 | | 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
