Discussion in 'Anglican and Christian News' started by Celtic1, Jul 2, 2013.
Don't be obtuse. You cannot claim science as your argument if you can't quote any.
Yes and that is so abundantly demonstrated from science and even pop culture as to be beyond dispute. You look at Ellen Degeneres' "partner" Anne Heche, who's become a heterosexual now.
"Anne Heche says she “changed her mind” about being gay, closed that door"
Melissa Ethridge's old "partner" has married a perfectly normal guy and has a perfectly normal marriage:
That's not science. Those are both testimonials. Pop culture ≠ science.
You can say "pop culture" and some specific testimonial cases support conversion from one to the other based on what you have said, but you cannot say science supports your opinion on this.
I have stated a scientific fact: No homosexual gene has ever been discovered.
Sorry to disappoint you, but that is a misunderstanding of genetics and particularly genetics for complex traits. There is no one gene for language or even a single vertebra either. Genes work in concert with each other in ways that most of us suspect will never be fully sorted out. Sexual orientation might involve hundreds or thousands of individual genes (the simple units that synthesize proteins), some of which will direct others. In the language example, the FoxP2 gene (you may look it up) regulates a host of "downstream genes" (technically known as a HOX gene) to help us understand grammar. But there is no 'one gene' to regulate human understanding of grammar.
Without giving a full univ course in genetics and a second one in behavioural genetics, it has to be understood that there is no support for "one trait - one gene" type of genetics for anything at all beyond some very simple things. Even eye colour involves a host of genes, though it is poor comparison because it is only about the colour of the iris, not about complex behaviour in interaction with the environment.
It is a "sound bite" and seeming good point to say no gene has been discovered that's responsible for sexual orientation, but it is not a science statement, and is meaningless in the context of science. No-one with science training would advance these sorts of arguments. The definition of a gene is even the subject of debate, where a section of DNA may create a protein independently, but also be part of a larger chromosomal unit (not necessarily beside each other on even on the same chromosome) that makes other proteins. --
Saying there's no gene for homosexuality, while I suppose technically true, is about a meaningful as saying that there's no gene for being a fan of a particular sports team, which is also true. That there might be genes that are involved in traits such a liking for crowds versus quiet, active visual activity versus passive, doesn't directly speak to the liking, even though they relate. We do know that the top end for genetics is 60 or 70% for things like major mental disorders, like schizophrenia or bi-polar (the heavily flawed twin studies). But this is not a metaphor for human sexuality either.
It is honest to say that we do not know all of what is involved in complex behavioural, biological and psychological contexts such as sexuality. It is also honest to say that the lived experience of people who had no wish to be gay or lesbian does not correspond to the idea of choice that is advanced here. But it also must be emphasized as another poster did, that there are people who are at one of a continuum, with heterosexual at one end and homo at the other, and others who are somewhere between. Most of us are at the hetero end, there is a minority at the homosexual and as scattering between. These are the data-driven facts, and they appear to cross societies presently and in history. We are stuck with that.
The argument from religious belief is a different one that the biological. I understand there is debate within that context. But this biological argument holds no credibility as advanced here.
So...bulldog fans are born that way?? I guess that's why I have choice but to say Go Gators!!
Vive l'Habs! (Les Candiens de Montréal [equipe d'hockey]).
Actually I wonder what people mean when they say they've been homo/heterosexual since birth. Perhaps they mean that, since they became sexually aware, they have had no other leanings; but that is not quite the same thing: by then they will have become exposed to all sorts of influences — within their family relationships, for instance.
And one should beware of the homo/heterosexual continuum as if it were the only stage on which our preferences are played out. Think of the variations in relationships and activities to which folk are drawn [edited]. I defy anyone to suggest that lot is simply genetic. It is the kind of complex mesh of human behaviour which seems most likely to be driven by an interplay of genetic and cultural influences (that is not shorthand for 'choice').
I'm not sure how many of the sexual relationships/activities available are specifically outlawed in Scripture. I suspect many of the more unpleasant are not. I suspect if we were to start this consideration afresh, rather than worrying too much about two men enjoying themselves together, we might set up first some rules about what behaviours should be discouraged because of whom they harm, and those which are not harmful might be back-burnered in favour of consideration of the real evils in our society, which for some reason (poverty, racial and sexual discrimination, violence, cruelty) seem to raise less annoyance as 'abominations".
-Edited. This is a forum friendly to anyone under 21 (http://forums.anglican.net/pages/faq/ and http://forums.anglican.net/pages/terms/) so all explicit content has been removed. Please be aware in the future.
I am grateful to Admin for agreeing to my request to indicate the point at which the edit occurred. When I was first informed that my comment had been edited for decency I was unhappy about it: it seemed to me to be reducing the discussion to childishness. Certainly what I wrote was not intended to disgust, it was just my thoughts going out through my fingers onto my iPad. But now I would say this: (1) with the editing point indicated the comment seems to me to lack only exemplary force, otherwise it is completely intact; (2) that shows the use of language which is not "friendly to anyone under 21" was not necessary to the argument; (3) so I am thankful to Admin for the edit and (4) apologise for causing the problem.
Despite your tome, I will make this succinct response: It was from a group of scientists where I first heard the statement that no homosexual gene has been discovered. Did you think I just made the statement up?
All of these terms are just phony ways for people to justify choosing perversion. Does anyone really believe that there are people who are born with a disposition to sexual acts with both men and women? As I said previously, the only way for anyone to be born bisexual is to be born with both male and female genitalia.
Oh wow. This is not a typical Anglican forum, now is it? From my experience, Anglicans are usually extremely accepting individuals. I am a lesbian, and I take offense to all that is being said here. It is natural, and yes, this is the way I was born. I'm legitimately sexually attracted to other women, and I don't see where the problem lies. I spoke to a priest at my church, and she said that the Bible actually says nothing about homosexuality as being a sin.
Yeah...I'm sorry, but I'm extremely uncomfortable now. This is beyond discriminatory conversation, and this may well be the shortest period of time I have ever spent on a forum.
May the Lord's love show you that everyone is equal in his eyes.
I am very sorry that you feel uncomfortable here MiraKoonan. I realize that the traditional Christian stance on homosexual behavior has become controversial as of late, and can definitely hit a nerve for folks who engage in the practice
given it's stark contrast to the zeitgeist. But I must say that what your lady priest told you is simply not accurate. While the word "homosexual" never appears in the bible (it being a 19th century term created by early psychologists), the illicit and sinful behavior was clearly spoken of in both the old & new testaments and was just as clearly condemned. As Christians in general and Anglicans in particular, we must demand that the church remain a faithful witness of scriptural truth, when it comforts as well as when it stings. No one here is condemning you or any homosexually oriented person. We are all sinners here, saved solely by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. While we are all welcomed as the sinners we are to the great feast prepared for us, we are never allowed to remain the sinners we were. We must strive against the flesh of we are truly to live in the spirit. What I think we are doing here is lamenting the fact that the church has lost her way on this. If she shirks her responsibility to declare sin as sin, how can she be effective in declaring the forgiveness of sin.
I for one hope you'll stay and join the conversation. Also, if you haven't done so recently, I invite you to read the bible so that no one can mislead you on what it says.
May God continue to bless you.
A disco mass is pretty lame. If I ever saw a priest with a leisure suit as his vestments, I'd have to go to church elsewhere.
I am sorry to hear that. If your priest did say that, he has probably never read the Bible.
Everyone is equal in the eyes of God, but many will be rejected by Him for their sins.
I was about to reconsider leaving, but I think I'll stick to my decision, based simply on this paradox here. So what? Everyone is equal in God's eyes, but some are not? Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. It is how we were, and *I* was born.
Maybe I should leave said God all together. I'm losing faith just based on the two-faced judgement I am seeing.
I sincerely hope that you won't do that.
I pray you will reconsider.
As with most nature/nurture debates, modern research points to the influence of both in the determining of any psychological factor. There has been no research (to my knowledge) that excludes sexuality from this tendency. This means that sexuality is an intricately complex interaction of neurological and environmental factors. No one is born implicitly "sexual" all of us acquire tastes as we progress through life stages, obviously.
That being said, Scripture condemns homosexual acts, period. There is no way around that. Scripture also condemns a myriad of heterosexual activity. The idea that the Church should go about blessing what is deemed inherently sinful in Scripture is absolutely ludicrous.
Obviously that's the last thing I intended.
I see your "born this way" comment. Remembered that we, as all creatures, are born asexual. You WEREN'T born this way. You can quote the Lady Gaga, or, you can quote the LORD OUR GOD. You cannot have them both as your gospel equally.
Trying to bludgeon people with the treats of atheism to try to get acceptance for your preconceptions is also not very nice. Every Christian should go into the religion expecting to submit to whatever the truth will turn out to be. That is all I attempted to say. If you went into religion expecting a supernatural justification for everything you preconceived anyway, well that is the wrong way to go about religion.
This is both inaccurate and offensive. The first is obvious. We are born sexual. Without launching into another lengthy post about what the data actually say, and without going beyond the family-friendly focus of this forum, it can be said merely that this is misinformed, as much as the silly idea of one gene-one trait.
The second, the offensive part, is that this post attempts, crudely, to minister to someone, but actually bludgeons. The bludgeoning is to presume you know them, and call their life a preconception.