I don't believe it is a choice. I know a gay person who came from a loving home, and has two very ungay siblings who came from the same home with the same parents. He says he's been that way since he can remember, and says he was born that way. I think he knows better than most of us.

 

Agreed.

 

He's told me he didn't chose to be gay, it's just how he is. Kinda like me being right handed, I had no say in the fact.

:thumb:

Claims of a “genetic predisposition to homosexuality” as a justification for behaving homosexually does not logically hold water, any more than claims of being “genetically predisposed to adultery” justifies cheating on one’s spouse.

 

Whether a person is “genetically predisposed to homosexuality” or not has no bearing upon the merits and ultimate outcomes of actually behaving as a homosexual. As cold and cruel as it may sound, from a purely Darwinian, molecules-to-man evolutionary perspective, the “genetic predisposition” argument does not bode well for those who claim it. Apart from a kind and loving Creator, nature it appears has defined such a genetic trait as a weakness it is determined to remove from the gene pool, by predisposing homosexuals not to reproduce.

 

It is contended that some individuals are genetically predisposed to alcoholism or drug dependency. Yet we as a society do not condone drunk driving, public drunkenness, drug abuse, etc. just because their genes drive them to behave in a self-destructive and reckless manner. The logic for this is clear. The consequences are simply too great. If you are a natural alcoholic or druggie, there is wisdom in not drinking, lighting up, popping or shooting up… no matter how badly you may feel the urge.

 

Some are predisposed to heart disease, cancer, etc. and yet they fight those genetic predispositions with all their resources.

 

A genetic predisposition does not necessarily mean that one is helpless and unable to resist.

 

You da man! :thumb: I knew there was a reason I campaigned so hard for you when you ran for BGP President!! LOL.

OK, so if there is no choice involved, then couldn't a child molester, who was molested/abused as a child, technically be said to have no choice in the matter? What's the morality of that situation?

Apples and Oranges as far as I'm concerned.

I'll pose this question then. If homosexuality is not a choice, how do you explain those who have been homosexuals and "converted" to heterosexuals and vice versa? If that's not a choice, I don't know what is.

How old were you when you chose to be heterosexual?

:thumb:

 

You da man! :thumb: I knew there was a reason I campaigned so hard for you when you ran for BGP President!! LOL.

Man... you are a BGP old timer to recall that... :thumb:

As I have stated in an above post. If it is genetic, can it truley be sin? You cannot change how your brain is wired.

 

It isn't genetic. It is a choice. Just like participating in anything is a choice. It is against God, it is a sin, and it is morally wrong.

Either way you look at it Homosexuality is not a choice therefore I don't believe it is morally wrong whatsoever.

 

Why isn't it a choice? They choose to participate in sexual relations with the same sex. That is a choice.

The bible says homosexuality is an abomination. So whether it be genetic or environmental, it is wrong. Period.

 

I wholeheartedly agree!:ylsuper:

The whole environment vs. genetic debate is very controversial in the gay community. If the cause of homosexuality is genetic, the day of a "cure" is on the horizon. If the cause is environmental, the argument can be made that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children.

 

IMO, it does not matter. If some people have a genetic predisposition to engage in homosexual acts, those people still make the decision to give into those "natural urges." If there is no "gay gene," then the environmental causes of homosexuality need to be identified and addressed. Nobody who is truly interested in the welfare of their own children would choose a gay lifestyle for them.

 

Identifying a root genetic cause(s) of homosexuality would be a double edged sword for gay activists. Many pro-choicers would elect to abort fetuses with a gay gene and many pro-lifers would pay for a gene therapy treatment following the birth of a gay child.

How can something be genetic and morally wrong?

 

There are plenty of things that happen to humans because of genetics and we spend millions of dollars per year in research to try and prevent it. Think of Jerry's kids. That is genetic yet we are trying to solve it and prevent it from happening.

It also clearly states that if I work on the Sabbath I should be put to death.

 

And Jesus then came and handled that issue with the donkey in the ditch analogy.

It isn't genetic. It is a choice. Just like participating in anything is a choice. It is against God, it is a sin, and it is morally wrong.

 

What evidence do you have to support your claim?

How old were you when you chose to be heterosexual?

I didn't have to "choose". Heterosexuality is the norm. You make it sound like there's an A and B and you have to pull the cord once you reach a certain age. I don't think of it that way at all. I feel like there is a "choice" made to stray from the norm. And you can argue all you like that homosexuality is not abnormal. The #'s don't bear that out.

I sometimes find it helpful to extend things to their extremes in order to place them in perspective.

 

It is entirely possible to build and sustain a healthy society via 100% heterosexual monogamy.

 

It is biologically impossible to build and sustain a healthy society via 100% homosexuality.

 

Without unnatural assistance from modern medical science, a purely homosexual society would perish within a generation.

 

From the standpoint of what is best for society as a whole, family groups and individuals, it can be logically argued that nature clearly favors heterosexuality.

 

While some may argue to “live and let live” homosexuality is not remotely essential from a biological perspective to a healthy and productive society.

 

While it cannot be denied that certain homosexuals have made significant cultural contributions in many fields, one would be hard pressed to prove that being homosexual was essential to their talents and abilities. If so, this would fly in the face of the argument feminists have been asserting for years that women are "just as capable as men". (i.e.- gender is not the issue.)

 

Some guys are genetically predisposed to more testosterone than others. They may feel greater urges to be unfaithful. This does not make it right for them to do so. Replace homosexuality with heterosexual infidelity in the above statements and you derive similar results. Although the population could be sustained via heterosexual infidelity, this is clearly not the ideal way to build families, raise kids and stabilize society.

 

It is absurd to argue against both nature and logic.

 

Even so, this is not a condemnation of those inclined to behave homosexually. They need love and hope as much as any one, but we do a genuine disservice to pretend a homosexual lifestyle is as beneficial to society as heterosexuality.

I sometimes find it helpful to extend things to their extremes in order to place them in perspective.

 

It is entirely possible to build and sustain a healthy society via 100% heterosexual monogamy.

 

It is biologically impossible to build and sustain a healthy society via 100% homosexuality.

 

Without unnatural assistance from modern medical science, a purely homosexual society would perish within a generation.

 

From the standpoint of what is best for society as a whole, family groups and individuals, it can be logically argued that nature clearly favors heterosexuality.

 

While some may argue to “live and let live” homosexuality is not remotely essential from a biological perspective to a healthy and productive society.

 

While it cannot be denied that certain homosexuals have made significant cultural contributions in many fields, one would be hard pressed to prove that being homosexual was essential to their talents and abilities. If so, this would fly in the face of the argument feminists have been asserting for years that women are "just as capable as men". (i.e.- gender is not the issue.)

 

Some guys are genetically predisposed to more testosterone than others. They may feel greater urges to be unfaithful. This does not make it right for them to do so. Replace homosexuality with heterosexual infidelity in the above statements and you derive similar results. Although the population could be sustained via heterosexual infidelity, this is clearly not the ideal way to build families, raise kids and stabilize society.

 

It is absurd to argue against both nature and logic.

 

Even so, this is not a condemnation of those inclined to behave homosexually. They need love and hope as much as any one, but we do a genuine disservice to pretend a homosexual lifestyle is as beneficial to society as heterosexuality.

1) 100% homosexuality would not be beneficial to society. Partial homosexuality IS beneficial to society. Less population pressure is good. More disposable income is good. Why do some people pretend that gay men and women want everyone to be like them?

 

2) Your comparison to unfaithful men is the same twisted, illogical pairing that we get when we're asked if we want children placed with people like gay couples and child molesters. Men that cheat on their spouse HURT their spouse knowingly, intentionally for their own pleasure and amusement. It's wrong, and it's a bad argument.