Posted on 05/31/2014 5:53:32 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Lady Gaga’s mega-hit song “Born this Way” sold millions of copies affirming what many people believe: homosexuality is hardwired. In fact, people think that’s as axiomatic as saying the earth revolves around the sun. No rational person rejects the idea. The only hold-outs, it is said, are either ignorant of science, homophobic, or bigots (read: Christians). But before I explain why this view is beset with problems, let me make a tactical suggestion.
Many Christians get defensive when someone says homosexuality is inborn. I understand the temptation to argue against this claim. But it’s a mistake to try to show it’s false, at least initially. That’s because the claim is not an argument. It’s just an opinion and, therefore, not necessarily true. In order for their claim to become a bona fide argument, it must be supported with evidence or reasons.
So, instead of defending your convictions, make them defend their claim. Simply ask, “What evidence do you have that homosexuals are born that way?” Then wait and listen. This is totally appropriate and not just a rhetorical trick. It’s how the burden of proof works. Whoever makes the claim bears the burden to show it’s true. Since they’ve made the claim, it’s their job to back it up, not your job to prove them wrong.
If they don’t have evidence for their claim, then it’s fair to graciously explain that their view is unreasonable – that they don’t hold their view for good reason. If they do offer evidence for their view, only then is it appropriate to respond with a counter-argument.
With that tactic in mind, let’s look at three problems with the born-that-way theory. The first is the most egregious. A simple scientific fact-check demonstrates that no study has proven that homosexuality is biologically determined.
Decades of research to discover a “gay gene” have been unsuccessful. It’s now uncommon for scientists to think that homosexuality is solely genetic. Perhaps the most powerful line of evidence is found in twin studies. Since identical twins have identical genetics, it would follow that if one twin was homosexual, the other would also have to be homosexual 100% of the time. But both twins are homosexual in less than 15% of the cases.[1]
Not only is the genetic effect extremely low, but it also accounts for shared environmental factors. In other words, even saying that the genetic contribution to homosexuality is 15% is not accurate because identical twins are usually raised together and share a similar environment. In order to isolate the contribution of genetics, one would have to study identical twins raised apart. That way you eliminate the effect of their environment.
It was also speculated that homosexuality had a biological basis. But research that correlates brain anatomy/physiology with homosexual behavior doesn’t prove causation. In other words, even if the brains of homosexuals have structural differences from those of heterosexuals, that might suggest their behavior changes their brain, not necessarily the other way around. This is possible due to neuroplasticity – the lifelong ability of the brain to change in response to the environment, behavior, brain injury, or even acquiring knowledge. For example, blind people’s brains have a different neurologic structure because reading braille using fingers is a different behavior than using eyes to read.
What’s surprising is that pro-gay researchers and organizations acknowledge the dearth of evidence for a biological cause to homosexuality. The American Psychological Association (APA), for example, once held the position in 1998 that, there is “evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.” However, a decade of scientific research debunked this idea and caused the APA to revise their view in 2009. Their new position reads: “Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors”[2] [emphasis mine]. A pro-gay group like the APA wouldn’t revise their statement unless there was overwhelming evidence that necessitated a position change.
A second problem with the born-that-way theory is that even if true, it wouldn’t prove that homosexual behavior is moral. Consider that scientific research has discovered genes they believe contribute to alcoholism, unfaithfulness, violence, and even many diseases. Are we to believe that because there is a genetic contribution to these behaviors (or even if they were genetically determined) that they should be regarded as morally appropriate? Of course not. So, proving homosexual behavior is appropriate by appealing to a genetic determinant is equally spurious.
This mistake in thinking is known as the naturalistic fallacy. You can’t get an “ought” from an “is.” Even if homosexuality is natural, it doesn’t prove it ought to be. And scientists who are attempting to prove homosexuality is inborn agree. Harvard geneticist Dean Hamer, himself a homosexual, says, “Biology is amoral; it offers no help in distinguishing between right and wrong. Only people guided by their values and beliefs can decide what is moral and what is not.”[3] Simon LeVay, a Harvard trained neuroscientist and also openly gay, concurs: “First, science itself cannot render judgments about human worth or about what constitutes normality or disease. These are value judgments that individuals must make for themselves, while taking scientific findings into account.”[4]
A third problem stems from the mere existence of the “ex-gay” community. If homosexuality is, as many pro-gay advocates state, as inescapable as eye color, then how do they explain former homosexuals? Eye color is genetic, something that one is born with and can’t change. But sexual orientation is fluid, as evidenced by the changed lives of thousands of men and women.
There are women who have had long-term, lesbian relationships with other women and then changed and became attracted to men. There are also men who have had same-sex attractions since puberty, spent a decade in gay relationships, and then developed attractions to the opposite sex. Many of these people have gone through some form of counseling or therapy, but many have not.
The fact that even one person has changed is evidence that homosexuality is not hard-wired. But that there are thousands of individuals who share this experience is significant counter-evidence against the born-that-way theory. I know many of these people. They can’t all be lying about their life.
Instead, what they offer is hope. Since many people are dissatisfied with their same-sex attractions, these changed lives represent an opposing voice to the cultural chorus that claims homosexuals are born that way.
I think we all have met women that have an over abundance of male hormones, and men with an over abundance of female hormones. I can see where that might lead one to be somewhat drawn to the opposite sex. However, the actions are choices...
I can't think of any way a scientist could prove the assertion "Homosexuality is NOT inborn" any more than a lawyer can prove "Defendant did NOT commit the crime in question." (In the latter case, witnesses could be summoned that would testify the defendant was somewhere else and therefore COULDN'T have committed the crime, but that presupposes 1 - the witnesses aren't lying and 2- the time and place of the crime are truly established.)
On the other hand, if homosexuality IS inborn, then there would be ample evidence to support that assertion. However, almost none of the evidence (that's not merely anecdotal) does. In fact, it tends to DISPROVE it.
Logically, it does not follow that because I can't prove something does NOT exist, it must exist. That is a fallacy.
Was just having that conversation with my daughters and wife at the dinner table! Question in History class was “Is human nature basically good or basically bad?”
While most of the people that our family comes into contact are generally good people (including me I would like to think), deep down we are all touched by sin. And while my belief in Christ and the social constructs and laws keep me from acting on my lustful or vengeful thoughts, they are still sin. It seemed odd to me to hear a homosexual talk about knowing Christ and not acting on his “natural” desires - but in thinking of the many things that I don't act on it makes sense.
And of course the ultimate goal I suppose is to not even have those sinful thoughts.
What makes a homosexual a homosexual is acting on it and having homosexual sex, other wise he is not a homosexual.
Good response, I agree, if it were not for Christ, God only knows how I would keep my desires in check. I honestly don't know what anyone, who does not have Christ as their Lord and Savior, has to live for.
“What makes a homosexual a homosexual is acting on it and having homosexual sex, other wise he is not a homosexual.”
Is that also true for heterosexuals who are virgins or abstaining?
“..if it were not for Christ, God only knows how I would keep my desires in check.”
That saying about “There but by the grace of God go I” has nothing to do with luck. It was said by some famous preacher way-back-when as he watched some guy heading towards the gallows for his crime.
I did not write those sentences you ascribed to me. You must be confusing me with someone else.
Be that as it may...
From your post tome...
RE: Can’t be proved or disproved, so we get distracted from carrying the Word by involving ourselves in the gyrations that make us feel holier than them.
NOPE. Christian don’t or at least SHOULD NOT feel holier than anyone. We are all sinners in God’s eyes and regardless of of the kind of sin we are prone to, we need to examine ourselves and ask for God’s mercy daily.
As Jesus Himself taught us to pray, “Forgive us our trespasses, ever as we forgive those who trespass against us.”
Having said that, there is nothing wrong when the occasion arises to talk about homosexuality and what God’s word teaches about it.
It is not “holier than thou” to simply teach what God Himself says.
RE: Folks will descry a Baptist Minister preaching brimstone and hell-fire w/o including the Love of Jesus,
Sure, preaching must be balanced. Always include Hope and the Love of Jesus, but balance definitely INCLUDES telling people what is and is not sinful.
A good doctor will tell his patient truthfully about his physical condition and also tell him the cure or treatment for it.
Same is true with someone who preaches about our SPIRITUAL condition.
And have for decades for god’s sake. I could not tell you the name of 5 teams in the NBA if my life depended on it. It’s been 40+ years since I watched more than two mins of any one game!
The way they play, the game is boring!
I read a post that said he looked homosexual. Saw a picture of him afterward. Yeah, he looks homosexual.
Woo Hoo! Bgin with a smug "Dear Trebb" and then show your true self because you know you have to twist the Bible to "bolster" your opinion (you don't have a case so it is merely an unfulfilled opinion).
I know you don't like to answer uncomfortable/inconvenient questions (so you act as if the questions are to God instead), but when Jesus was walking the earth, were we under the Old Covenant or New Covenant? This is important because it changes a lot of the interpretations folks use to 'prove" their points.
You probably don't care, and if you figure it out (and it's import for your argument) you will likely decide that it doesn't matter - why do need the silly old Bible for anyway...
Don't you find it peculiar that your response was oh so similar to how the Left reacts when someone tries to confuse them with facts that they have no sane answer to????
See your post 105 of the thread - the sentence about having to reject sin to receive the gift is in it.
As far as the rest of what you said in the post I am replying to, I fully agree. The trouble is that many Christians have been exhibiting a "holier than thou at any cost" attitude. I have not seen that attitude in your posts, but many are twisting the Word and the Bible to try to illustrate that they are so holy that they can point out anyone else's faults from a superior position. They seem to ot realize that they are every bit as tainted as the worst sinners, but for the Blood of Christ.
I have had some recent conversations with a couple homosexuals that attend my church. They have accepted Christ and yet they suffer the same as anyone else does - they can try to not commit sinful acts, but cannot fully succeed. I do not condemn them because, having accepted Christ, only He can condemn them and I believe that according to prophesy (such as Jeremiah), that God no longer recognizes the sins of a saved soul as sins. All we can do is relate our own struggles and push faith in the One who deserves all faith and trust.
But we still have the "You're vile and disgusting and deserve to burn in Hell" "Christians" who do not seem to understand the nature of Jesus except to assert that He is on their side.
God Bless.
No, being a heterosexual is the God ordained norm.
RE: See your post 105 of the thread - the sentence about having to reject sin to receive the gift is in it.
It is NOT in thread 105. I am talking about this sentence you said I allegedly posted:
“If we cannot receive the gift without rejecting sin, then I submit that no one has ever received the gift.”
It’s not there in that thread number. I don’t recall writing that.
As for the Christians you say are struggling with their sins, hey, we all are... in their case, it’s sexual, in my case it’s something else.
All I can say is as long as they recognize that IT IS SIN and they are sinners in God’s eyes in need of forgiveness, mercy and spiritual helpful, they are not far from God’s kingdom. I encourage you to pray for them, support them and continue doing what you’re doing.
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of God.”
The ones who are in spiritual danger are those who have the same sinful problem but RATIONALIZE it away to say that since God made them that way, then it is OK to indulge in their sexual desire.
‘With God, all things are possible’
How about this for a twist ‘Get thee behind me satan’
“Even if homosexuality is natural, it doesn’t prove it ought to be.
I must not be logical enough to figure out the logic in that particular statement. “
I think it is rather simple, being born with a physical or mental defect may occur naturally but is not normal.
All people were born condemned before they are saved. The appeal to being born that way, doesn’t remove personal accountability for acts of volition.
Some people really want to murder other people. Some may have been born that way. That doesn’t excuse them of their actions, nor their responsibility to reject such a temptation.
Now I see the disconnect - the sentence I was referring to said that one could not receive the gift without rejecting sin. The “If we cannot receive the gift without rejecting sin, then I submit that no one has ever received the gift.” was my response to it.
How do you interpret the phrase you included: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of God.”?
I interpret it that, those who realize they are still sinful by nature, and agonize over their inability to be as they think they should be, are in line for the Kingdom. Similar to Paul's lamentation about how he kept doing that which he would not do and then not doing that which he would do - he understood his sinful nature and knew he was incapable of "going and sinning no more" despite the intimate encounter with Jesus and those who originally followed Him. The sinful actions of the individual are now attributed to "The sin that lives within the person, rather than the person himself". It all makes perfect sense if you believe that jesus did what He said He was doing and washing away all our sins, past/present/future with His sacrifice.
Jeremiah tells us that God told of the New Covenant to come where He would forgive our wickedness and recognize our sins no more.
If you think that homosexuals should be able to stop indulging in their sinful sexual desires, then you need to go through a whole day with absolutely zero sinful thoughts/actions/words. If you think you can actually do it, then congratulations - Jesus did not have to die on your behalf. The wages of any sin, even the slightest, is death - steal a cookie or murder the Pope - no difference in God's eyes - the penalty is death. After Jesus washed away our sins with His blood, God does not recognize our continued sinfulness as sin - if He does, the Bible is a worthless dime store novel. It is still right for us to recognize and detest our sinfulness, but we are also told that not accepting the no-strings-attached gift is an act of falling from Grace.
RE: If you think that homosexuals should be able to stop indulging in their sinful sexual desires, then you need to go through a whole day with absolutely zero sinful thoughts/actions/words. If you think you can actually do it, then congratulations - Jesus did not have to die on your behalf.
I direct you to what I wrote on a previous post. Here is what I wrote above:
The church ( including the Roman Catholic church ) has always taught that Homosexual desires,are not in themselves sinful.
People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out.
People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they ACT upon those desires in some manner.
Sounds great and a good sentence to have in one's vocabulary. Without Jesus, it is worthless and it can be construed as one thinking that they can go through life without exhibiting any sinfulness. Sounds and feels good when one is on the high horse and thinking that they are somehow superior/holier in God's eyes, but they are fooling themselves.
And Jesus told us that if we entertain lust for another man's wife in our mind, we have committed adultery as sure as if we had gone through the act.
Question: If, once we are saved, God no longer recognizes our sinful acts, does He recognize a homosexual's activities any more than He does ours?
My real point is that we keep judging that which is not ours to judge. Regardless of our religion, even if we have been saved, we still continue, at least to some degree, our sinful ways. We condemn some because we consider their acts too abominable to be forgiven, and we preach forgiveness for others because we have some emotional reason to want them to be OK.
It is fine to be discerning to make choices of who to hang with or allow our children to be around, but we tend to go overboard in the judgement area and end up on crusades that are Jesus' business to determine, while ignoring/denying the planks in our own eyes.
BTW, I'm of the opinion that actions speak louder than words, but Jesus made it clear that even our thoughts, in and of themselves, can be detestable - yet, He died so that even our actions need not condemn us if we only turn over our hearts to Him. He allowed Himself to be murdered at the hands of sinners so the sinners need not perish. We need to emulate His love and leave the fearsome judgement to Him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.