Well said Randy. Thanks.

In my opinion, it is the act that is sinful. Having a weakness to a certain temptation is not a sin. Suppose for instance I have a weakness for pornography and I know that I am tempted by that particular thing. If I repent of that and try to avoid it, I am not living in sin, even though I may live the rest of my life with that weakness and every time I log on to my computer I may be tempted to view it. We all are tempted by something.

 

I know someone will throw out the well known verse about lust, and I would agree, it is a sin. Lusting is a verb, an action. If you lust after someone who is not your spouse then you are sinning according to the Bible teaching of Jesus. I know that I am attracted to women, and I can certainly appreciate a woman who is beautiful. For that reason my wife always gets her Victoria Secret catalog second handed because I am the one who checks the mail. However I do not lust after every woman I meet, I do not want to have sex with every woman I meet. If I took that VS magazine off somewhere and fantasized about those women or looked upon them with desire, then IMO that would be a sin that I would need to repent of. But simply being heterosexual, and attracted to women, doesn't make me sinful.

 

I don't think it is a stretch to apply that thinking to other temptations, that if acted upon would be sinful, homosexuality included.

 

Also I have to say, when I was a kid, Moses really threw me off with that "do not covet your neighbors a$$" thing. My Sunday school buddies and I had a real laugher out of that one. LOL

 

I agree. My question was simply asking what makes a person homosexual, or you could insert something else into the question. What makes a person an aloholic, drug addict, or an adulterer? Liar, thief, or glutton?

 

To me a person who is attracted to the same sex is a homosexual. I don't see that as the case in the other examples. A person isn't a liar or thief because they're tempted to lie or steal, nor are they an alcoholic or adulterer because they are tempted to drink or cheat. Committing the act itself is what would cause them to be labeled.

Here is my biggest frustration with this issue (and many others).

 

Are we who call ourselves Christians reaching out and showing LOVE? Was there any LOVE displayed in the day Huckabee set aside to support CFA? Do we get too much enjoyment out of pointing fingers and looking down our noses while we clutch our Bibles and say "I am right and you are wrong"? That concerns me.

 

If we are who we say we are, then we should be most concerned with getting ourselves into Heaven, and secondly trying to take as many people with us as we can. If we adhere to Jesus' teachings, then the second greatest commandment is "Love your neighbor as yourself". I am not sure how to love anyone as much as I love myself. But if that is my mindset, it should grieve me to tears to know that any of my fellow man be treated the way some so-called Christians treat homosexuals.

 

I can say without any reservations that I am most thankful for the people in my life who prayed for me, tried to teach me the truth, taught me that I was living in sin and that I needed the blood of Christ to cleanse me of those sins. Although I resisted it at the time, I am forever thankful that they loved me enough to gently show me the error of my ways. I wasn't beaten over the head with the Bible, nobody pointed fingers at me and made me feel ashamed of myself. But they did show me love and genlty let me know that God also loved me and wanted me to be a part of His Kingdom. And they taught me that my sin was keeping me from being able to get there and they taught me what I needed to do to get forgiveness and have my sins washed away.

 

So I fully believe that there is nothing wrong with teaching the Gospel of Jesus, and helping those we teach to examine themselves and try to eliminate sin from their lives. Where we take a wrong turn all too often is in our approach. If we love our neighbor as we love ourselves, then I question whether we are fostering an environment towards the gay community in particular that would allow us to show them that love and afford us the opportunity to gently lead them to God. Perhaps instead of just telling them they are destined to Hell while we munch on our CFA sandwich, we could have spent some time with a gay friend and let them know that we feel their pain and that God loves them too just as much as he loves any of us. It must have been tough emotionally to deal with such a public condemnation.

 

I am not suggesting that we bend the scripture, we have to stand on truth. I am suggesting that if we take our mission seriously and set out to try and lead others to salvation, we need to do it with love and gentleness. This is true for everyone around us. This is a nasty sinful world and Satan is having a field day. Are we even trying to be the light to those around us? Or have we given up?

 

I'm sorry if I am rambling. I am praying for everyone and I try to please God. I fail daily and I ask you to pray for me too.

 

Excellent post. Sums up much of my feelings as well.

 

However, I think the issue of homosexuality presents a bigger challenge in that regard than many others for some of the reasons I've been trying to hash out. In general, addicts, alcoholics, adulterers and thieves aren't going to argue that what they're doing is OK. They may not like it if you talk to them about it, but by and large, they accept that its wrong and many will acknowledge that a change would be better for them.

 

This is a much tougher issue to confront in a way that will come off as caring and loving. We're not telling them that an act they've done is wrong, we're telling them that their core human desire for love and companionship is wrong, that they will never be able to experience that as others do. How do you lovingly tell someone that?

I agree. My question was simply asking what makes a person homosexual, or you could insert something else into the question. What makes a person an aloholic, drug addict, or an adulterer? Liar, thief, or glutton?

 

To me a person who is attracted to the same sex is a homosexual. I don't see that as the case in the other examples. A person isn't a liar or thief because they're tempted to lie or steal, nor are they an alcoholic or adulterer because they are tempted to drink or cheat. Committing the act itself is what would cause them to be labeled.

Homosexuality is an affinity. I have an affinity for chocolate. I don't have an affinity for collard greens. I have an affinity for women. I don't have an affinity for hairy butts(it's a joke, lighten up). There are no genetic markers that indicate such, regardless of what some incorrectly claim. There are instances where folks have been gay then aren't. Others who aren't then are. It's an affinity.

 

If I let my affinty for women become an issue where I commit adultery, I sin. I have occasionally let my affinity for chocolate become an issue and I weigh a tad more than when I was in high school.

Homosexuality is an affinity. I have an affinity for chocolate. I don't have an affinity for collard greens. I have an affinity for women. I don't have an affinity for hairy butts(it's a joke, lighten up). There are no genetic markers that indicate such, regardless of what some incorrectly claim. There are instances where folks have been gay then aren't. Others who aren't then are. It's an affinity.

 

If I let my affinty for women become an issue where I commit adultery, I sin. I have occasionally let my affinity for chocolate become an issue and I weigh a tad more than when I was in high school.

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

With all due respect, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, however, from a scientific point of view, there is nothing in our code of genetic makeup that even hints at a DNA marker indicating a homosexual from a heterosexual.

 

There's no marker for my chocolate affinity either.

The latest research suggests that there is, in fact, a genetic element involved in homosexuality. In a study of gay men and their twin brothers, and lesbian women and their twin sisters, researchers found a much greater chance that an identical twin (as opposed to a fraternal twin or an adopted sibling), would be gay or lesbian as well. Without throwing out a whole bunch of numbers, basically the researchers estimate there's a moderate genetic component to same-sex-orientation and that the impact of genetics is stronger in men than in women. However, they suggest that there is also a substantial impact of environmental factors on same-sex orientation. Building on those results, other researchers have found evidence that two particular aspects of same-sex sexuality also have a genetic component: childhood gender nonconformity (boys acting like girls and vice versa) and adult masculinity-femininity.

 

They're now trying to identify the exact gene responsible for sexual orientation, but the results so far are inconsistant. That said, the environment accounts for a large part of the variance in same-sex orientation; so any gene that might be associated with sexual orientation will only confer a predisposition rather than definitively "cause" same-sex or different sex-orientation.

 

 

 

Been in Personality Psychology class for two days, and already spouting off about research findings. What a hoot!

With all due respect, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, however, from a scientific point of view, there is nothing in our code of genetic makeup that even hints at a DNA marker indicating a homosexual from a heterosexual.

 

There's no marker for my chocolate affinity either.

 

There is also no scientific evidence to conflate the two, yet you do.

 

There is nothing scientific about your post, yet you couch it in such a way to make it seem true.

 

There are all kinds of things that "are who people are" that are not defined with genetic markers.

 

Here, I will conflate two things that I shouldn't, but it might make my point.

 

There are no genetic markers for dyslexia, yet one of my children is dyslexic. S/he not have an infinity for dyslexia, or an affinity for struggling with common vowel sounds s/he has dyslexia. Another one of my children is incredible in math/science. S/he does not have an affinity for it, not sure s/he even likes it, but s/he gets it. Not genetic marker . . . yet. I cannot sing to save my life, I could be trained to sing differently and perhaps better, but I am still not going to hear the sound in head the way others do. No genetic marker for any of these things and yet they are a part of who all these different people are. I am not suggesting they are the same as homosexuality, even though it appears as if I am. What I am saying is that brains can be wired differently without having a genetic marker to define that wiring.

Homosexuality is an affinity. I have an affinity for chocolate. I don't have an affinity for collard greens. I have an affinity for women. I don't have an affinity for hairy butts(it's a joke, lighten up). There are no genetic markers that indicate such, regardless of what some incorrectly claim. There are instances where folks have been gay then aren't. Others who aren't then are. It's an affinity.

 

If I let my affinty for women become an issue where I commit adultery, I sin. I have occasionally let my affinity for chocolate become an issue and I weigh a tad more than when I was in high school.

 

Interesting word choice...

 

Affinity is defined as "a natural attraction, liking, or feeling of kinship".

 

However you want to define it. An affinity for the same sex makes you homosexual.

The latest research suggests that there is, in fact, a genetic element involved in homosexuality. In a study of gay men and their twin brothers, and lesbian women and their twin sisters, researchers found a much greater chance that an identical twin (as opposed to a fraternal twin or an adopted sibling), would be gay or lesbian as well. Without throwing out a whole bunch of numbers, basically the researchers estimate there's a moderate genetic component to same-sex-orientation and that the impact of genetics is stronger in men than in women. However, they suggest that there is also a substantial impact of environmental factors on same-sex orientation. Building on those results, other researchers have found evidence that two particular aspects of same-sex sexuality also have a genetic component: childhood gender nonconformity (boys acting like girls and vice versa) and adult masculinity-femininity.

 

They're now trying to identify the exact gene responsible for sexual orientation, but the results so far are inconsistant. That said, the environment accounts for a large part of the variance in same-sex orientation; so any gene that might be associated with sexual orientation will only confer a predisposition rather than definitively "cause" same-sex or different sex-orientation.

 

 

 

Been in Personality Psychology class for two days, and already spouting off about research findings. What a hoot!

They've been trying for 2 decades now. Not one definitive study that shows definitive DNA genomic evidence of such. Pure speculation and probability. Read the same research on diabetes, see how specific that DNA material and indicator is. The homosexuality ALWAYS leads back to outside factors are "more likely" to be the causative party. That's because no one wants to say that the research hasn't led to what they'd hoped.

There is also no scientific evidence to conflate the two, yet you do.

 

There is nothing scientific about your post, yet you couch it in such a way to make it seem true.

 

There are all kinds of things that "are who people are" that are not defined with genetic markers.

 

Here, I will conflate two things that I shouldn't, but it might make my point.

 

There are no genetic markers for dyslexia, yet one of my children is dyslexic. S/he not have an infinity for dyslexia, or an affinity for struggling with common vowel sounds s/he has dyslexia. Another one of my children is incredible in math/science. S/he does not have an affinity for it, not sure s/he even likes it, but s/he gets it. Not genetic marker . . . yet. I cannot sing to save my life, I could be trained to sing differently and perhaps better, but I am still not going to hear the sound in head the way others do. No genetic marker for any of these things and yet they are a part of who all these different people are. I am not suggesting they are the same as homosexuality, even though it appears as if I am. What I am saying is that brains can be wired differently without having a genetic marker to define that wiring.

I'll use your dyslexia example for argument's sake. Your child will be able to deal with dyslexia, be able to work through it I'm sure, but will always be dyslexic. Quite different than a former homosexual who has decided that then are now heterosexual. And we may as well not even attempt the topic of bisexuality. My only point is that you can't wholly lay homosexuality at the feet of "born that way". It can't even be a recessive trait, lest we see it in familial patterns.

 

And I agree Acemona that the brain is a wild and difficult to map and beautifully designed thing. They're all wired differently, but in no manner do I believe, nor is there any evidence to support, that people are born to be homosexual. It's a choice that has to be made, in my opinion, far different than diabetes or dyslexia.

Edited August 23, 201214 yr by spindoc

They've been trying for 2 decades now. Not one definitive study that shows definitive DNA genomic evidence of such. Pure speculation and probability. Read the same research on diabetes, see how specific that DNA material and indicator is. The homosexuality ALWAYS leads back to outside factors are "more likely" to be the causative party. That's because no one wants to say that the research hasn't led to what they'd hoped.

 

Seriously, just b/c they haven't found it in 2 decades does not mean that it won't be found.

 

Let me ask you this, how many gay people do you know?

They've been trying for 2 decades now. Not one definitive study that shows definitive DNA genomic evidence of such. Pure speculation and probability. Read the same research on diabetes, see how specific that DNA material and indicator is. The homosexuality ALWAYS leads back to outside factors are "more likely" to be the causative party. That's because no one wants to say that the research hasn't led to what they'd hoped.

I presented the research and it does show a link. I could post all the specific references for you, but I was trying to avoid doing that. The fact is, homosexuality DOES have genetic, social and environmental causal elements. How the three balance out in any one individual is something no one can say.

Seriously, just b/c they haven't found it in 2 decades does not mean that it won't be found.

 

Let me ask you this, how many gay people do you know?

 

I have 2 that I call friend. I have a cousin who is a gay man. And I have numerous patients that are gay. Regardless if I don't know a gay soul doesn't change the fact that it's not genetic. No matter how much folks would like it to be found, it hasn't.

I presented the research and it does show a link. I could post all the specific references for you, but I was trying to avoid doing that. The fact is, homosexuality DOES have genetic, social and environmental causal elements. How the three balance out in any one individual is something no one can say.

Send me the link in a PM please, I'd like to read it. And with all due respect BF, this is research I have a significant background in. Ask me about Catholicism, I got nothin'. Genetics, I got some things. (to quote Flula)