Is Being Gay Ok If You're Born That Way?

[Buttercup]

This thread is an offshoot of the "Why Is It Ok To Be Fat But Not Gay?" thread. I thought we'd continue the discussion heading in another direction.

In the days the books of the bible were written science had obviously not yet advanced to the point of knowing that obesity can be genetically passed down. As is true today, there had to have been people in biblical times who might have been accused of gluttony yet were predisposed to obesity because of genetics.....it wasn't their fault.

Because we now know that obesity can be inherited, perhaps society has cut some slack to the culpability of the obese person....they are born that way.

If science discovers that homosexuality is genetically determined, would this change how Christians view gays? Is it not their fault because they are born that way?

 

[lombas]

Progressives would like to see homosexuality being genetically determined. However, when it comes to other people making theories about genetic determination, they call 'em "racists", &c.

- Paraphrase of something I read in Theodore Dalrymple's Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass

 

[Jeremiah]

.

If science discovers that homosexuality is genetically determined, would this change how Christians view gays? Is it not their fault because they are born that way?

I think it would be a hard reality slap and would wake a few people up.


But as to "if homosexuality is genetically determined?"

Think the answer is common sense with no science need.

I made a post on it in a different thread.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showpost.php?p=889310&postcount=614

 

[Buttercup]

I think it would be a hard reality slap and would wake a few people up.


But as to "if homosexuality is genetically determined?"

Think the answer is common sense with no science need.

I made a post on it in a different thread.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showpost.php?p=889310&postcount=614

I'd like to know if religious folks would tell gays they still need to fight being gay even if homosexuality is genetically determined. It would certainly force some rewriting of the bible.

After all, the church had to change a view or two when the earth was discovered to be round and not flat.

 

[lombas]

I'd like to know if religious folks would tell gays they still need to fight being gay even if homosexuality is genetically determined. It would certainly force some rewriting of the bible.

Why should they be obliged to do that and why should you have to prove genetic determination to shove personal responsibility under the carpet?

After all, the church had to change a view or two when the earth was discovered to be round and not flat.

The mainstream intelligentsia accepted the world was round at least since Plinius. It is a misconception people in the middle ages or the Churches themselves denied such a thing.

Isidore of Seville, Bede Venerabilis, ...

I'm afraid you have been Washington Irvinged.

 

[Blindinglight]

If science discovers that homosexuality is genetically determined, would this change how Christians view gays? Is it not their fault because they are born that way?

I honestly doubt it. Science already HAS shown that sexual orientation, including heterosexuality and homosexuality, is largely determined by genetics. Yet, a good amount of christians, especially the fundies, claim gays are a sinful lot and going to hell......just for being who they were born as.

 

[Buttercup]

Why should they be obliged to do that and why should you have to prove genetic determination to shove personal responsibility under the carpet?

I'm asking a theoretical question. Why is being genetically determined homosexual something you should change? What does that have to do with personal responsibility?

The mainstream intelligentsia accepted the world was round at least since Plinius. It is a misconception people in the middle ages or the Churches themselves denied such a thing.

Isidore of Seville, Bede Venerabilis, ...

I'm afraid you have been Washington Irvinged.

You've given me something to look up....thanks. I've always been under the impression that the church persecuted for the blasphemous teaching of the earth being round. I'll check it out.

 

[Buttercup]

I honestly doubt it. Science already HAS shown that sexual orientation, including heterosexuality and homosexuality, is largely determined by genetics.

I must be behind the curve. I haven't heard/read any definitive research in this area. Do you have a source to share?

 

[Mister Emu]

To the OP question...

(by the term "being gay" I assume you mean unrepentently living in a homosexual relationship/lifestyle)

No.

I must be behind the curve.

I as well. Last I read science had it as partially genetic, partially childhood enviroment, and partially childhood experiences...

 

[McBell]

If science discovers that homosexuality is genetically determined, would this change how Christians view gays? Is it not their fault because they are born that way?

I rather doubt it.
Being fat is a symptom to overeating.
Of course, being fat is also a symptom of several other things as well.
The Bible does not say that being fat is a sin.
It is over indulgence that is the sin.

The Bible flat out states that homosexuality is a sin.
There are no ifs, no ands, no buts, no conditional modifiers.

 

[Fluffy]

No for so many reasons.

Firstly, the majority of Christians do not see homosexuality as a sin. They view sex between members of the same sex as a sin. Homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible because it did not exist as a concept until recently.

Confusion arises because some Christians still deny this concept is real and so they refer to homosexual sex as "homosexuality". However, they clearly mean something entirely different from the way you are using it since it is not possible to be born in the act of having homosexual sex.

Therefore, a clear loophole exists: "Some people have a higher genetic tendency to have homosexual sex (ie homosexuality) than others but they are still personally responsible for giving into that sinful urge just as with any other sin".

Secondly, there is no justification given in the Bible, or by any Christian, for why homosexuality is a sin. Arguments are vulnerable to attack at two points: Its premises and the way its premises are used to form a conclusion. The Bible does not provide any premises and so there is nothing to attack, no reason that could possibly be given to contradict the assertion that homosexual sex is wrong short of God making a new law. In other words, with no reason given, it is irrelevant whether homosexuality is genetic because there is nothing there to argue against.

Having said all that, I'm sure that such a finding would make some Christians reconsider their position on homosexuality and homosexual sex but it would not be rational for them to do so. There are plenty of rational reasons to do so but not on this level of argument and too many call into question too much of the rest of Christianity to make them viable at this point in time.

 

[McBell]

No for so many reasons.

Firstly, the majority of Christians do not see homosexuality as a sin. They view sex between members of the same sex as a sin. Homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible because it did not exist as a concept until recently.

Confusion arises because some Christians still deny this concept is real and so they refer to homosexual sex as "homosexuality". However, they clearly mean something entirely different from the way you are using it since it is not possible to be born in the act of having homosexual sex.

Therefore, a clear loophole exists: "Some people have a higher genetic tendency to have homosexual sex (ie homosexuality) than others but they are still personally responsible for giving into that sinful urge just as with any other sin".

I disagree.
The Bible flat out states that a man having sex with another man is a sin.

Lev 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.
​

The Bible also flat out states that even thinking about having sex with another is the SAME SIN as actually having sex with that other.

Mat 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
​

Now, how does one define the term 'homosexual?'

Main Entry: 1ho·mo·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: \ˌhō-mə-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -ˈsek-shəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1892
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex​

Function: noun
Date: 1892
: a homosexual person and especially a male

​

Secondly, there is no justification given in the Bible, or by any Christian, for why homosexuality is a sin. Arguments are vulnerable to attack at two points: Its premises and the way its premises are used to form a conclusion. The Bible does not provide any premises and so there is nothing to attack, no reason that could possibly be given to contradict the assertion that homosexual sex is wrong short of God making a new law. In other words, with no reason given, it is irrelevant whether homosexuality is genetic because there is nothing there to argue against.

I agree.
And for any Christian to present any reason other than "God said so" is merely presenting their opinion as to the why.

Having said all that, I'm sure that such a finding would make some Christians reconsider their position on homosexuality and homosexual sex but it would not be rational for them to do so. There are plenty of rational reasons to do so but not on this level of argument and too many call into question too much of the rest of Christianity to make them viable at this point in time.

Seems to me that it is one of those things that they will have to take on faith.
That Homosexuality is a sin and that God offers no reasons as to why.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree.


The Bible flat out states that a man having sex with another man is a sin.

Lev 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.​

This quote says nothing about female homosexuality.

The Bible also flat out states that even thinking about having sex with another is the SAME SIN as actually having sex with that other.

Mat 5:28​

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.​

And this quote specifically says "on a woman".

So... lesbians are all right as long as they don't lust adulterously, and gay men can't have sex, though lusting's okay?

And for any Christian to present any reason other than "God said so" is merely presenting their opinion as to the why.


Seems to me that it is one of those things that they will have to take on faith.
That Homosexuality is a sin and that God offers no reasons as to why.

Much like wearing blended fabrics and not reaping the edges of your field, right?

 

[Random]

Sorry to be a dud, but how does one know (or how can one verify) that one is "born gay"? :flirt: Seriously...how?

 

[McBell]

This quote says nothing about female homosexuality.




And this quote specifically says "on a woman".

So... lesbians are all right as long as they don't lust adulterously, and gay men can't have sex, though lusting's okay?

Much like wearing blended fabrics and not reaping the edges of your field, right?

So sorry.
I was unawares that the topic was on ONLY one or the other...

It does strike me as interesting how so many people spend so much time looking for 'loopholes.'

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry to be a dud, but how does one know (or how can one verify) that one is "born gay"? :flirt: Seriously...how?

Same methods as for any study of genetic traits: examining the genes of related people, "separated twin" studies, etc.

Also, some studies have looked to see if there's a correlation between homosexuality and traits that are known to be set during development in the womb; this doesn't determine causation, but when a strong correlation develops, it indicates that both are set early in development.

Religioustolerance.org has summaries and links to a few studies, as well as commentary on both sides of the issue, here.

So sorry.
I was unawares that the topic was on ONLY one or the other...

It does strike me as interesting how so many people spend so much time looking for 'loopholes.'

Well, if one group is going to scour the Bible looking for snippets to condemn the other side, doesn't it make sense that the condemned group will do the same to defend themselves?

 

[Random]

Same methods as for any study of genetic traits: examining the genes of related people, "separated twin" studies, etc.

Also, some studies have looked to see if there's a correlation between homosexuality and traits that are known to be set during development in the womb; this doesn't determine causation, but when a strong correlation develops, it indicates that both are set early in development.

Religioustolerance.org has summaries and links to a few studies, as well as commentary on both sides of the issue, here.

Okay, so the answer is because the scientists say so and because gay people are genetically predispositioned to be homosexual. Hmm...

Perhaps I'm being a stuffy literalist when it comes to Evolutionary biology, but why would natural selection preserve (select) the genes (of homosexuality) which did not serve the evolutionary purpose of reproduction? Why would Nature engender a sexuality that by its very condition is not conducive to the contiuity of genetic material (since gays cannot reproduce with each other biologically)?

I'll have to ask a proper biologist about that one when I get the chance...

 

[MaddLlama]

Okay, so the answer is because the scientists say so and because gay people are genetically predispositioned to be homosexual. Hmm...

Perhaps I'm being a stuffy literalist when it comes to Evolutionary biology, but why would natural selection preserve (select) the genes (of homosexuality) which did not serve the evolutionary purpose of reproduction? Why would Nature engender a sexuality that by its very condition is not conducive to the contiuity of genetic material (since gays cannot reproduce with each other biologically)?

I'll have to ask a proper biologist about that one when I get the chance...

What's the evolutionary purpose of the duck-billed-platypus?

 

[michel]

If science discovers that homosexuality is genetically determined, would this change how Christians view gays? Is it not their fault because they are born that way?

As far as I am concerned, the results I have seen all seem to point to Homosexuality to be genetic.............

I certainly can't imagine that anyone would want to put themselves through all the trauma and "stone chucking"; homosexuality is not a choice.

 

[Random]

What's the evolutionary purpose of the duck-billed-platypus?

I fail to see how that's relevant...explain what you mean in context please.