Is Banning Gay Marriage Christian?

[Kidan]

This was an interesting site Mr. Bill.  Unfortunately it's slightly out-of-date copyrighted as it was in 1995, at the time of the Hamer's studies, and was finished well before 1999's Rice study.  As well, this paper does not delve into such things as how these children fare later in life or grades, it deals with their self-esteem, and their overall acceptance and well being as well as their sexual identity.  From this document, we know that those studied think highly of themselves, now whether that translates into a good, socially productive person or not is an entirely different matter.

Also,  on the note of genetic v. choice notice these statements (taken from your link):

Quote[/b] ]
In all studies, the great majority of offspring of both gay fathers and lesbian mothers described themselves as heterosexual. Taken together, the data do not suggest elevated rates of homosexuality among the offspring of lesbian or gay parents.

and

Quote[/b] ]studied adult sons of gay fathers and found more than 90% of the sons to be heterosexual

These clearly indicate that there is not a true genetic aspect of homosexuality.  For millenia, it's been assumed that you can control yourself.  Now you come here and say 'Genetics make me this way!'   Prove it.  There's more proof for Evolution than for a genetic causation of homosexuality (which if you believe in evolution, would be another factor AGAINST genetic causation).  A homosexual genetic trait would quickly breed itself out of the gene pool, for by definition IT CANNOT PROCREATE!  If this genetic trait cannot be passed down, how come there are so many of them?  Random mutation cannot account for the numbers (even at the lower estimate of around 100 million homosexuals).  

As well, don't assume that just because something is a choice, it's a concious choice.  You make many initial choices unconciously, seemingly randomly, yet you can still, change your mind and choose differently.  As for why?  Who knows. Why do people choose to drink themselves into a stupor on a nightly basis?  I don't understand that either, but it still happens night after night.

Now for adoption.  I truly have nothing against gays adopting.  They're human.  If they don't have the various criminal past that makes them a potential hazard to the child, let them adopt.  Having a homosexual parent is better than having no parent.  But they don't need to destroy the social institution of marriage to do that.  The quote from my site is correct.  Marriage is (and has always been defined) as a union between a male and a female.  To allow for homosexuals marriages, changes the definition fundamentally to 'two people who have sex' (which btw is a closer Judeo-Christian ideal of marriage and the marriage covenant, but that's another topic).  As well answer the follow-up question to that particular rant

Quote[/b] ]Will Incest be a proper marriage arrangement (afterall it's a 'lifestyle' choice)?  Will beastiality be a proper marriage arrangment (afterall it's a 'lifestyle' choice)?

Atown -- the entire concept of our government, culture and our (as in Christians) religion is Free Will.  That we're solely responsible for the choices that we make.  That alone should make any American or Christian wary of so-called genetic defenses.  Saying 'my Genes made me do it' is the ultimate in 'It's not my fault' that two-year olds say when you catch them doing something wrong.

 

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] ]Saying 'my Genes made me do it' is the ultimate in 'It's not my fault' that two-year olds say when you catch them doing something wrong.

Nice Kidan, really nice!!!!! I like it, uh huh, I like it alot!!!!

 

[[toj.cc]El Jefe[sww:D]]

Quote[/b] (timor @ Mar. 24 2004,2:09)]While I understand your point well, it is nil, because other males do exist. We're dealing with real and present issues here, not abstract and hypothetical theory.

The topic turned to whether it is a choice to be homosexual or a genetic occurance. By setting up the hypothetical position that a male was without choice, I eliminated one of the two possibilities to poke holes at the genetic claim. This is a scientific method.

For a quick example: if you want to know if a plant biologically benefits from sunlight, you would set up a few different groups to experiment on. At least one would be in the sun and at least one would not be in the sun. Bob would not be in the sun, because he is in the abnormal setting (e.g. no males), while he would have a counterpart in the sun (e.g. males). You are trying to stare at the control group hoping something jumps out at you, while I am doing the actual experiment.

And if you wanted to take this as a philisophic debate, your post means nothing there also. The greatest philosophers heavily relied on "what if" scenarios. Descartes could not have came to his conclusion that "I think therefore I am." He used some pretty big what ifs on metaphysics, we are merely talking about homosexuality.

Now, if we can't use science and we can't use philosophy in this discussion, what, exactly, do you propose we use?

 

[Grand Master]

Research has reliably shown that homosexuality is moderately heritable. This alone discredits any theory about it simply being a choice. There is likely not a single gene that causes homosexuality, so give up the tired arguments about no "gay gene" ever being found.

El Jefe, I would say that in the hypothetical situation you brought up about a lone man raised in a population of females: the man could be homosexual - he would have no sexual desire for the females.

 

[Kidan]

grand master - Show me the research. Give me a link. I've shown studies that say that there is no genetic causation of homosexuality (there's quotes from the APA in my previous post about it). Now, prove me wrong (and any study by Hamer is already out, as he was proved to be falsifying data to acheive the results he desired). To change a long-held belief that our actions are controlled by us, you HAVE To show proof, otherwise, you're blowing smoke. If you can't prove me wrong, why is it so hard for you to accept that a homosexual's actions are a choice? Or are you saying that homosexual's are sub-human and can't control themselves?

Think on this. A prime aspect of humanity is that we control our desires, they don't control us. Now, for you to say otherwise for homosexuals says that you don't believe they're fully human. You're saying that they're no better than a dog, because they can't control themselves. While I say that they're fully human, and are making a choice to perform in a way that satisfies them.

 

[Eon]

Kidan,

I'm afraid that what you're using is faulty logic, taking an "on-the-face-of-it" reasonable point and attenuating it to the point where it seems to say something that it doesn't. Let's address your genetic point first.

You claim that as homosexuals don't procreate, then the gene that causes one to be or become homosexual would be bred out. This is not true. It is entirely possible to carry a recessive genetic trait (like blue eyes) in your genetic code without it manifesting. People who communicate a genetic trait without manifesting it are called carriers - look at a website explaining any genetically communicable disease for an explanation on carriers and recessive traits.

Second is your claim that it is reasonable to expect all homosexuals and bisexuals to conform to YOUR sexual preference through an act of will. You explain this by attempting to turn the tables on those who pour scorn on your stance - claiming that to believe otherwise reduces homosexuals to the status of animals. Yet you ignore the very real evidence that shows how hard it is to control sexual urge through act of will. Priests fail all the time, driven to the most vulnerable members of their flock in the process. I don't think I really need to set my stall out for a debate on how common the inability to regulate sexual behaviour through mere act of will is, do I? Does ANYONE believe it uncommon?

 

[Kidan]

Eon - I do understand the concept of a carrier, but logically it wouldbe a reducing population. Even if you don't use the arguement of inheritance it's still a inheriently inane point that our actions are controlled by genetics.

No, I'm saying everyone chooses which sexaul preferences they wish to use. I aint going to lie, outside the concept of gay marriage, I don't care who people have sex with. If asked, I'll explain my pov on it as sin, but it's no different than any other sin not worthy of getting so upset over. As well, I never said it was EASY to control your sexaul urges, just that we CAN. I see plenty of girls out there that I find attractive, that doesn't mean I'm going to go out there and rape every one of them. Humans can control themselves.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Kidan @ Mar. 24 2004,5:22)]timor-- the big deal is that as Christians we should be striving to live a sin-free life. Therefore being a homosexual (a sin) Christian is a slight oxymoron.

Aaaah, and suddenly, Kidan, you've hit the exact issue!

Quote[/b] ]timor-- the big deal is that as Christians we should be striving to live a sin-free life. Therefore being a homosexual (a sin) Christian is a slight oxymoron.

You see, homosexuality is not an action -- it's not something one does. Homosexuals are homosexuals. Homosexuality is a state of being. I really believe that homosexuals can at most suppress their feelings, but they can not simply "become" heterosexual. What are these homosexuals to do? What if they seek salvation? They cannot become something they're not (homosexuals), and thus they cannot become non-sinners. And yet, neither can you, correct?

Of course, you could look at it that way, or like this:

Quote[/b] ]
1 Jn.3:6
"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not."
1 Jn.3:9
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."
1 Jn.5:18
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not."
3 Jn.11
"He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God."

Regardless, it remains that a homosexual can be a Christian, and despite his homosexuality, he is in the exact same boat as you.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] ([toj.cc]El Jefe[sww] @ Mar. 25 2004,1:12)]

Quote[/b] (timor @ Mar. 24 2004,2:09)]While I understand your point well, it is nil, because other males do exist. We're dealing with real and present issues here, not abstract and hypothetical theory.

The topic turned to whether it is a choice to be homosexual or a genetic occurance.  By setting up the hypothetical position that a male was without choice, I eliminated one of the two possibilities to poke holes at the genetic claim.  This is a scientific method.  

For a quick example: if you want to know if a plant biologically benefits from sunlight, you would set up a few different groups to experiment on.  At least one would be in the sun and at least one would not be in the sun.  Bob would not be in the sun, because he is in the abnormal setting (e.g. no males), while he would have a counterpart in the sun (e.g. males).  You are trying to stare at the control group hoping something jumps out at you, while I am doing the actual experiment.

And if you wanted to take this as a philisophic debate, your post means nothing there also.  The greatest philosophers heavily relied on "what if" scenarios.  Descartes could not have came to his conclusion that "I think therefore I am."  He used some pretty big what ifs on metaphysics, we are merely talking about homosexuality.

Now, if we can't use science and we can't use philosophy in this discussion, what, exactly, do you propose we use?

read the rest of my post.

You see, your question is not in accords with the scientific method, because we cannot simply eliminate all other males. The best we could do is raise a male in a controlled environment for his entire life, making it so that he never sees another male. Yet, this is not so simple as performing experiments on plants. All plants seem to require sunlight, and it can be hypothesized from their seedling form that this will be so. Yet, homosexuals make up quite a minority of the human population, so the odds are already against us that our test subject will have any chance of being gay. Do you see what I'm saying?

Regardless, I answered your question in the second half of my last post, which you apparently did not read, or chose to ignore.

And for future reference, don't talk to me with such a condescending tone.

 

[[toj.cc]El Jefe[sww:D]]

Quote[/b] (Grand Master @ Mar. 25 2004,2:15)]El Jefe, I would say that in the hypothetical situation you brought up about a lone man raised in a population of females: the man could be homosexual - he would have no sexual desire for the females.

Not liking women and liking men are two different things. Just because a guy doesn't like any females, doesn't mean he is homosexual.

 

[Avesther]

He is in the exact same boat so long as he does not act out his\her homosexual urges. They must put an end to their homosexual lives, let their old lives die. A practicing homosexual can not lay claim to the kingdom of God much like a practicing murderer.

 

[Grand Master]

Kidan, I will take a look at my text and notes from a behavioural genetics course I took last term. I think there are a few references there to studies on this matter, so I'll post the references here. You may have to go to a University library to take a look at these unless you somehow have regular access to electronic journals.

You mentioned that you are often attracted to women you see. Do you control that? What is your basis for determing which ones you are attracted to?

Quote[/b] ]A practicing homosexual can not lay claim to the kingdom of God much like a practicing murderer.

Why not? Your basis for salvation only requires that someone accept Jesus as his or her saviour.

 

[Jango]

A true Christian follows the Bible, and it says that homosexuality is wrong in the Bible, so true Christians should know not to become a homosexual.

 

[CCGR]

no eluding to swearing and let's be a little more respectful Timor I have been asked to edit part of your post.

 

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] ]Why not? Your basis for salvation only requires that someone accept Jesus as his or her saviour.

Wrong. There is an element of admiting what you are doing is wrong and sinful. And once you have accepted that it is wrong, you then set out on the path to leave the sinful life behind by stopping, to the best of your ability to stop it.

If a person was hitting you once a minute and then said he was sorry for hitting you, would you believe he was trully sorry and repentant if he didn't make any effort to stop? Much like with the Lord, how can you claim to be a christian and continue life in an unrepentant manner. There are a lot of pew warmers in the church who are going to be suprised one day when they realise that they believed that salvation was a ticket to continue sinning.

 

[Jango]

No, he's correct. But as Christians we should stop our sinful nature. Although it is impossible for any human to just stop sinning, that's not an excuse to do what we want to even if we're sinners.

 

[Avesther]

I never said anything about stopping sinning altogether. We don't have a ticket to continue sinning either. But I find it hard to believe somebody who calls themselves a christian and continues to live their old sinful, self centered life. And I can't believe I have to say what I am about to say, but, I have to because if I don't, somebody here is going to feel like they have to correct me: Yeah, we all fall of the band wagon.

I don't believe somebody who says the have just quit smoking while they are standing in line to buy two cartoons of cigarettes for themselves. But, I will believe somebody who tells me they quit smoking but asks for a single cigarette once in awhile.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Mar. 25 2004,4:30)]He is in the exact same boat so long as he does not act out his\her homosexual urges. They must put an end to their homosexual lives, let their old lives die. A practicing homosexual can not lay claim to the kingdom of God much like a practicing murderer.

That's absolutely ridiculous -- they're sinning, just as you are continuing to sin each day. Surely you would not appeal to something such as Venial and Mortal sins, as the Catholics do (I'm assuming you're Protestant). Or, like I said, one could call upon those verses, in which case no Christian sins, even if they...sin. But to equate homosexuality to murder is absurd. Besides, Christianity teaches that even a murderer can be forgiven. How many times? Seven times seventy! There is no unforgivable sin besides blasphemy against the Holy Spirit -- but at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if you said homosexuality was blaspheming the Holy Spirit...

 

[timor]

*sigh*

Don't you guys realize that your entire religion is one freaking gray area? "Well, of course Christians keep sinning, but they're not supposed to, but they're going to anyway cuz they're human but its ok, but its only ok to a certain point, but that point is not the point to which I'm sinning."

This entire thread has crumbled into a giant ad hoc argument from the Christians.

And, sorry about that CCGR. I'll try not to get so frustrated, but that's hard to do when people totally ignore large portions of your posts in order to attack you. Regardless, it was uncalled for, and I apologize.

 

[Kidan]

Grand - yes, I choose the qualities of those I find attractive.  I have preferences in the female form that I've changed over the various years.  


Anyways on the thought of the homosexual as genetic, let's take a nice quote from Timor's InfedilGuy.com website.

Quote[/b] ]But. The other half of evolution is natural selection, and that is certainly not random. Harmful mutations will end up removed from the gene pool, while beneficial mutations will become more common; that is the essence of natural selection. The genes that end up going on to the next generation are not chosen at random, but rather based on how they affect the organism's ability to live and reproduce.

From this definition of natural selection, a homosexual gene would not be passed down (because it does affect an organism's ability to reproduce)