Is Homosexuality Really A Sin?

[Flack_attack 0]

perhaps wrong doses of hormones are the cause to be attracted to both sexes.

Okay, so what happens when the hormone dose is entirely wrong, like if it makes you attracted to only men?Duh.

[crowTrobot 2]

You're still talking about bi's.

no i'm talking about (potentially) genetically-caused homosexual tendencies. it's not a black & white issue where you can just categorize everyone into hetero/bi/gay with gays incapable of having hetero sex. it is a very complex social/biological issue that you are trying to oversimplify to conveniently justify your homophobic religious belief.

[TenaciousMe 0]

Okay, so what happens when the hormone dose is entirely wrong, like if it makes you attracted to only men?

Answer:You fail at evolution.

[TenaciousMe 0]

it is a very complex social/biological issue that you are trying to oversimplify to conveniently justify your homophobic religious belief.

I have not once used religion as supportive reasoning in my argument.

[antistuff 0]

Abomination to evolution-Evolution is a course which takes place by natural selection, those not procreating, entirely gay organisms, will not pass on their genetics.This is in specific reference to homosexuals, not to be confused with bisexuals.

If evolution is a part of nature and we are part of nature how can anything we do be outside of it or go against it?

[TenaciousMe 0]

If evolution is a part of nature and we are part of nature how can anything we do be outside of it or go against it?

Mutation, which either succeeds and flourishes or dies off.Lacking gene propogation would suggest dying off.People being born Bi is logical, people being born Gay is not logical.

[Flack_attack 0]

Answer:You fail at evolution.

Right, but what if this gene is recessive?What if this mutation or genetic error is common?So you are admitting that, by possible errors in "dosing" of hormones, one can be born gay?

[crowTrobot 2]

I have not once used religion as supportive reasoning in my argument.

that's not what i said - i said you are trying to use supportive reasoning (logically flawed as it is) to justify your pre-existing religious belief.

[TenaciousMe 0]

Right, but what if this gene is recessive?What if this mutation or genetic error is common?So you are admitting that, by possible errors in "dosing" of hormones, one can be born gay?

I'm admitting that someone can be born Bi, but choose or through nurture become gay.The unbalanced "dosing" of hormones applies to Bi in my arguments, and is directly applied to someone who is born Bi and turns gay.

[crowTrobot 2]

Mutation, which either succeeds and flourishes or dies off.Lacking gene propogation would suggest dying off.

again, if a gay "gene" exists and happens to be recessive, straight people can have it and continually pass it on. it would only express itself in random individuals who would be born with gay tendencies, and it wouldn't matter whether those individuals passed it on or not as any straight siblings would also also have the (non-expressed) "gay" gene and they would pass it on.

[Loismustdie 0]

Homosexuality is not a choice, at least in many cases.Why the **** would someone choose to go against the strongest urge known to man, the urge to procreate with the opposite sex?I'm just going to CHOOSE to like men, because it's the cool thing to do. Yeah right.Does this make sense to you?

No doubt they are driven towards the same sex-no one is denying that. I am driven to have sex with anything with a pulse- however, I don't do it. Not because I like denying myself, but because it is what God requires. Self-sacrifice can take many,many forms, and I don't see any reason why a gay man or women who chooses to follow Christ should be exempt from such battels and certainly not biblical reasons why they would be. Which is what this thread was about in the first place.

[TenaciousMe 0]

again, if a gay "gene" exists and happens to be recessive, straight people can have it and continually pass it on. it would only express itself in random individuals who would be born with gay tendencies, and it wouldn't matter whether those individuals passed it on or not as any straight siblings would also also have the (non-expressed) "gay" gene and they would pass it on.

If it were a recessive gene, we'd see it as commonly as we see green/blue eyes. Half of America would be gay/bi, and it would already be sociably acceptable.

[TenaciousMe 0]

No doubt they are driven towards the same sex-no one is denying that. I am driven to have sex with anything with a pulse- however, I don't do it. Not because I like denying myself, but because it is what God requires. Self-sacrifice can take many,many forms, and I don't see any reason why a gay man or women who chooses to follow Christ should be exempt from such battels and certainly not biblical reasons why they would be. Which is what this thread was about in the first place.

Yeah

[Flack_attack 0]

If it were a recessive gene, we'd see it as commonly as we see green/blue eyes. Half of America would be gay/bi, and it would already be sociably acceptable.

Lol, no.

[crowTrobot 2]

If it were a recessive gene, we'd see it as commonly as we see green/blue eyes. Half of America would be gay/bi, and it would already be sociably acceptable.

no, recessive traits are necessarily uncommon or rare (or they wouldn't be recessive lol). for example even though a large percentage of our population carries the gene that causes red hair, redheads are relatively uncommon because the gene is recessive.

[Head_Trauma 0]

I think I believe in this moral realism, although i've never known that is actually has a terminology.I think subjective morality is a cop out.I'd like to read that shafer-landau book.

Just to let anyone interested in moral realism know, I found Shafer-Landau's book excellent, he really defends the theory against nearly every possible attack. He also shows why moral realism is more appealing that most other ethical theories. But this book is an advanced philosophical work. I read it in one of my last philosophy classes before I graduated last year, which was a senior-year ethics course. It might be tough to really grasp it without some introductory ethics knowledge. That said, I definitely recommend it to anyone interested, though it might take a few reads to fully understand the arguments.

[11 to 1 0]

no, recessive traits are necessarily uncommon or rare (or they wouldn't be recessive lol). for example even though a large percentage of our population carries the gene that causes red hair, redheads are relatively uncommon because the gene is recessive.

Hi there. I used to teach basic genetic theory and evolutionary theory, so I'm going to just leave a note here about this."Recessive" doesn't necessarily mean a gene is rare. In what we call a balanced polymorphism, the recessive allele occurs at the same frequency as the dominant one. The incidence of a gene in a population is due to selection rather than dominance or recessivity. In one population, a recessive gene, as say one for blue eyes, is present in over 60% of the population. (Think Sweden or Norway) In another population, the dominant brown allele is present in over 80% of the population. (Think sub-Saharan African.)About genes and same sex behavior in nature. The trait would not be related to any single gene but to a complex of genes. And. the behavior, rather than the genetics, will be a result of genes and environment, like all expressed traits. That is: genotype plus environment equals phenotype. There are "homosexuals" in pretty much every animal population studied, including fish, chickens, horses and certainly primates of all types. It is also observed that environmental factors can cause previously "straight" individuals to exhibit same-sex behaviors and vice-versa. This is a hugely complex topic in terms of the science involved and there is really not a simple geneder separation of gay/straight/bi in any species.As to the original question:Yes, Daniel, God is Love, and loves us all, and "sin" is the most misunderstood word in Scripture. God made the universe and called it good. Gay folks included.. As for those who believe differently, if you think same sex behavior is sinful, then: DON'T DO IT.

[Loismustdie 0]

Hi there. I used to teach basic genetic theory and evolutionary theory, so I'm going to just leave a note here about this."Recessive" doesn't necessarily mean a gene is rare. In what we call a balanced polymorphism, the recessive allele occurs at the same frequency as the dominant one. The incidence of a gene in a population is due to selection rather than dominance or recessivity. In one population, a recessive gene, as say one for blue eyes, is present in over 60% of the population. (Think Sweden or Norway) In another population, the dominant brown allele is present in over 80% of the population. (Think sub-Saharan African.)About genes and same sex behavior in nature. The trait would not be related to any single gene but to a complex of genes. And. the behavior, rather than the genetics, will be a result of genes and environment, like all expressed traits. That is: genotype plus environment equals phenotype. There are "homosexuals" in pretty much every animal population studied, including fish, chickens, horses and certainly primates of all types. It is also observed that environmental factors can cause previously "straight" individuals to exhibit same-sex behaviors and vice-versa. This is a hugely complex topic in terms of the science involved and there is really not a simple geneder separation of gay/straight/bi in any species.As to the original question:Yes, Daniel, God is Love, and loves us all, and "sin" is the most misunderstood word in Scripture. God made the universe and called it good. Gay folks included.. As for those who believe differently, if you think same sex behavior is sinful, then: DON'T DO IT.

Really? Enlighten us. What is sin?

[11 to 1 0]

Really? Enlighten us. What is sin?

What "sin" is - and what is in Scripture, and what English-speaking people think is in Scripture are at least three different things. You might find it interesting to get a Strong's Concordance, or look at the library, and find all the different words that the KJV translates with the single word "sin." Of course, other translations vary from the KJV. What's even more interesting, is to find a word that is translated "sin" in one place, and in other ways in other places. Someone sent me a really interesting forward on it once, I'll see if I can dig it up.

[Loismustdie 0]

What "sin" is - and what is in Scripture, and what English-speaking people think is in Scripture are at least three different things. You might find it interesting to get a Strong's Concordance, or look at the library, and find all the different words that the KJV translates with the single word "sin." Of course, other translations vary from the KJV. What's even more interesting, is to find a word that is translated "sin" in one place, and in other ways in other places. Someone sent me a really interesting forward on it once, I'll see if I can dig it up.

I was looking for your interpetation. I am very familiar with Strongs.

[11 to 1 0]

there are multiple studies that indicate homosexual tendencies are genetic, but it isn't proven beyond any doubt. i never said otherwise.

I was reading the January issue of Discover which has the 100 top science stories of 2006 (in ther iopinion, anyway) and came across one that relates to this thread.For awhile now, maybe twenty years, studies have been indicating that having older brothers increases the likliehood a guy will be gay. Seems to contradict direct genetic factors as triggers for the trait so a lot of researchers looked into it. This new study finds that having older brothers only increases the "gay factor" if the boys share the same biological mother. That is, being adopted, or being half brotherrs through the father, doesn't increase the likliehood of being gay. Each older biological through the mother brother a man has, increases his chance of being gay by one third. The hypothesis they are working with now is, a prenatal biological mechanism related to how the mother's immune system reacts to proteins produced by male fetuses alters fetal development in subsequent male offspring. What people often fail to realize about selection and survival of genes is, overpopulation is as destructive to a population as underpopulation. More so, in many cases.

[crowTrobot 2]

I was reading the January issue of Discover which has the 100 top science stories of 2006 (in ther iopinion, anyway) and came across one that relates to this thread.For awhile now, maybe twenty years, studies have been indicating that having older brothers increases the likliehood a guy will be gay. Seems to contradict direct genetic factors as triggers for the trait so a lot of researchers looked into it. This new study finds that having older brothers only increases the "gay factor" if the boys share the same biological mother. That is, being adopted, or being half brotherrs through the father, doesn't increase the likliehood of being gay. Each older biological through the mother brother a man has, increases his chance of being gay by one third. The hypothesis they are working with now is, a prenatal biological mechanism related to how the mother's immune system reacts to proteins produced by male fetuses alters fetal development in subsequent male offspring. What people often fail to realize about selection and survival of genes is, overpopulation is as destructive to a population as underpopulation. More so, in many cases.

why are you a christian? obviously it's not because you are applying the same rigorous standard of logic/proof to your christian belief as you are applying to understanding (or i assume to teaching) genetics. why is the former due a separate standard?

[11 to 1 0]

why are you a christian? obviously it's not because you are applying the same rigorous standard of logic/proof to your christian belief as you are applying to understanding (or i assume to teaching) genetics. why is the former due a separate standard?

Well, hmmmm. First, I'd guess we'd have to define what I believe. Then we could discuss what constitutes "proof." I believe in miracles, for instance. Now, should we define that? Someone on a message board once defined that as "God reaching into reality and changing natural law." I gotta say, there is really not much law in natural law as far as I can see, especially at the quantum level, but even at higher levels the more we know. Reality, for want of a better word, is boundryless. I believe what I experience, just like most folks, I think. I experience God, Love, the reality of Christ as a living Person, miracles, the continuation of consciousness (life after death.) This keyboard is, in the last analysis, non-existent, in a very literal sense. But life, as in you, me, God, is always. I know it because it is my reality. I can't make it anyone else's reality, because everyone lives in a universe unique unto themselves. In that same issue of Discover was an article about dark matter. Which is just a descriptor for an hypothesis that would explain certain observable phenonmena. According to the article, dark matter does not interact with normal matter, or itself, and so it just passes through everything even though it is present everywhere and makes up over 75% of the universe.But if I said "the kingdom of God is among you" and that heaven, or the place we are all from and to which we all return is right here, invisible but real, how many scientists would scoff? (Not as many as you'd think, actually, but many.)I admit no difference between "science" and "theology." None. I only recognize The Way Things Work. What is, is. You know, when Newton first proposed the Universal Law of Gravitation, he was berated by the scientists of his day as "bowing to mysticism." What is rational, is to look without prejudice at what is. I try, with varying degrees of success, to do this. When I do, I know Christ is exactly Who the Church says He is, and species evolve. I know God made the Universe and it is good and gay folks are made by God. If you seek after knowledge, you seek after God, no matter what you call it.

[BWToth 0]

"I believe what I experience, just like most folks, I think. I experience God, Love, the reality of Christ as a living Person, miracles, the continuation of consciousness (life after death.)"I'm curious as to how you have experienced these things?Also you say everyone lives in their own universe, then how are you able to know the things you believe are true if your universe is just one of billions, what gives yours more credence than someone elses, say an athiest's?

[crowTrobot 2]

Well, hmmmm. First, I'd guess we'd have to define what I believe. Then we could discuss what constitutes "proof." I believe in miracles, for instance. Now, should we define that? Someone on a message board once defined that as "God reaching into reality and changing natural law." I gotta say, there is really not much law in natural law as far as I can see, especially at the quantum level

strange thing for a genetics teacher to say. as far as we've been able to tell the entire natural world (including what humans experience internally) is based on unchanging physical laws. in fact QM is the most rigidly structured phenomena ever discovered. just because the laws don't correspond to what your limited-perspective human intuition thinks they should be doesn't mean they aren't there.

but even at higher levels the more we know. Reality, for want of a better word, is boundryless.

you're implying that because we may not be able to understand all of reality god must have done it? the universe isn't capable of being beyond our understanding without god? how is that not baseless egocentrism?

I believe what I experience, just like most folks, I think. I experience God, Love, the reality of Christ as a living Person, miracles, the continuation of consciousness (life after death.) This keyboard is, in the last analysis, non-existent, in a very literal sense. But life, as in you, me, God, is always. I know it because it is my reality. I can't make it anyone else's reality, because everyone lives in a universe unique unto themselves.

there is no evidence personal "experience" isn't entirely physical and we aren't all tied to the same physical world. all evidence indicates we are.