Gayness

[Traveler]

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.

There have been more studies in reproductive behaviors among various species than is realized among those biased toward homosexuality. These studies have been carried out in efforts to save endangered species and to maintain wild populations in captivity (like zoos and wildlife parks). The most common denominators to explain variant behaviors (in the case of our discussion – reproductive behaviors) are social interactions and individual learning capabilities.

The statement that homosexuality in 50% of Identical twins separated at birth can only be answered as genetic, completely escapes me. It would seem to me to prove that homosexuality cannot be genetic. Identical twins are by definition genetically identical. How could they display variant behaviors based on genetics?

The scientific definition of an intelligence species is a species that is capable of learning through experience and altering behavior. The assumption that homosexuality is a result of lack of intelligence (in other words stupidly) because those involved cannot possibly learn by experience and alter their behavior is to me the bigoted view.

If sexual behavior is not learned why should we ever make any attempts to rehabilitate the problem of adultery or a rape, child molestation, or those that derive sexual pleasure in murder and cannibalism. In fact if we really believe genetics are even remotely involved in determine sexual behavior should we not at least sterilize the relatives of such offenders to preserve the gene pool?

The Traveler

[Amillia]

Originally posted by yaanufs@Jan 31 2005, 01:40 PM

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

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

ROFL! I think that about covers it!

[Guest curvette]

It is hard to understand the genetic argument. If identical twins are genetically identical (which they are), and sexual orientation is genetic, then all identical twins should have the same sexual orientation. After watching the story about the transsexual identical twin, I think there have to be other factors. I DON'T think environment or personal choice was a factor. These twins manifested opposite gender behaviors from the beginning. There must be something more that can influence gender. (but as usual, I have more questions than answers.)

I'm very disturbed that so many people put homosexual behavior in the same category as pedophila, or violence, or rape. These are so obviously behaviors that hurt other people--sometimes destroys them. Homosexuality is different. I'm still religious enough to believe that God can declare specific acts "sinful", but I truly feel sorry for true homosexuals who have the same longings for a mate that the rest of us take for granted.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 1 2005, 02:43 PM

It is hard to understand the genetic argument. If identical twins are genetically identical (which they are), and sexual orientation is genetic, then all identical twins should have the same sexual orientation. After watching the story about the transsexual identical twin, I think there have to be other factors. I DON'T think environment or personal choice was a factor. These twins manifested opposite gender behaviors from the beginning. There must be something more that can influence gender. (but as usual, I have more questions than answers.)

I'm very disturbed that so many people put homosexual behavior in the same category as pedophila, or violence, or rape. These are so obviously behaviors that hurt other people--sometimes destroys them. Homosexuality is different. I'm still religious enough to believe that God can declare specific acts "sinful", but I truly feel sorry for true homosexuals who have the same longings for a mate that the rest of us take for granted.

I just think they are all caused by the same thing. Demon possession. Some innocent people are victimized by demons just because they live in an enviroment filled with them.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 1 2005, 02:43 PM

I'm very disturbed that so many people put homosexual behavior in the same category as pedophila, or violence, or rape. These are so obviously behaviors that hurt other people--sometimes destroys them.

I think this comes up so often because homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc; concern sexual attraction outside of the natural course.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Outshined+Feb 1 2005, 02:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Feb 1 2005, 02:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Feb 1 2005, 02:43 PM

I'm very disturbed that so many people put homosexual behavior in the same category as pedophila, or violence, or rape.  These are so obviously behaviors that hurt other people--sometimes destroys them.

I think this comes up so often because homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc; concern sexual attraction outside of the natural course.

Good answer!

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Outshined@Feb 1 2005, 01:45 PM

I think this comes up so often because homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc; concern sexual attraction outside of the natural course.

So, can we add bleached blondes, and men with small feet to the group?

[Outshined]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 1 2005, 03:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 1 2005, 03:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Feb 1 2005, 01:45 PM

I think this comes up so often because homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc; concern sexual attraction outside of the natural course.

So, can we add bleached blondes, and men with small feet to the group?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 1 2005, 03:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 1 2005, 03:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Feb 1 2005, 01:45 PM

I think this comes up so often because homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc; concern sexual attraction outside of the natural course.

So, can we add bleached blondes, and men with small feet to the group?

You always see things differently don't you? :)

[Traveler]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 1 2005, 01:43 PM

It is hard to understand the genetic argument.  If identical twins are genetically identical (which they are), and sexual orientation is genetic, then all identical twins should have the same sexual orientation.  After watching the story about the transsexual identical twin, I think there have to be other factors.  I DON'T think environment or personal choice was a factor.  These twins manifested opposite gender behaviors from the beginning.  There must be something more that can influence gender.  (but as usual, I have more questions than answers.)

I'm very disturbed that so many people put homosexual behavior in the same category as pedophila, or violence, or rape.  These are so obviously behaviors that hurt other people--sometimes destroys them.  Homosexuality is different.  I'm still religious enough to believe that God can declare specific acts "sinful", but I truly feel sorry for true homosexuals who have the same longings for a mate that the rest of us take for granted.

My friend I know this is a subject that you and I have strong disagreement. One reason I personally make reference to various learned reproductive behaviors is because I personally believe that in an intelligent social species like humans that variations in cognitive portions of reproductive behaviors is best explained as an acquired or learned behavior. I do not believe that anyone is a born child molester or someone that will find excitement in rape. I believe all such behavior must be cultivated and developed.

In the same manner I do not believe anyone is born to be a devoted husband or wife. I believe that such behaviors must be cultivated, developed and learned. I would think most have been tempted to vary their reproductive behavior at various times and places. To teach that just because someone is tempted to “try” something then they must have that orientation or that is just the way they are is in my mine a grave error. I believe we need to understand that we develop into what we spend our lives becoming.

We can become kind or mean, we can become happy or sad we can become someone that gives into various lusts or we can become disciplined. We can take responsibility for what we do or we can attempt to ascribe blame and claim no responsibility. I believe things like kindness, happiness and responsibility require learning and discipline. Meanness, sadness and the morality of a range bull are much more easy and display learning without discipline.

I am dumfounded when people like Mark Hacking murder despite social and family efforts to teach discipline of such emotions, especially when the teaching appears to be effective. Though dumfounded I understand that some people feign discipline but I will not blame G-d for such things. I realize that many disagree with my voice but I maintain that humans are intelligent and should and will be held accountable for all or what ever they endeavor to learn and become. Without such accountability no one would be free.

The Traveler

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Traveler+Feb 1 2005, 04:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Feb 1 2005, 04:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Feb 1 2005, 01:43 PM

It is hard to understand the genetic argument.  If identical twins are genetically identical (which they are), and sexual orientation is genetic, then all identical twins should have the same sexual orientation.  After watching the story about the transsexual identical twin, I think there have to be other factors.  I DON'T think environment or personal choice was a factor.  These twins manifested opposite gender behaviors from the beginning.  There must be something more that can influence gender.  (but as usual, I have more questions than answers.)

I'm very disturbed that so many people put homosexual behavior in the same category as pedophila, or violence, or rape.  These are so obviously behaviors that hurt other people--sometimes destroys them.  Homosexuality is different.  I'm still religious enough to believe that God can declare specific acts "sinful", but I truly feel sorry for true homosexuals who have the same longings for a mate that the rest of us take for granted.

My friend I know this is a subject that you and I have strong disagreement. One reason I personally make reference to various learned reproductive behaviors is because I personally believe that in an intelligent social species like humans that variations in cognitive portions of reproductive behaviors is best explained as an acquired or learned behavior. I do not believe that anyone is a born child molester or someone that will find excitement in rape. I believe all such behavior must be cultivated and developed.

In the same manner I do not believe anyone is born to be a devoted husband or wife. I believe that such behaviors must be cultivated, developed and learned. I would think most have been tempted to vary their reproductive behavior at various times and places. To teach that just because someone is tempted to “try” something then they must have that orientation or that is just the way they are is in my mine a grave error. I believe we need to understand that we develop into what we spend our lives becoming.

We can become kind or mean, we can become happy or sad we can become someone that gives into various lusts or we can become disciplined. We can take responsibility for what we do or we can attempt to ascribe blame and claim no responsibility. I believe things like kindness, happiness and responsibility require learning and discipline. Meanness, sadness and the morality of a range bull are much more easy and display learning without discipline.

I am dumfounded when people like Mark Hacking murder despite social and family efforts to teach discipline of such emotions, especially when the teaching appears to be effective. Though dumfounded I understand that some people feign discipline but I will not blame G-d for such things. I realize that many disagree with my voice but I maintain that humans are intelligent and should and will be held accountable for all or what ever they endeavor to learn and become. Without such accountability no one would be free.

The Traveler

I think you have made some very good points.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Traveler@Feb 1 2005, 03:00 PM

My friend I know this is a subject that you and I have strong disagreement. One reason I personally make reference to various learned reproductive behaviors is because I personally believe that in an intelligent social species like humans that variations in cognitive portions of reproductive behaviors is best explained as an acquired or learned behavior. I do not believe that anyone is a born child molester or someone that will find excitement in rape. I believe all such behavior must be cultivated and developed.

In the same manner I do not believe anyone is born to be a devoted husband or wife. I believe that such behaviors must be cultivated, developed and learned. I would think most have been tempted to vary their reproductive behavior at various times and places. To teach that just because someone is tempted to “try” something then they must have that orientation or that is just the way they are is in my mine a grave error. I believe we need to understand that we develop into what we spend our lives becoming.

We can become kind or mean, we can become happy or sad we can become someone that gives into various lusts or we can become disciplined. We can take responsibility for what we do or we can attempt to ascribe blame and claim no responsibility. I believe things like kindness, happiness and responsibility require learning and discipline. Meanness, sadness and the morality of a range bull are much more easy and display learning without discipline.

I am dumfounded when people like Mark Hacking murder despite social and family efforts to teach discipline of such emotions, especially when the teaching appears to be effective. Though dumfounded I understand that some people feign discipline but I will not blame G-d for such things. I realize that many disagree with my voice but I maintain that humans are intelligent and should and will be held accountable for all or what ever they endeavor to learn and become. Without such accountability no one would be free.

The Traveler

Well, there are certain points on which we do agree. I agree that all people are born with weaknesses, and that choice is almost always available. I think it is a proven scientific fact that certain people are innately drawn (or tempted by, if you will) certain behaviors. This varies in degree. I'll use your example of marital infidelity. There are certain personality types who are much more tempted by infidelity than others. Yes, everyone always has a choice, but there are many factors. For instance, my neighbor is an extremely attractive, charismatic, charming man who also happens to be a cop. He is LDS, and has always desired to do the right thing. He committed adultery. Bad neighbor. There were several factors that added to the probability that it would probably happen at some point. 1) His extreme cuteness and adorability. 2) His work environment. 3) A very forward, flirtatious and attractive coworker who set her eye on him. 4) A naturally friendly and curious personaity type. 5) A very bad choice on his part. (and there are probably more, but those come to mind.)

Now, down the street lives Brother X who was a member of our Stake Presidency, and who stopped talking to the adulterous cop after this event. I can think of several factors that would add to the probability that this man would never commit adultery.

1) He's as ugly as a mud fence. 2.) He works for the Church Education System. 3.) I can't imagine any woman other than his wife being attracted to him. 4.) It's impossible to have a conversation with him because he won't talk to anyone without his wife standing next to him. 5.) He always makes safe choices and lives in the protective bubble he's created and not in the real world.

These are two extreme examples. Most of us probably fall in between somewhere. I guess I just feel that, YES, we do always have a choice, but our choices are ALWAYS influenced by our genetics and our environments. We are driven by much more than just our desires to do good or evil. But I do agree with you that our environments and personal choice are always a factor.

[WakkoWarner]

It always amazes me when people try to twist the scriptures to fit their needs. There are some very plainly worded scriptures which deal with homosexuality. None of them were "born that way". While they may have a predisposition to this kind of behavior, whether it be environmental or whatever, God did not create them that way. We are created in His image - does the homosexual believe God to be "that way"? Here are the scriptures that you need to read: Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 11:11, Leviticus 18:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 1:7. There are some very clear verses in there that homosexuality is an abomination before the Lord. The prophets of the church have said "Love the sinner, loathe the sin" (or something to that effect). It is also very interesting to me that up until the last 10 years or so, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in all of the medical journals. Kind of funny that once the gays infiltrated the medical profession & started making waves elsewhere, that this has changed. You can try to justify things all you want to & even justify them enough so that you begin to believe them yourself, but that does not change the fact that homosexuality is wrong & is a sin. It is a behavior that can be overcome & many have done it (look at Ann Heche, for example). Please don't try to mislead people that it is natural (there is absolutely nothing natural about the sexual relations between homosexuals) & do not try to make it look like the scriptures do not condemn this behavior. It is a chosen lifestyle. I need to address one more thing. You state that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone. Well, when kids are bombarded by this stuff day in & day out, it is hurting them. Then there is the fact that disease rates among homosexuals are much higher than the population at large. That results in higher rates of communicable diseases & medical costs skyrocket - and those costs are borne by society through higher taxes, which hurts everyone. Please do a little more research on this subject with an open mind (be sure to pray about it as well) & I think you will see that it is not a "harmless" or "victimless" lifestyle. Thank you.

[Lindy]

Well Cal, I won't lie to you and tell you that I condone homosexuality....I don't. And I won't apologize for it. And you are right, it IS my problem, and I'll take the judgement from the Lord because I don't agree with that lifestyle. As for finding scriptures about gayness......gee whiz.....the only thing I could really find in the scriptures regardings gay........James 2:3 "......gay clothing" with the footnotes referring to gay as ....splendid....... I am really thinking that when the Bible was written that "gay", "homosexual", "lesbian", and "other words I could say that wouldn't be nice", were not incorporated into the writings. I guess that I just have a different understanding of written words like "SEXUAL IMMORALITY" than you do.

I think that WakkoWarner said it nicely

It always amazes me when people try to twist the scriptures to fit their needs. There are some very plainly worded scriptures which deal with homosexuality.

I can't blame my feelings on the LDS religion either.... every church I ever had a part in taught me the same thing....that homosexuality was wrong.

[Cal]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jan 30 2005, 11:37 PM

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

First, I know of know study that shows adultery to be as strongly genetically related as homosexuality. Second, if it were, YES, I don't believe in a God that would judge you as harshly as someone who did not have the gene. God judges according to what a person is GIVEN.

Third, your response to my reference to God condoning slavery in the OT was totally disingenuous. You completely avoided the issue by smearing the meaning of the term slavery to mean some nebulous condition affecting all of mankind. READ the OT for yourself. It was clearly refering to the enslavement of human beings by other human beings in the common sense of the word.

Next time you have no good response to an issue, try to be more honest in your approach.

[Cal]

Originally posted by lindy9556@Feb 1 2005, 08:53 PM

Well Cal, I won't lie to you and tell you that I condone homosexuality....I don't. And I won't apologize for it. And you are right, it IS my problem, and I'll take the judgement from the Lord because I don't agree with that lifestyle. As for finding scriptures about gayness......gee whiz.....the only thing I could really find in the scriptures regardings gay........James 2:3 "......gay clothing" with the footnotes referring to gay as ....splendid....... I am really thinking that when the Bible was written that "gay", "homosexual", "lesbian", and "other words I could say that wouldn't be nice", were not incorporated into the writings. I guess that I just have a different understanding of written words like "SEXUAL IMMORALITY" than you do.

I think that WakkoWarner said it nicely

It always amazes me when people try to twist the scriptures to fit their needs. There are some very plainly worded scriptures which deal with homosexuality.

I can't blame my feelings on the LDS religion either.... every church I ever had a part in taught me the same thing....that homosexuality was wrong.

It is YOU, not God, that defines homosexuality as IMMORAL. You still have not shown me anywhere, besides the OT that God defines gayness and condemns it. Not even the BoM says a word about it. (Maybe I'm wrong about that, and someone can show me the verse)

By the way, whether another human thinks gayness is sinful, immoral, disgusting or whatever, doens't mean that God condems them for it. Get it straight--He made them that way--certainly He is aware of what he creates.

[Cal]

Originally posted by pushka@Jan 31 2005, 02:48 AM

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?

He never said it. That was one of my points.

[Cal]

Originally posted by yaanufs@Jan 31 2005, 12:40 PM

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

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

Depends what you mean by predisposed? But first of all, being violent toward anyone is malum en se. Do you know what that means? It is behavior that directly and wrongly impinges on the rights of others. It directly damages others. Whether it is genetic or not, society can't tolerate it.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, poses no such threat in and of itself. The dangers alluded to in this thread are dangers that are the result of the very prejudice created by others against gays. Being gay, in and of itself, poses no threat to anyone.

Let me also address the argument that gayness will somehow reduce the size of the population. First, if gayness were that detrimental to the survival of a population, then Chimps, humans and many other mammal species would have died out, bacause they all have a small percentage of gay individuals. Also, in any population only a small % are born gay. There is no evidence at all that a societal acceptance of gay people will lead more people to be gay.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 31 2005, 12:58 PM

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.

First, your argument that "Jesus must have meant to condemn homosexuality because Paul did" is really stretching things. Did Jesus also think that it would be preferable not to marry just because that was Paul didn't think it was a good idea, or other goofy things that Paul believed.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus did not mention it, and that was my simple statement of fact. If you want to squirm around it by saying that he must have meant it as to be included in fornication, that is simply a presumption. The fact is he didn't mention it specifically. For us to insist that he must have is simply a reflection of our own prejudices and assumptions.

Second, I was hoping you might know me well enough to realize what I was doing when I said "God created them that way". I am coming to the logical result of thinking that says that "God created man in his own image", which is the belief of many of the people that are condemning gays for being what their own God must have created them to be by their own logic.

Actually, you do seem to know me well enough to know that I don't believe God created the condition at all. I think it is an evolutionary quirk--for which no one in particular is responsible. But since the gay critics here seem to think God created everything, I am appealing to the logic that must follow their assumptions.

As to the need to control impulses, the only reason gays "need" to control their impulses is because of the prejudices imposed by society itself. There in no inherent need for gays to control their impulses any more than heteros. And I will say that they should do so to the same extent as heteros.

I'm not sure what your point is about my use of the word "evil" It is symply my catch-all for the way that many on this board view homosexuality. Call it immoral, against God's law whatever; condemn it any way you wish. My argument is that it is MAN, not GOD that created the "evilness" of homosexuality. Nature or evolution doesn't recognize "morality" that is something created by man (or man speaking for God--if they are). As to what is inherently bad should be evaluated by the balance between the rights of people to be who they are, and societies need to prevent infringment on others by the exercise of "being who we are". In my opinion, the persecution, societal sanctions, religious sanction (what ever you want to call it), is simply a reflection of our inherent fear of that which is different or foreign. It is not unlike racial prejudice.

[WakkoWarner]

I gave you several scriptures that were in the New Testament that are very clear in condemning homosexuality. It is not a natural attraction. It is a perverse & twisted use of nature. The Book of Mormon does mention the sins of Sodom, the most blatant of which was homosexuality. Satan has warped the minds of the gay community into believing that they were "made that way". Sorry, but that doesn't fly. There has been absolutely no scientific PROOF that it is genetic - there are only THEORIES. Most of science is theories, not fact. The scientific community is very arrogant to start asserting that they have found genetic links to just about everything, when DNA science is barely in its infancy. They have not even begun to discover the human genome. They have just barely cracked the surface on this science. Justify it all you want - God did not make anyone "that way". God is not "that way". Jesus Christ is not "that way". The prophets of old are not "that way". To use an old cliché, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". If homosexuality were normal, the human race would cease to exist. We have been warned by modern prophets that sexual immorality would run rampant in the last days & the gay movement is total proof of that. The attraction to the same sex is not natural. The feelings that lead people toward that lifestyle are of the devil. Satan wants us to fail & sexual immorality is the quickest way to do that. Not even the leaders of the church are immune to it, as we are told that some of the very elect will fall. Remember that even Satan can appear as an angel of light - especially when he wants to mislead God's children. Society today has accepted homosexuality, but the church will not & can not. It is contrary to the laws of God, one of the most important of which is to multiply & replenish the earth. Kind of hard to do that when practicing a homosexual lifestyle. As for stating that it is me that defines homosexuality as wrong & not God, you obviously did not understand the scriptures that I listed. What part of "leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust towards one another" don't you understand? What part of "men with men, working that which is unseemly" don't you understand? It is very clear that homosexuality is a sin & is abominable before God. Our prophet today, Gordon B. Hinckley, has told us that homosexuality is wrong & is an abomination before God. Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed because of rampant homosexuality. If homosexuality is acceptable before God, then why didn't he create 2 gay couples when he created Adam & Eve? Because he did not create anyone gay. You are trying your hardest to justify sin, when you know deep down inside that it is wrong. So many homosexuals have told psychiatrists that they feel dirty & ashamed when they participate in gay sex. Why do you think that is? Because our body is a temple for our spirit & when you do things as vile as that, your spirit is crying - begging - for you to stop. Keep on justifying it to yourself, but don't try to convince others that it is right. In the end, you will know that you were wrong. If you mislead anyone into believing as you do, you will be held accountable. I have enough to worry about in my own life, without having to wonder if I will be held accountable for misleading or corrupting someone else. Look in the topical guide of the Bible under homosexuality & read all the scriptures listed there - it just might make you understand that God does NOT condone that behavior. If you are living that lifestyle, then you have CHOSEN to live that lifestyle. Science has been wrong so many times & yet people continue to believe every word that scientists say - very sad. If you are ready for the truth, then if you pray about this, Heavenly Father will let you know that homosexuality is wrong - period. There is no gray area. You are either on the Lord's side or Satan's side - no straddling the fence. Two studies to not make scientific fact. There is so much trash being thrown at the youth today, that it is a wonder that there aren't more of them turning to sexually deviant lifestyles. I truly wish that we could hold Hollywood & all of the television studios accountable for all the damage the are causing to today's youth. Live your life how you choose, but don't try to justify sin as being right. I don't want to be anywhere near the homosexual community when the second coming occurs. That is going to be one hot place.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia+Feb 1 2005, 02:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Feb 1 2005, 02:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Outshined@Feb 1 2005, 02:45 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Feb 1 2005, 02:43 PM

I'm very disturbed that so many people put homosexual behavior in the same category as pedophila, or violence, or rape.  These are so obviously behaviors that hurt other people--sometimes destroys them.

I think this comes up so often because homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc; concern sexual attraction outside of the natural course.

Good answer!

What natural course? If it were outside the "natural course" then one would not expect to find it in NATURE, right? Well, wake up and smell the coffee--gayness is all over the NATURAL course--found among all the primates and other mammals. You don't get much more "natural" than that.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traveler+Feb 1 2005, 07:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Feb 1 2005, 07:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 30 2005, 01:45 PM

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.

There have been more studies in reproductive behaviors among various species than is realized among those biased toward homosexuality. These studies have been carried out in efforts to save endangered species and to maintain wild populations in captivity (like zoos and wildlife parks). The most common denominators to explain variant behaviors (in the case of our discussion – reproductive behaviors) are social interactions and individual learning capabilities.

The statement that homosexuality in 50% of Identical twins separated at birth can only be answered as genetic, completely escapes me. It would seem to me to prove that homosexuality cannot be genetic. Identical twins are by definition genetically identical. How could they display variant behaviors based on genetics?

The scientific definition of an intelligence species is a species that is capable of learning through experience and altering behavior. The assumption that homosexuality is a result of lack of intelligence (in other words stupidly) because those involved cannot possibly learn by experience and alter their behavior is to me the bigoted view.

If sexual behavior is not learned why should we ever make any attempts to rehabilitate the problem of adultery or a rape, child molestation, or those that derive sexual pleasure in murder and cannibalism. In fact if we really believe genetics are even remotely involved in determine sexual behavior should we not at least sterilize the relatives of such offenders to preserve the gene pool?

The Traveler

Trav--I thought you had a back ground in science--no offense, but this is some of the most unscientific thinking I have encountered from a person educated in science.

First, a 50% correlation for any biological trait is considered STRONG evidence of genetic correlation.

Second, you make the mistake of equating homosexual orientation, with homosexual behavior. Obviously people can learn to control their behavior. That has nothing to do with what it means to be homosexual. You are talking about the individual's very sense of biological identity. We're not talking about just a tendency, we are talking about an unalteable characteristic.

Think of it this way: Could you, as a heterosexual, simply change your sexual orientation because society told you you had to? or that it was evil to be hetero and you had to change that. Could you?

[Cal]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 1 2005, 01:43 PM

It is hard to understand the genetic argument. If identical twins are genetically identical (which they are), and sexual orientation is genetic, then all identical twins should have the same sexual orientation. After watching the story about the transsexual identical twin, I think there have to be other factors. I DON'T think environment or personal choice was a factor. These twins manifested opposite gender behaviors from the beginning. There must be something more that can influence gender. (but as usual, I have more questions than answers.)

I'm very disturbed that so many people put homosexual behavior in the same category as pedophila, or violence, or rape. These are so obviously behaviors that hurt other people--sometimes destroys them. Homosexuality is different. I'm still religious enough to believe that God can declare specific acts "sinful", but I truly feel sorry for true homosexuals who have the same longings for a mate that the rest of us take for granted.

The second comment was right on.

The answer to your first paragraph is simple. A 50% correlation simply means that environment may well play a part, but the in at least 1/2 of the gays, the genetic component is strong.

[Lindy]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 1 2005, 01:43 PM

I'm very disturbed that so many people put homosexual behavior in the same category as pedophila, or violence, or rape. These are so obviously behaviors that hurt other people--sometimes destroys them. Homosexuality is different. I'm still religious enough to believe that God can declare specific acts "sinful", but I truly feel sorry for true homosexuals who have the same longings for a mate that the rest of us take for granted.

Curvette, It is disturbing that homosexuals are put in the same category as scum of the earth. Sad really. Thing is...if it was morally "legal", I would stand up with the homosexuals to beat the rapists and the pedophiles.

[Lindy]

Cal- I think that there have been some really good statements given, and I will be wrong no matter what I think. I am who I am, you are who you are....we think different. Nothing wrong with that. I'm right, you're wrong.... just kidding