toldailytopic: If it was proved that homosexuality was genetic, would it then make it

[Rusha]

Here is the granite/alwight/arthurbrain line of thinking: Homosexuality is strongly genetically based and is therefore a natural disposition. They cannot help their homosexuality and therefore they have an excuse for their behavior. Since two men or two woman engaging in sexual acts with each other, generally does not hurt anyone directly in the immediate timescale, it should not be condemned. I suppose that if God does not exist in your mind or you could care less if his moral laws are upheld then you probably would get your hackles up when someone tries to say there is something wrong with it.

That pretty much describes my view on the topic as well. I don't see sexuality as a choice. Even if someone who is born heterosexual or homosexual decides to remain celibate, it doesn't change their sexuality.

I am not so much opposed to Christians believing or claiming that homosexuality is wrong. It's an opinion and we are all entitled to hold our own views.

What I do, however, have an issue with is advocating the death penalty for homosexuality. It is overkill and frankly violates the right to practice or reject religion.

Also, the constant claims that all homosexuals are pedophiles are intentionally dishonest to say the least. There is too much venom from certain individuals when discussing this topic ... enough to cause total rejection of such arguments.

 

[Alate_One]

That pretty much describes my view on the topic as well. I don't see sexuality as a choice. Even if someone who is born heterosexual or homosexual decides to remain celibate, it doesn't change their sexuality.

I think the rational Christians distinguish between desires and actions. Actually engaging in homosexual sex is normally a choice, unless rape or drugs are involved. That's where the commonly repeated "it's a choice" comes from.

I find it interesting that the famous Exodus International has actually giving up on trying to 'cure' same sex attraction.

That said my spouse has a friend who (outside of any of these groups) did actually change, at least his lifestyle, completely from homosexual to heterosexual. I have not met this person nor would I have the temerity to ask if his desires had changed if I did meet him.

Human beings can have many desires, not all of which are positive. I think the real underlying problem is the idea floating around Western society that if something feels good/makes me happy, then it is good. That kind of thinking coupled with destructive desires is the root of a lot of heartache.

 

[alwight]

Well then, let's take a look at how TOL's own Granite used the word on this thread.


He is using it to claim bigotry and hatred not fear really.

Hatred and bigotry is simply how homophobia gets expressed it seems to me Delmar.

 

[Granite]

That a behavior has a genetic component does not automatically make that behavior moral.

For me this isn't a moral issue at all.

As a heterosexual, it is still immoral to have sex with anybody but my wife. The same holds true for homosexuality.

Ummm, how's that?

A person who claims faith in Jesus as their Lord and Savior has a choice to make.

No: a person who claims faith in Jesus and who happens to agree with you on this issue has a decision to make. Christianity isn't united on this topic, as you know.

 

[Granite]

I would feel no differently if God told me Himself that homosexuality was genetic.

And if he told you it wasn't a sin and to focus on something worthwhile?

Genetics can be defective because of sin having been somewhere in the bloodline, so hate to break it to you, but it would change nothing.

Excuse me? Did anyone elese catch how sick, twisted, reprehensible, and contemptible this remark actually is?

You're a real monstrous piece of work.

 

[CabinetMaker]

For me this isn't a moral issue at all.

That is all this issue is - moral. The only question is who's morals does on e choose to follow, God's or man's.

Ummm, how's that?

Sex between a husband and wife is moral. ANY sex outside of that is immoral. So a heterosexual with multiple partners is acting sexually immoral. A homosexual have sex with a partner of the same sex is acting sexually immoral.

No: a person who claims faith in Jesus and who happens to agree with you on this issue has a decision to make. Christianity isn't united on this topic, as you know.

A person who claims faith in Jesus and doesn't believe that homosexual sex is immoral is replacing God's morals with man's morals. That makes me wonder where their faith is truly places.

 

[Granite]

That is all this issue is - moral. The only question is who's morals does on e choose to follow, God's or man's.

On that we'll just have to disagree. I see this more as a civil rights issue than anything.

Sex between a husband and wife is moral. ANY sex outside of that is immoral. So a heterosexual with multiple partners is acting sexually immoral. A homosexual have sex with a partner of the same sex is acting sexually immoral.

Well, sure; says you. But we're not going to agree on that, and you know it...

A person who claims faith in Jesus and doesn't believe that homosexual sex is immoral is replacing God's morals with man's morals. That makes me wonder where their faith is truly places.

...or is simply interpreting the book differently than you do.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination to God. Therefore, it is considered a sin. Sin, in all its many forms can be considered genetic because of the fall of man. However, in the beginning God didn't originally create man to be a sinner, man chose to sin and suffered the consequences of that sin. We all sin, and we all are born into this world predisposed to sin. And that sin takes on many forms. Homosexuality is a "chosen lust of the flesh" (sin).

 

[Granite]

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination to God. Therefore, it is considered a sin. Sin, in all its many forms can be considered genetic because of the fall of man. However, in the beginning God didn't originally create man to be a sinner, man chose to sin and suffered the consequences of that sin. We all sin, and we all are born into this world predisposed to sin. And that sin takes on many forms. Homosexuality is a "chosen lust of the flesh" (sin).

Seems to be the only "abomination" in there that you guys care about.

 

[Alate_One]

Seems to be the only "abomination" in there that you guys care about.

I have to agree that there's a real obsession with homosexuality vs. other sins.

We have Leviticus 22:5

A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.

And also Leviticus 22:16

13 You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a large and a small. 14 You shall not have in your house differing measures, a large and a small. 15 You shall have a full and just weight; you shall have a full and just measure, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you. 16 For everyone who does these things, everyone who acts unjustly is an abomination to the Lord your God.

Why don't we hear about the above abomination?

hmm what would modern equivalents be? People who cheat others out of what is due them, corporations that adulterate products, banks that offer different rates to people based on skin color?

 

[Delmar]

Why don't we hear about the above abomination?

Why would you? Who is out there saying that it is OK to cheat people in a business deal? If nobody was claiming that homosexuality was normal and acceptable we wouldn't be bringing the issue up.

hmm what would modern equivalents be? People who cheat others out of what is due them, corporations that adulterate products, banks that offer different rates to people based on skin color?

 

[GuySmiley]

Why would you? Who is out there saying that it is OK to cheat people in a business deal? If nobody was claiming that homosexuality was normal and acceptable we wouldn't be bringing the issue up.

I have never seen a "cheat-blacks pride parade" from a bank yet. :thumb:

 

[alwight]

Why would you? Who is out there saying that it is OK to cheat people in a business deal? If nobody was claiming that homosexuality was normal and acceptable we wouldn't be bringing the issue up.

Shellfish merchants are out there brazenly flaunting their wares of shrimps, clams, crabs and lobsters as if it were acceptable normal food, why don't we hear about them from Christians?
Could it be that straight right wing Christians like to eat shellfish :shocked:?
Never mind abomination if it should ever affect what they like to do, oh no!

Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: Leviticus 11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Leviticus 11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

 

[Delmar]

Shellfish merchants are out there brazenly flaunting their wares of shrimps, clams, crabs and lobsters as if it were acceptable normal food, why don't we hear about them from Christians?
Could it be that straight right wing Christians like to eat shellfish :shocked:?
Never mind abomination if it should ever affect what they like to do, oh no!

Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: Leviticus 11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Leviticus 11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

OK Symbolic law was never intended to apply to non Jews. Try again.

 

[alwight]

OK Symbolic law was never intended to apply to non Jews. Try again.

Ah the old last ditch defence I see.
So we can disregard all the abominations found in Leviticus presumably and perhaps remove the whole book from the Bible? Why have it in there if it doesn't apply to Christians?

These below will be two verses we can all happily ignore now as not applicable, which will be progress perhaps. I wonder what else can be dumped? :think:

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Why would you? Who is out there saying that it is OK to cheat people in a business deal? If nobody was claiming that homosexuality was normal and acceptable we wouldn't be bringing the issue up.

I have never seen a "cheat-blacks pride parade" from a bank yet. :thumb:

Exactly. Amen.

 

[Angel4Truth]

My original post since you quoted my words without the entire context:

I would feel no differently if God told me Himself that homosexuality was genetic. Loads of birth defects are genetic, and the bible says sin passed to all men.

Genetics can be defective because of sin having been somewhere in the bloodline, so hate to break it to you, but it would change nothing.

I already consider that the likelihood of a person being 'given' to one particular sin or another has to do with bloodlines anyway - and why Christ had no earthly Father, hence was completely genetically sin free.

I added my words to your post since you left off the ability for others to go see all that i said:

I would feel no differently if God told me Himself that homosexuality was genetic.

And if he told you it wasn't a sin and to focus on something worthwhile?

Loads of birth defects are genetic, and the bible says sin passed to all men.
I already consider that the likelihood of a person being 'given' to one particular sin or another has to do with bloodlines anyway - and why Christ had no earthly Father, hence was completely genetically sin free.

Excuse me? Did anyone elese catch how sick, twisted, reprehensible, and contemptible this remark actually is?

You're a real monstrous piece of work.

Really, its monstrous to believe that people can do things that pass things their children and other generations of people?

How so, since even secular science can prove that. Is science monstrous for saying it too?

Take a crack addict for example, their child can be born with all kinds of problems because of the sins of the mother.

So show me how stating the obvious truth of that - is monstrous.

 

[Angel4Truth]

And if he told you it wasn't a sin and to focus on something worthwhile?
.

1st- I dont "focus on homosexuality" I focus on God who says that it is a sin and that those who turn one from the error of their ways, save a soul from death. I would rather help people avoid that, then to help them feel good about their sin till they get to hell. I would like to avoid blood on my hands.

Some people (like you) push this sin as being ok when it isnt. I would have equal objection to any sin being deemed ok against what the word of God says.

So if God never said that it was a sin, we would not be having this conversation.

 

[rexlunae]

That is all this issue is - moral. The only question is who's morals does on e choose to follow, God's or man's.

It's a false choice. When you strive to follow God's morals, all you're doing is following the morals of a man who lived thousands of years ago and refusing to take any responsibility for the moral choices you make. Either way, you end up with a man's morals, unless you happen to be a woman.

A person who claims faith in Jesus and doesn't believe that homosexual sex is immoral is replacing God's morals with man's morals. That makes me wonder where their faith is truly places.

On the contrary, a person who simply takes their orders from the Bible eschews their own responsibility in the matter.

 

[Delmar]

Ah the old last ditch defence I see.
So we can disregard all the abominations found in Leviticus presumably and perhaps remove the whole book from the Bible? Why have it in there if it doesn't apply to Christians?

For a Christian to read and apply Old Testament Law does require some discernment. We have to look at things like, were there exceptions to the law, or did it apply to foreigners in the land. there is a lot more to it, but it's pretty involved and is therefore a topic for another thread.

These below will be two verses we can all happily ignore now as not applicable, which will be progress perhaps. I wonder what else can be dumped? :think:

This coming from someone who has dumped the entire book! Your Jedi mind tricks wont work with me boy!