 09:19 PM

Any disobedience affects not only ourselves but others. If not directly, then indirectly. It is no sin to be gay, but it is if we act on it. It is not a sin to have feelings towards those of the opposite sex other than your spouse, but it is a sin if  you act upon them. These feelings have to be controled even further. In that we don't even think about it. This life is for our spirit to learn to control our mortal body.

Great statement.....and I will agree with that.

Control is the key word

Knew a guy years ago who was gay....that's what he told everyone anyways.... he became a priest in the Catholic church to help control his feelings.....I know how stupid that sounds now....but he actually did something that he thought would help his spirituality. He did what he thought was best for him.

Edited after thinking.... I also knew a young man, who served with my ex in the military, he couldn't handle the fact that he was gay, he didn't know where to turn or who to ask for help...... he hung himself. Sadly, he also, did what he thought was best for him.

He was in his early twenties.

If it wasn't for self control....where would most of us be today? Honestly.

Again, fighting prejudice and bigotry where I see it.... can't help myself.....

Your comment is chuck full of sheer nonsense.

The only reason gays are so unhappy is because of what the prejudice and self rightous heap upon them. It is people like you that make these people so soundly reject themselves. The best thing for their "spirituality" is to accept how God made them. I've already shown you the evidence that gayness is genetic. Unless you don't think God made our genes, how can you carry on like this. Your prejudice against what gays do in the privacy of their own lives is YOUR problem, not theirs. Get over it.

When Jesus returns, who do you think he is going to condemn--the homosexual, or those that call them sinners, make their lives miserable with statements like, "You are lost if you don't repent", God will punish you for being gay. Maybe you need to take a look at your own spirituality--calling evil that which God created.

You show me ONE single statement by JESUS Himself (not statements by anyone else) about the "evils of gayness". I challenge you. And if you can't I want you to get down on your knees and ask repentance for labeling what God has created, as evil.

It stands to reason that if JESUS had thought that being gay was much of a sin, if at all, he would have mentioned it----Never mind looking. Take my word, He never did.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Jan 30 2005, 01:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jan 30 2005, 01:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Jan 29 2005, 09:38 PM

Interesting you should post on this topic.  I was just watching a "Discovery Health" show about transgendered people.  One of the subjects was actually an identical twin.  The subject was always very "butch", and definitely the dominant twin.  So much so that she eventually had a full surgical transformation into a man.  The other was a very feminine housewife/mother. It was interesting to hear about how different their very basic natures were growing up.  They were (and continue to be) very close, but I've never heard of identical twins following such drastically different gender paths.  It seems contrary to logic.

The Minnesota studies showed a 50% correlation, not a 100% correlelation. Clearly, there can be exceptions. But the fact that identical twins are 50% correlated and the general population is 2% or so, leaves no doubt about the genetic connection.

I don't think it proves a thing about the genetic connection. I think it is entirely emotional in this sense.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Jan 30 2005, 01:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Jan 30 2005, 01:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 30 2005, 01:14 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Jan 29 2005, 09:38 PM

Interesting you should post on this topic.  I was just watching a "Discovery Health" show about transgendered people.  One of the subjects was actually an identical twin.  The subject was always very "butch", and definitely the dominant twin.  So much so that she eventually had a full surgical transformation into a man.  The other was a very feminine housewife/mother. It was interesting to hear about how different their very basic natures were growing up.  They were (and continue to be) very close, but I've never heard of identical twins following such drastically different gender paths.  It seems contrary to logic.

The Minnesota studies showed a 50% correlation, not a 100% correlelation. Clearly, there can be exceptions. But the fact that identical twins are 50% correlated and the general population is 2% or so, leaves no doubt about the genetic connection.

I don't think it proves a thing about the genetic connection. I think it is entirely emotional in this sense.

Then you are no scientist. I'll leave it at that. It might help if you did a little independent thinking instead of just parroting the prejudices of your mentors.

[Setheus]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jan 29 2005, 12:22 PM

I read of a study that claims that Adultery is genetic. That I've seen in my own family. So if Alcoholism is genetic, and Homosexuality is genetic, and Adultery is genetic, then what do we do?

Bear our Crosses, friends. Bear them like men and women. I have alcoholism in my family. I have rampant adultury in my family. I even have homosexuals in my family. Does that somehow justify my involvement in any of these things?

NO.

><>

Jason

Well said!

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Jan 30 2005, 01:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jan 30 2005, 01:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Jan 30 2005, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 30 2005, 01:14 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Jan 29 2005, 09:38 PM

Interesting you should post on this topic.  I was just watching a "Discovery Health" show about transgendered people.  One of the subjects was actually an identical twin.  The subject was always very "butch", and definitely the dominant twin.  So much so that she eventually had a full surgical transformation into a man.  The other was a very feminine housewife/mother. It was interesting to hear about how different their very basic natures were growing up.  They were (and continue to be) very close, but I've never heard of identical twins following such drastically different gender paths.  It seems contrary to logic.

The Minnesota studies showed a 50% correlation, not a 100% correlelation. Clearly, there can be exceptions. But the fact that identical twins are 50% correlated and the general population is 2% or so, leaves no doubt about the genetic connection.

I don't think it proves a thing about the genetic connection. I think it is entirely emotional in this sense.

Then you are no scientist. I'll leave it at that. It might help if you did a little independent thinking instead of just parroting the prejudices of your mentors.

I haven't parrotted anything. I haven't read much of anything connected with this issue lately. I am just stating that there is as much evidence (if you choose to call it that) of identical twins separated at birth who have stated that they feel whole portions of themselves missing (therefore making it an emotional disorder) as there is for your theory that it is genetic. Maybe instead of making fun of other people's ideas, you should enter into discussion about it. Your thoughts are not the only worthwhile thoughts on the subject, and science cannot prove (or disprove) everything. Your nastiness about the subject just tends to turn people off.

[TannersDad]

Originally posted by Cal+Jan 29 2005, 04:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jan 29 2005, 04:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@Jan 29 2005, 12:22 PM

I read of a study that claims that Adultery is genetic.  That I've seen in my own family.  So if Alcoholism is genetic, and Homosexuality is genetic, and Adultery is genetic, then what do we do? 

Bear our Crosses, friends.  Bear them like men and women.  I have alcoholism in my family.  I have rampant adultury in my family.  I even have homosexuals in my family.  Does that somehow justify my involvement in any of these things? 

NO. 

><>

Jason

Does that justify your involvement? Not if you don't have the gene!

So as to not be too brief in my response: It is one thing to acknowledge that society, with its prejudices and rules of conduct won't "punish" people who stray too far from the accepted norms and rules. In many cases, the behavior has to be punished because it infringes on the rights of others. For example, alcoholism leads to automobile accidents, violence and really poor decisions generally. The behavior that results from alcoholism has to be discouraged for societies' well being.

Adultery also results in serious and direct harm to children, and serious pain to others, disrupting the existing family. Genetic or not, the behavior needs to be discouraged.

Now, let's examine homosexuality with the same measuring stick. First, it doesn't break up families (unless a person who is homosexual is not honest about it up from). No one is forced to marry a homosexual. Homosexuality doesn't lead to violence, automobile accidents, any more than just being human does. Nor does it cause any harm, in an of itself to any children. The only harm to children is if homophobic parents reject their gay child---and in that case the harm comes not from the gayness itself, but from the ignorance and insensitivity of the parent.

As I said before, and you have not disagreed, a certain portion of any primate population, and that includes us, is going to be homosexual. It is not a disease, it causes no liver disease or automobile accidents. The only way it becomes an issue at all is when people arbitrarily decide it is not going to be tolerated. Many societies have tolerated it, with no ill effects.

I would say that more harm has been done to people in the name of punishing gayness, than has come from the gayness it self. Lots of people in the LDS church have been hounded out of the church simply because they were gay. The church has made it clear there is no acceptance of gays in the church. The GA's won't say it that way, but the effect is the same---gayness is a mortal sin, and us good, rightous, tithe-paying, sons of the pioneers aren't going to put up with it in our church.

By the way, the Minnesota and Australian identical twin studies are comprehensive and very scientific. They didn't deal just with homosexuality, they established that a whole host of human traits have genetic components. The Australian studied even showed that political orientation is influence by genetics. As science catches up with the claims of the pius religions dogmas, those dogmas will either parish or have to face some serious questions. For example, how can homosexual behavior be a sin, if God Himself made them that way? I have raised this question before and no one seems to be able to answer it.. (They try, but all I get is, well, read the Old Testament. I do, and I then find out that the God of the Old Testament also condoned slavery--- I can't believe in a God that would condone slavery, so I don't believe in the God of the Old Testament. There could be another one though, and he doesn't condemn gays for being what he made them either.

As to the CROSS you want people to bear---just make sure that you are not the one making the CROSS--I think we all know what God thought of the people that made the last one.

Cal,

I think you missed the point Jason was trying to make. Being genetically disposed to do something is not a justification for committing the act regardless if the act is socially acceptable or harmful to others. If it is then what else can we justify?

I am not the mouthpiece of the church but you also claim that LDS doctrine is "gayness is a mortal sin." Gayness is not a sin, nor is someone believing that they are a homosexual. The sin occurs when a person acts on those feelings.

[Jason]

Cal,

I think I understand where you're coming from, and I'd like to briefly comment.

Does that justify your involvement? Not if you don't have the gene!

I can honestly say that I've been very tempted with Adultery. I've had women offer me sex, and it's been a trial. My family, nearly all the men, and some of the women, all the way back to my great-grandfather have been adulterers. If it is genetic in anyone's family, it's definitely in mine! What you are suggesting is that if indeed it is genetic, and that I do have the gene, then I am excused from obeying this commandment. That I need not worry about it, that my wife should be accepting of it (heck, it's just genes after all) that I need not mention it at confession, and that God will not hold me accountable (after all, he made me this way, right?)!

While I understand the logic employed by those would would justify the acts thus far described, to have God instruct us to behave otherwise means, quite honestly, that we are here to suffer for the Cross of Christ. Do you truly wish to have a part in the Kingdom of God? Do you think that you can have a portion of that Kingdom without undergoing a purifying process of your own? Do you think that bearing the Cross means to sit through church every sunday and pay your tithing? I say no. On the contrary, it's meant to beat the living heck out of you. The Cross is meant to wear you down, discourage you, frustrate you, and make you want to quit. In fact, it's meant to nearly kill you. Anything less is not of Christ.

You and I, Cal, don't even deserve to be with God. God is good. We are not. God didn't even have to create us, but he did. God was, is, and will be perfect with or without us. In his mercy, we, his creation, were given existence. He gave us certain obstacles to prove ourselves. To one is given adultery, to another, the abuse of drugs and/or alcohol. To another, the propensity to be homosexual. To another, the inability to comprehend spiritual things. The list goes on and on. But we are not justified in these things. We cannot be with God as sinful creatures. But do not dispair. Even though we know that "There is no one who is righteous, not even one," (Romans 3:10) we have the promise of Christ that we can be One with Him, even as He is One with the Father. This principle, known as THEOSIS, offers us something greater than we can fathom. The opportunity to unite ourselves with the uncreated Divinity. That is truly conquering both the natural man, and the fallen world we live in. That's what we're striving for, not the popular buzz words of the day.

So as to not be too brief in my response: It is one thing to acknowledge that society, with its prejudices and rules of conduct won't "punish" people who stray too far from the accepted norms and rules. In many cases, the behavior has to be punished because it infringes on the rights of others. For example, alcoholism leads to automobile accidents, violence and really poor decisions generally. The behavior that results from alcoholism has to be discouraged for societies' well being.

Adultery also results in serious and direct harm to children, and serious pain to others, disrupting the existing family. Genetic or not, the behavior needs to be discouraged.

Now, let's examine homosexuality with the same measuring stick. First, it doesn't break up families (unless a person who is homosexual is not honest about it up from). No one is forced to marry a homosexual. Homosexuality doesn't lead to violence, automobile accidents, any more than just being human does. Nor does it cause any harm, in an of itself to any children. The only harm to children is if homophobic parents reject their gay child---and in that case the harm comes not from the gayness itself, but from the ignorance and insensitivity of the parent.

Even looking at it from a non-spiritual perspective, one could make the argument that homosexuality destroys humanity. Cal, if everyone was gay, we would cease to exist. Homosexuality is human suicide. But then, looking at it from a Christian perspective, God commanded man to multiply and replenish. Homosexuality defies one of the very first commandments given to Man.

I would say that more harm has been done to people in the name of punishing gayness, than has come from the gayness it self.

In many ways, that's unfortunately true.

As science catches up with the claims of the pius religions dogmas, those dogmas will either parish or have to face some serious questions. For example, how can homosexual behavior be a sin, if God Himself made them that way?

Let me answer your question with another question. Why would God command us to be baptized, if God allowed us to be born in a fallen, sinful nature? Why not just accept us into His presence without it?

I believe that your understanding of morality has been blurred by our society. Yes, we all want to get along. No, we shouldn't hate anyone. But where do we draw the line between right and wrong? Will you let God draw the line, or do you in your self-conceit feel competent enough to do it?

I have raised this question before and no one seems to be able to answer it.. (They try, but all I get is, well, read the Old Testament. I do, and I then find out that the God of the Old Testament also condoned slavery--- I can't believe in a God that would condone slavery, so I don't believe in the God of the Old Testament. There could be another one though, and he doesn't condemn gays for being what he made them either.

Cal, whether you realize it or not, YOU ARE A SLAVE!

In fact, we are all slaves, Cal. The only comfort we can draw from this reality is knowing that we get to choose who our master will be. You can be a slave to sin, or a slave of Christ. For the scripture says that a man cannot serve two masters. It also says to choose this day whom you will serve. What's it going to be Cal?

God bless you in your Journey.

><>

Jason

[pushka]

Cal, thank you for bringing up this topic for discussion, and thank you for highlighting the points made by the study of identical twins separated at birth.

I agree with you that genetics plays a major role in people being gay. I agree with your points regarding the harmfulness of acting upon being an alcoholic, adulterer etc.

As I am not a religious person, as such, I cannot see any sin in the act of homosexuality either...perhaps someone could provide a quote from Jesus where he stated that to act upon your homosexuality is a sin?

[yaanufs]

I'm genetically predisposed to be violent towards gay people.

Does that excuse my behavior? Or should I try to control it?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

When Jesus returns, who do you think he is going to condemn--the homosexual, or those that call them sinners, make their lives miserable with statements like, "You are lost if you don't repent", God will punish you for being gay. Maybe you need to take a look at your own spirituality--calling evil that which God created.

You show me ONE single statement by JESUS Himself (not statements by anyone else) about the "evils of gayness". I challenge you. And if you can't I want you to get down on your knees and ask repentance for labeling what God has created, as evil.

It stands to reason that if JESUS had thought that being gay was much of a sin, if at all, he would have mentioned it----Never mind looking. Take my word, He never did.

The "Jesus never condemned homsexuality" argument is a familiar one. Leaving aside the fact that Christian doctrine is set forth more comprehensively by Paul (who did include homsexual acts in his lists of sins) than in the Gospels, this argument has at least a couple of flaws.

First, you're presuming that the Gospels are a comprehensive collection of Jesus' teachings, or at least the important ones. In fact, at least one of the Gospels (Mark, I believe) refers to additional teachings that were not recorded. Is it likely that Paul, who warned in Galatians against teaching "another gospel" that went beyond the gospel of Christ, would have done doctrinal free-lancing a la McConkie? Maybe so, but it's at least as likely, to my way of thinking, that his teaching reiterated Christ's.

Second, Jesus explicitly condemned fornication -- defined as sex outside of marriage -- and described marriage as the making a man and a woman into one flesh. The legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius -- to express one thing is to exclude the other -- would imply that all sexual relationships other than male-female marriage were not endorsed by Jesus.

I wonder whether "evil" is the proper word to use for homosexual conduct, or any sexual immorality other than rape, incest, child abuse, etc. I generally don't hear garden-variety, consensual sexual immorality described in those terms among religious people; they tend to use "immoral," "sinful," or even "wicked," which to my way of thinking are milder terms than "evil." (Liberals, on the other hand, invariably put the term "evil" in the religious side's mouths.)

I want you to get down on your knees and ask repentance for labeling what God has created, as evil.

Coming from an evolutionist with a decent knowledge of genetics, this is not a good-faith argument. You don't believe that God directly "created" gayness, any more than He created sickle-cell anemia, Tay-Sachs, or peach tree borers, all of which I have no problem calling "evil." We live in a natural world, and have to play the cards we are dealt.

Whether gay attractions are innate is irrelevant; many impulses that a decent person must restrain may also be innate. Your stronger argument is that gay sex doesn't hurt anyone, and therefore shouldn't be considered sinful -- essentially, the "one simple principle" argument of John Stuart Mill. I think there are problems with that argument, too, and I'll be happy to make them as soon as it's clear that is the basis of the debate. Stop clouding the issue with "innateness" arguments that have nothing to do with whether God may disapprove of something or not.

[mark44]

the scriptures say that christ was tempted in all things, so do you think he was tempted to kill, i mean, he got pretty mad with the money changers and would be charged with criminal assault in this day and age....and what about homosexual feelings, i mean, john resting his head on him at the last supper, you'd be scorned at in this day and age for doing such a thing, especially in lds culture.