A Need to Know

[Bensalem]

Open question about homosexuality: What is the LDS church's view on scientific discoveries that homosexuality has more to do with genetics than with personal choice?

In a discussion with my daughter (BS in psychology with a minor in education and MS in school counseling), she presented that a preponderance of science shows that sexual orientation is predetermined by genetics and is not a matter of free choice being influenced by social and environmental factors. She likewise suggested that heterosexuality is not a choice, but is preconditioned in the genetic nature of one's being.

Since free agency is critical to LDS doctrine, I was not willing to accept her premise that sexual orientation is 100% predetermined by one's genetic code. I argued that statistically speaking (even if I accepted her premise) there must be those with the "gay gene" who have chosen heterosexual behavior and there must be those with "heterosexual" DNA who have chosen a homosexual lifestyle. I presented that social and environmental factors could not be totally nullified in one's sexual choices.

Her recent educational studies and my understanding of free agency could not be rectified.

Another point of LDS doctrine states that in our premortal existence we had predetermined male or female spirit bodies. Likewise in the resurrection, our spirits will be reunited with the male and female bodies we possessed on earth.

Does the LDS church have a view on how these scientific studies on sexual orientation fit into the doctrine of free agency and accountability?

[Faded]

Open question about homosexuality: What is the LDS church's view on scientific discoveries that homosexuality has more to do with genetics than with personal choice?

The studies continue but nobody has actually proven that genetics has anything to do with it. There were a couple studies that showed something like a 2% increase in likelihood to become homosexual attributing it to genetics. Trouble with that is that 5% is the standard deviation of any statistical study, so a 2% greater chance is statistically irrelevant.

Now if you are aware of better studies with better results feel free to share them. No doubt there are many. By the same token, there is an unending quest to prove that imbibing alcohol is actually good for you -- and in like manner, studies that "prove" this fact were biased to begin with. People want to feel better about consuming the poison known as ethanol alcohol, therefore there will always be people out to prove that said poison has healthy benefits. Ultimately, nobody has actually proven that ethanol itself has any positive benefits, but it's a medical fact that it is very bad for you.

Likewise, studies suggesting that homosexuality is genetic and claiming it as "a proven scientific fact" are rarely unbiased and I've yet to hear of one that actually proves anything with any certainty at all. Ultimately, the "gay gene" has never been found. It's all theoretical at this point, but people want it to be true, so there will always be studies that claim to prove it.

Is homosexuality an inevitability that occurs at conception? I have no idea but I tend to think it isn't. Does that mean that all same-gender attraction is something the individual actively chooses? No, I don't think that is the case either. I think there's a lot of same-gender attraction that happens in direct contradiction to what the individual actually wanted for themselves.

As to your other point about gender being a premortal and eternal characteristic, I think there are many things that will have to be sorted out in the eternities. A friend of my was born with both male genitalia as well as a uterus and ovaries -- both of which were unknown because she was not born with a vaginal opening. After considerable prayer and introspection, she decided that she was really and truly a girl and not a boy, despite having lived as a boy/man for her entire childhood and even serving a full-time mission as a man. I'm willing to accept that she's right and that she really is a girl. There are many grey areas and we can and should leave those things in God's hands.

Now if somebody finds themselves attracted to those of their same gender against their will, ultimately one must realize that "the natural man is an enemy to God." What is natural and what God expects of us often are polar opposites. My heart goes out to those who face this trial. It must be a terrible thing to face.

But outright acceptance just isn't an option. No Mormon nor any other Christian who actually takes the Bible seriously can conclude that homosexuality is fine and good. It is condemned repeatedly in very strong words in both Old and New Testaments. So while the Church of Jesus Christ has immense love and sympathy for those struggling with same gender attraction, it is not acceptable for one of us to be a practicing homosexual.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Faded

[Vort]

Open question about homosexuality: What is the LDS church's view on scientific discoveries that homosexuality has more to do with genetics than with personal choice?

I don't know that the Church has a view on this. I don't see why they would.

In a discussion with my daughter (BS in psychology with a minor in education and MS in school counseling), she presented that a preponderance of science shows that sexual orientation is predetermined by genetics and is not a matter of free choice being influenced by social and environmental factors. She likewise suggested that heterosexuality is not a choice, but is preconditioned in the genetic nature of one's being.

Your actions are a choice. You might be genetically predisposed toward a bad temper, but that does not justify you for striking out. Similarly, you might be genetically predisposed to having an attraction to the same sex, but this does not justify engaging in homosexual activity.

Her recent educational studies and my understanding of free agency could not be rectified.

I don't see why not. As I said, predisposition to a certain attitude or desire does not prevent one from exercising agency in making a choice.

Another point of LDS doctrine states that in our premortal existence we had predetermined male or female spirit bodies. Likewise in the resurrection, our spirits will be reunited with the male and female bodies we possessed on earth.

Does the LDS church have a view on how these scientific studies on sexual orientation fit into the doctrine of free agency and accountability?

I doubt it. I don't see why the "scientific studies" would have any bearing whatsoever on the question.

[Bensalem]

The studies continue but nobody has actually proven that genetics has anything to do with it. There were a couple studies that showed something like a 2% increase in likelihood to become homosexual attributing it to genetics. Trouble with that is that 5% is the standard deviation of any statistical study, so a 2% greater chance is statistically irrelevant.

Now if you are aware of better studies with better results feel free to share them. No doubt there are many. By the same token, there is an unending quest to prove that imbibing alcohol is actually good for you -- and in like manner, studies that "prove" this fact were biased to begin with. People want to feel better about consuming the poison known as ethanol alcohol, therefore there will always be people out to prove that said poison has healthy benefits. Ultimately, nobody has actually proven that ethanol itself has any positive benefits, but it's a medical fact that it is very bad for you.

Likewise, studies suggesting that homosexuality is genetic and claiming it as "a proven scientific fact" are rarely unbiased and I've yet to hear of one that actually proves anything with any certainty at all. Ultimately, the "gay gene" has never been found. It's all theoretical at this point, but people want it to be true, so there will always be studies that claim to prove it.

Is homosexuality an inevitability that occurs at conception? I have no idea but I tend to think it isn't. Does that mean that all same-gender attraction is something the individual actively chooses? No, I don't think that is the case either. I think there's a lot of same-gender attraction that happens in direct contradiction to what the individual actually wanted for themselves.

As to your other point about gender being a premortal and eternal characteristic, I think there are many things that will have to be sorted out in the eternities. A friend of my was born with both male genitalia as well as a uterus and ovaries -- both of which were unknown because she was not born with a vaginal opening. After considerable prayer and introspection, she decided that she was really and truly a girl and not a boy, despite having lived as a boy/man for her entire childhood and even serving a full-time mission as a man. I'm willing to accept that she's right and that she really is a girl. There are many grey areas and we can and should leave those things in God's hands.

Now if somebody finds themselves attracted to those of their same gender against their will, ultimately one must realize that "the natural man is an enemy to God." What is natural and what God expects of us often are polar opposites. My heart goes out to those who face this trial. It must be a terrible thing to face.

But outright acceptance just isn't an option. No Mormon nor any other Christian who actually takes the Bible seriously can conclude that homosexuality is fine and good. It is condemned repeatedly in very strong words in both Old and New Testaments. So while the Church of Jesus Christ has immense love and sympathy for those struggling with same gender attraction, it is not acceptable for one of us to be a practicing homosexual.

Thanks for your insight.

To be fair to my daughter, she stressed the studies that report homosexuals knew their orientation at very young ages. And that this knowledge created personality conflicts with accepted social norms.

In addressing my perspective of free agency, she questioned the LDS church's views on whether sexual orientation was only a matter of choice.

Do you know if the Church has addressed this issue directly?

[Vort]

In addressing my perspective of free agency, she questioned the LDS church's views on whether sexual orientation was only a matter of choice.

Your daughter is mistaken. The LDS Church has no stated views on the origin of sexual orientation.

Agency does not imply that we will never be tempted or that our bodies will not crave things they should not.

[Bensalem]

I don't know that the Church has a view on this. I don't see why they would.

Your actions are a choice. You might be genetically predisposed toward a bad temper, but that does not justify you for striking out. Similarly, you might be genetically predisposed to having an attraction to the same sex, but this does not justify engaging in homosexual activity.

I don't see why not. As I said, predisposition to a certain attitude or desire does not prevent one from exercising agency in making a choice.

I doubt it. I don't see why the "scientific studies" would have any bearing whatsoever on the question.

I made similar arguments related to the Church's position on heterosexual improprieties, the law of chastity and so forth, with little impact. Also, that same sex attraction need not be acted upon.

My daughter replied that heterosexual love denied can eventually be satisfied by heterosexual marriage, but same sex love, in many cases, cannot. And that such denial would amount to denial of one's self.

The Church has addressed other issues of science such as evolution in relation to creation doctrine. I'm wondering if anyone has come across anything related to this issue of choice in sexual orientation.

[Bensalem]

Your daughter is mistaken. The LDS Church has no stated views on the origin of sexual orientation.

Agency does not imply that we will never be tempted or that our bodies will not crave things they should not.

Excuse me but my wording was not precise. My daughter did not raise questions about the LDS views, she wondered what the LDS view on sexual orientation was in light of her understanding of scientific disclosures that choice most likely does not play a role.

[Vort]

I made similar arguments related to the Church's position on heterosexual improprieties, the law of chastity and so forth, with little impact. Also, that same sex attraction need not be acted upon.

My daughter replied that heterosexual love denied can eventually be satisfied by heterosexual marriage, but same sex love, in many cases, cannot. And that such denial would amount to denial of one's self.

She is welcome to her opinion that refusal to sate one's homosexual lust is tantamount to denial of self, but that does not make her opinion true, nor does it make the Church's stand dishonest.

The Church has addressed other issues of science such as evolution in relation to creation doctrine. I'm wondering if anyone has come across anything related to this issue of choice in sexual orientation.

The Church has addressed organic evolution by saying that it is not a religious question. Which it is not. The Church does not teach against organic evolution. In the same vein, I doubt the Church has any teachings on the chemical or biological origin of homosexuality.

Excuse me but my wording was not precise. My daughter did not raise questions about the LDS views, she wondered what the LDS view on sexual orientation was in light of her understanding of scientific disclosures that choice most likely does not play a role.

As I said, I doubt the Church has any teachings on the origin of sexual orientation. The Church teaches that one should engage in sex ONLY within marriage, and that marriage is defined ONLY between a man and a woman. These are questions of agency, not scientific ponderings on origin.

[Bensalem]

She is welcome to her opinion that refusal to sate one's homosexual lust is tantamount to denial of self, but that does not make her opinion true, nor does it make the Church's stand dishonest.

The Church has addressed organic evolution by saying that it is not a religious question. Which it is not. The Church does not teach against organic evolution. In the same vein, I doubt the Church has any teachings on the chemical or biological origin of homosexuality.

As I said, I doubt the Church has any teachings on the origin of sexual orientation. The Church teaches that one should engage in sex ONLY within marriage, and that marriage is defined ONLY between a man and a woman. These are questions of agency, not scientific ponderings on origin.

Thank you for your insight and willingness to share.

To be clear, my daughter was not stating her opinions, she was reporting what she learned from scientific sources.

I understand that science and religion are not usually inclusive in their teachings, but I like to explore how they may become so. I'm not looking for an acceptance of the behavior, only an explanation of how our doctrine might fit within scientific realities.

[livy111us]

Some people have a genetic disposition for addiction, or alcoholism. Would that justify drug and alcohol abuse? Just because we have temptations that we are born with does not mean it is ok to listen to and act on the desires within the carnal man. This life is meant to overcome our weaknesses. Some are given more than others and I cannot imagine how tough it would be to be attracted to the same-sex. But just like every other temptation to sin, it must be overcome.

[Faded]

Thanks for your insight.

To be fair to my daughter, she stressed the studies that report homosexuals knew their orientation at very young ages. And that this knowledge created personality conflicts with accepted social norms.

In addressing my perspective of free agency, she questioned the LDS church's views on whether sexual orientation was only a matter of choice.

Do you know if the Church has addressed this issue directly?

The is no official doctrine stating that all homosexuals choose to be homosexuals. There is no official doctrine about the possibility that genetics might have a role to play. The Church does not have a ironclad stance on the why's and the root causes of homosexuality. Each individual case must be considered individually obviously. But homosexuality is viewed as something that can be, should be and has been overcome successfully many many times. Not all are successful and my heart certainly goes out to those who are unsuccessful in overcoming it.

The only clear Church stance on the issue is this: You can have same-gender attraction and still be a member of the Church in good standing so long as you do not act on said impulses and attractions. Not much different from a heterosexual member who spends their entire life single through no fault of their own. They are both expected to obey the law of chastity. The Law of Chastity = No sexual relations of any kind unless it is between husband and wife. The expectation for both is the same: No sexual relations outside of marriage.

[Bensalem]

Some people have a genetic disposition for addiction, or alcoholism. Would that justify drug and alcohol abuse? Just because we have temptations that we are born with does not mean it is ok to listen to and act on the desires within the carnal man. This life is meant to overcome our weaknesses. Some are given more than others and I cannot imagine how tough it would be to be attracted to the same-sex. But just like every other temptation to sin, it must be overcome.

I mentioned addictions to my daughter and added that if scientists someday identify a genetic link to criminal behavior, would that justify criminal behavior. Likewise, the crime of rape is not tolerated by society along the heterosexual spectrum.

She questioned my association of same sex love with criminal behavior since such love could be practiced without violence in a setting of mutual consent.

Of course, she did not see such acts as a weakness to be dealt with... only a natural circumstance of birth to be accepted. That's how I was reduced to the secular argument set in statistical probability mentioned in an earlier post.

[Faded]

I mentioned addictions to my daughter and added that if scientists someday identify a genetic link to criminal behavior, would that justify criminal behavior. Likewise, the crime of rape is not tolerated by society along the heterosexual spectrum.

She questioned my association of same sex love with criminal behavior since such love could be practiced without violence in a setting of mutual consent.

Of course, she did not see such acts as a weakness to be dealt with... only a natural circumstance of birth to be accepted. That's how I was reduced to the secular argument set in statistical probability mentioned in an earlier post.

A better example might be pedophiles. It's just as likely for attraction to underage children to have a genetic component and homosexuality. And there are life events that happen (such as being a victim of a pedophile) that significantly increase your chances of being sexually attracted to small children yourself. Pedophiles are not necessarily violent criminals. Their sexually deviant predisposition is likely to not be their fault.

The difference is that pedophilia is not given the same due consideration as homosexuality, largely because pedophiles who act on their sexual attraction are violating the rights of the children they victimize. That does not mean that they consciously decided one day to be intensely attracted to little boys and/or girls. Odds are they probably didn't. In fact, pedophiles are most often among the most self-loathing people you'll ever encounter. You better believe that the vast majority wish they weren't attracted to little kids. Homosexual and pedophile both have sexual impulses and attractions that are not socially acceptable and in both cases, acting on those attractions and impulses is sin of a very high order. Why would it matter if they're born that way or not in either case?

We live in a society where adultery, orgies, pornography, homosexuality, fornication and all manner of sexual deviancy is considered perfectly acceptable. Consenting adults have the right to engage in whatever sexual behavior they see fit so long as they do no harm and do not violate the rights of others. That does not mean that it's all fine and good in God's eyes.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Faded

[Bensalem]

The is no official doctrine stating that all homosexuals choose to be homosexuals. There is no official doctrine about the possibility that genetics might have a role to play. The Church does not have a ironclad stance on the why's and the root causes of homosexuality. Each individual case must be considered individually obviously. But homosexuality is viewed as something that can be, should be and has been overcome successfully many many times. Not all are successful and my heart certainly goes out to those who are unsuccessful in overcoming it.

The only clear Church stance on the issue is this: You can have same-gender attraction and still be a member of the Church in good standing so long as you do not act on said impulses and attractions. Not much different from a heterosexual member who spends their entire life single through no fault of their own. They are both expected to obey the law of chastity. The Law of Chastity = No sexual relations of any kind unless it is between husband and wife. The expectation for both is the same: No sexual relations outside of marriage.

Well, that certainly explains the Church's view, as well as, collaborates many of my words to her. I will include it in my continuing discussion with my daughter.

And as I told her, I guess it would be fair to say that the Church does not recognize same sex marriage to be valid even if it is legal. Is that also correct? So in other words, same sex relations, even in the confines of a socially legal marriage, breaks the Law of Chasity, whereas, opposite sex marriages outside of the LDS church do not.

[Bensalem]

A better example might be pedophiles. It's just as likely for attraction to underage children to have a genetic component and homosexuality. And there are life events that happen (such as being a victim of a pedophile) that significantly increase your chances of being sexually attracted to small children yourself. Pedophiles are not necessarily violent criminals. Their sexually deviant predisposition is likely to not be their fault.

The difference is that pedophilia is not given the same due consideration as homosexuality, largely because pedophiles who act on their sexual attraction are violating the rights of the children they victimize. That does not mean that they consciously decided one day to be intensely attracted to little boys and/or girls. Odds are they probably didn't. In fact, pedophiles are most often among the most self-loathing people you'll ever encounter. You better believe that the vast majority wish they weren't attracted to little kids. Homosexual and pedophile both have sexual impulses and attractions that are not socially acceptable and in both cases, acting on those attractions and impulses is sin of a very high order. Why would it matter if they're born that way or not in either case?

We live in a society where adultery, orgies, pornography, homosexuality, fornication and all manner of sexual deviancy is considered perfectly acceptable. Consenting adults have the right to engage in whatever sexual behavior they see fit so long as they do no harm and do not violate the rights of others. That does not mean that it's all fine and good in God's eyes.

Great example, and one I did not think of. Pedophilia addresses the genetic component, social environmental influences, and the criminal aspect. It only falls short in the category of adult mutual consent. In other words, the immaturity of the victim makes it a socially unacceptable crime.

I can't use the "eyes of God" argument since it represents a purely religious perspective. But if I may divert somewhat to a different subject. Do you believe gays in their quest for same sex marriage are actively seeking God's approval?

[Faded]

Well, that certainly explains the Church's view, as well as, collaborates many of my words to her. I will include it in my continuing discussion with my daughter.

And as I told her, I guess it would be fair to say that the Church does not recognize same sex marriage to be valid even if it is legal. Is that also correct? So in other words, same sex relations, even in the confines of a socially legal marriage, breaks the Law of Chasity, whereas, opposite sex marriages outside of the LDS church do not.

Correct. The Church of Jesus Christ does not recognize the validity of a marriage between man and man, woman and woman, man and horse or woman and cat. Why on earth would a change in human law automagically cause God to up and change his mind? If NABLA gets their way, marriages between older men and young boys will one day be completely legal. Sexual relationships between older men and young boys actually gained social acceptance in ancient Rome after all. Marriages between older men and unwilling eight year old girls is an ongoing occurrence in third world and Muslim nations. It's not impossible for such a things to gain widespread legal status, is it? Homosexuality was a huge socially taboo thing for thousands of years, yet here we are. Does the fact that marriage between a 40 year old man and an 8 year old girl is unthinkable today mean that it will always remain unthinkable and to your point illegal?

One thing I'd like to address that is bothering me about this: Why is your daughter making it a "Mormon vs the Gay Community" issue when it is in fact a "Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and every other major world religion vs the Gay Community." Excepting new-thinking variants who like to make themselves politically correct, there is no major world religion that does not consider homosexuality sinful. How does she think it's just about the "Mormons"??

EDIT: Anyways, I think in my mental wanderings I've stumbled across an example for you. There are many modern examples of this practice but I can't link them because they seem angry and spiteful towards Islam which I have little taste for. The best example I can find quickly is Aisha, one of Muhammad's wives. He married her when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was 9. Obviously this would be unthinkable in modern America, but for him is was perfectly legal. Following this precedent, marriage to very young girls is perfectly legal in many predominantly Muslim nations, with the express requirement that the girl must reach puberty before her husband has sex with her. When the unthinkable becomes 100% legal, does it change it from wrong to right? Where is the dividing line between right and wrong? Is social acceptance an acceptable measuring stick for right and wrong?

Edited July 15, 2012 by Faded

[Bensalem]

Correct. The Church of Jesus Christ does not recognize the validity of a marriage between man and man, woman and woman, man and horse or woman and cat. Why on earth would a change in human law automagically cause God to up and change his mind? If NABLA gets their way, marriages between older men and young boys will one day be completely legal. Sexual relationships between older men and young boys actually gained social acceptance in ancient Rome after all. Marriages between older men and unwilling eight year old girls is an ongoing occurrence in third world and Muslim nations. It's not impossible for such a things to gain widespread legal status, is it? Homosexuality was a huge socially taboo thing for thousands of years, yet here we are. Does the fact that marriage between a 40 year old man and an 8 year old girl is unthinkable today mean that it will always remain unthinkable and to your point illegal?

One thing I'd like to address that is bothering me about this: Why is your daughter making it a "Mormon vs the Gay Community" issue when it is in fact a "Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and every other major world religion vs the Gay Community." Excepting new-thinking variants who like to make themselves politically correct, there is no major world religion that does not consider homosexuality sinful. How does she think it's just about the "Mormons"??

Again, I thank you for your expanding list of examples, all of which my daughter would deplore (if only for the age discrepancy of which we in this society claim is a victimization of youth). I will present your points to her soon.

As for her focus on Mormonism, she has no love for the other religious orders in their discrimination in same sex marriages and continued intolerance, and is only concerned with Mormonism in that I, her father, am LDS. Specifically, she was disappointed that I could not state a definite LDS position other than "it was a sin worthy of repentance", that "we held it up as no more of a sin than other heterosexual behaviors we teach against", and that, at least to some degree, "same sex attraction is a personal choice". She was curious as to how we justified ignoring the science on the matter.

She accepts the right of all religious orders to set their own doctrine. She simply does out agree with much of it. To be sure, she would disagree with all underage marriage and probably polygamy.

[Vort]

Thank you for your insight and willingness to share.

To be clear, my daughter was not stating her opinions, she was reporting what she learned from scientific sources.

And to be clear, it was not and is not my intent to criticize your daughter. But if she learned that the decision to engage in a particular homosexual act is genetically determined, then her science teacher should be fired.

I understand that science and religion are not usually inclusive in their teachings, but I like to explore how they may become so. I'm not looking for an acceptance of the behavior, only an explanation of how our doctrine might fit within scientific realities.

From my point of view, our doctrine already fits very comfortably within scientific theories. I am aware of nothing in science that contradicts LDS teachings. Indeed, I would be very surprised if such a thing ever happened, since the Church does not typically concern itself with scientific theories. If such a thing ever happened, I think it would be much more likely to be Bad Science than Bad Religion.

[Bensalem]

EDIT: Anyways, I think in my mental wanderings I've stumbled across an example for you. There are many modern examples of this practice but I can't link them because they seem angry and spiteful towards Islam which I have little taste for. The best example I can find quickly is Aisha, one of Muhammad's wives. He married her when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was 9. Obviously this would be unthinkable in modern America, but for him is was perfectly legal. Following this precedent, marriage to very young girls is perfectly legal in many predominantly Muslim nations, with the express requirement that the girl must reach puberty before her husband has sex with her. When the unthinkable becomes 100% legal, does it change it from wrong to right? Where is the dividing line between right and wrong? Is social acceptance an acceptable measuring stick for right and wrong?

Clearly, in the USA we have made 18 the age acceptable for marital consent and sexual maturity. Since my daughter agrees with the need to restrain premature marriage but disagrees with limits on adult consensual behavior, I believe my only avenue would be to explore with her her views on polygamy or extramarital affairs. She may not be so accepting of those behaviors should they become socially and legally tolerated. I don't believe she would be tolerant of her husband cheating on her or taking a second wife.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Bensalem

[Bensalem]

And to be clear, it was not and is not my intent to criticize your daughter. But if she learned that the decision to engage in a particular homosexual act is genetically determined, then her science teacher should be fired.

From my point of view, our doctrine already fits very comfortably within scientific theories. I am aware of nothing in science that contradicts LDS teachings. Indeed, I would be very surprised if such a thing ever happened, since the Church does not typically concern itself with scientific theories. If such a thing ever happened, I think it would be much more likely to be Bad Science than Bad Religion.

No, I believe her teachers can keep their jobs. We agreed that homosexual certainty is not yet genetically proven. Her argument was that scientific studies identify that we are born into our sexual preference and so personal choice is not a factor. That is what I could not accept.

Even with my acknowledgement that varying amounts of estrogen and testosterone in an individual's development may account for sexual tendencies, she continued to deny that choice was a factor.

My whole approach to science and religion is that they do, and will eventually, come together. That is why I was investigating a reconciliation on this matter here today.

[Vort]

No, I believe her teachers can keep their jobs. We agreed that homosexual certainty is not yet genetically proven. Her argument was that scientific studies identify that we are born into our sexual preference and so personal choice is not a factor. That is what I could not accept.

There is a difference between sexual preference and sexual activity. Preference may well be genetically determined (though I expect it's more likely developmentally determined). But the choice to engage in sexual activity is just that: A choice.

I have great sympathy for homosexuals who struggle with that desire. But sexuality and sexual activity are both controllable quantities. This is why I said before that just because you're born with a bad temper does not mean you're justified in beating people up. Similarly, sexual attraction to your same sex does not morally justify homosexual activity any more than sexual attraction to children or horses morally justifies sexual activity with children or horses.

[Bensalem]

There is a difference between sexual preference and sexual activity. Preference may well be genetically determined (though I expect it's more likely developmentally determined). But the choice to engage in sexual activity is just that: A choice.

I have great sympathy for homosexuals who struggle with that desire. But sexuality and sexual activity are both controllable quantities. This is why I said before that just because you're born with a bad temper does not mean you're justified in beating people up. Similarly, sexual attraction to your same sex does not morally justify homosexual activity any more than sexual attraction to children or horses morally justifies sexual activity with children or horses.

I pointed the difference out to my daughter and added that the Church equally condemns heterosexual activity outside of marriage.

I don't believe any baby is born with a bad temper, maybe with colic or a headache.

I didn't present to her bestiality, but I'll see if she would remain so tolerant should sex with animals become socially and legally acceptable.

[Traveler]

I pointed the difference out to my daughter and added that the Church equally condemns heterosexual activity outside of marriage.

I don't believe any baby is born with a bad temper, maybe with colic or a headache.

I didn't present to her bestiality, but I'll see if she would remain so tolerant should sex with animals become socially and legally acceptable.

Let me see if I understand your daughters position correctly. She believes that homosexuality is a trait that was (and can only be developed) through genetic evolution? Really?

The Traveler

[Guest]

Every time this thread bumps I get that awful Marc Anthony song in my head. "Tell me baby girl, 'cause I need to know! I need to know!"

[estradling75]

Traveler is hinting I the point that came to me while reading.

How can Homosexually be a trait only developed through genetic evolution (aka passing from one generation to another)? When it make for a clear tendency of whoever gets the trait to not have offspring. By its very nature Homosexually should be deselected out of the gene pool in a very few generations, if that is what it was.