 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) In my research I found that there were indeed a total of three tests that showed positive results, unfortuanately all three tests were performed by the same scientist. (...) If science can prove that a gay gene exists, then the Bible has also (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) It is neither here nor there. If there is a gay gene, I don't see what the Bible has to do with it. That is a problem for the literalists to wrestle with. (...) No, not at all, except that you seem to interpret the possiblity of a gay gene (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) I'm really curious, because I just don't see how. Does the Bible say "Gayness is by choice"? Does it say "Gayness is not genetic"? Just because someone is genetically predisposed to sinning, does that absolve them from the guilt of the sin? (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Stop making assumptions. I never once stated that I am Christian. I have some depth of knowledge concerning the Holy Bible but that does not make me Christian. I have analyzed the theory of gay-at-birth and dispute it. I have analyzed many of (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
Why are you attempting to debate the very nature of Christianity. It has a written instruction perceived to be influenced by a devine entity and has power via the individuals who believe it. Christians are just as free as anybody to believe what (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Maybe you're not understanding the question... I'll try and ask again. What difference does it make whether or not we're genetically predisposed to prefer sin? If I have an urge to steal, to murder, to not worship God, or to be gay, what (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Just asking-- what problem is created for literalists? How does the literal Bible (Old or New Testament) contradict the existance of a gay gene? I honestly can't think of anything that WOULD contradict unless it said somewhere that "God won't (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) And I never once said that you were. But at the same time I note you don't deny it. You have adopted a stance similiar to that of many fundamentalist Christians, and have brought the Bible into this discussion. It seems to me that you don't (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Idunno - as I said, that's their problem to wrestle with (I am not a literalist). I'm tempted to say the problem is one of their own making, but I am hardly enough of a Bible scholar to actually say that with any certainty. I don't know of (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Nah. I would say that we still have the ability to overcome the desire given to us by the gene. Just like I might have the urge to cheat on my wife. Genetic? Of course! I mean, that waitress is hot! Why do I think so? Instinct! But I still (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) I was only speaking from a hypothetical standpoint and not voicing my own opinion. My viewpoint is the same as yours, but from the Catholic standpoint, you just commited a sin (the thought is the same as the action), so what does that imply? (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) The Bible simply IS part of the discussion. Christians and homosexuals alike have argued it to such a degree that it is difficult have a discussion of only homosexuality. For what it's worth, when I began debating gay-by-birth elsewhere, a (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Essentially, it implies that similarly being homosexual is the same as being heterosexual :) IE if I sinned by thinking that the waitress is hot, I sin equally by thinking that a waiter is hot. Again, as long as I know not to act on my (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) I'm not sure where to go with this part of the debate without actually veering into a no-holds-barred religious debate. The idea of sin is based on faith, that immorality is a wrong against a god. As such, sin could never be proven or (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Actually, simply acknowledging that something is beauiful would not be a sin, however, thinking, "...wow, what a bod, I just gotta have it..." is just as bad as actually "getting it". (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Ok so far I guess-- although we're assuming some stuff about sin and morality, but there's a chance we won't need to get into it very far... (...) Ah. So your thought is that someone who is genetically predisposed to be gay is someone who (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
