RE: Barring evidence one way or the other, it’s a stalemate.
And THAT is precisely what the author is arguing. Homosexuals can’t at this point in time tell us that they are genetically “born that way” unless they can provide positive scientific proof that it is so.
And since it is a stalemate, using that line of argument does not convince.
Therefore, it ought not be used UNTIL scientific evidence can be shown.
RE: It seems that the Catholic/Christian folks who detest homosexuality in and of itself without regard to whether the homosexuals are the in-your-face perverts or of the more quiet and unassuming nature, have some need for it to be an absolute, across-the-board choice with no chance of any cases to be “natural by birth”.
We cannot control what INDIVIDUALLY espouse, we can only determine what a church officially states they believe.
Barring the Westboro baptist church, most official conservative church stances ( from Roman Catholic to Orthodox to Evangelical ).
Here for instance is the Catholic stance on homosexuality:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality
Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace.
However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex.
The Catholic Church by virtue of the teachings of scripture and tradition, teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.
Homosexual desires, however, 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.
There is no detesting of homosexuals, there is however, disapproval, sorrow, and desire to see a person change his behavior.
RE: If God can allow kids to be born with serious birth defects and a host of maladies, why can He not allow some folks to be born homosexual?
And that precisely is the author’s argument. Given and
*IS” how do you gt from that to an *OUGHT*?
Even if homosexuality is natural, it doesn’t prove it morally ought to be.
RE: Call it a sin if you like,
I don’t know what moral foundation you are coming from, but if it isn’t a Christian foundation, I don’t even think the word “sin” makes any sense.
It simply becomes another lifestyle choice.
RE: but understand that no one is free from sin but by the body and blood of Christ and that any sin is grounds for the penalty of spiritual death, we have all been as disgusting in God’s eyes, before being redeemed in Christ, as the worst perverted homosexual.
Again, homosexual desires and temptations are NOT sinful, homosexual ACTS ( giving in to the desire ) is what IS sinful.
Homosexuals are to be valued by a Christian’s BECAUSE they are made in the image of God. Homosexual ACTS are to be condemned as abomination because the ACT violates God’s commandments.
RE: I maintain that, if you cannot provide proof for your side of the theory, it is hypocritical to demand proof from the other side.
And I maintain that UNLESS POSITIVE EVIDENCE IS SHOWN FOR THE HOMOSEXUAL SIDE OF THE THEORY, the argument that they are “born that way” is similar to insisting that MH370 flew to Pakistan and is sitting on a hangar there somewhere.
It is reasonable to ask someone what evidence he has to show that the plane is in Pakistan AS LONG AS YOU ARE OPEN TO THAT POSSIBILITY.
Therefore, it is NOT hypocritical to demand proof of someone who makes such a statement AS LONG AS YOU ARE OPEN TO THAT POSSIBILITY. Such demand it is IN FACT REASONABLE.
Just as it is reasonable to demand proof that someone who accuses another of murder provide good evidence for his accusation. Otherwise, the accused is presume innocent.
From your post.
If we cannot receive the gift without rejecting sin, then I submit that no one has ever received the gift.
Even with the gift, and the Holy Spirit within our hearts, we cannot go through a day without some sort of sinful behavior. If we were able to do so, we would be able to be justified and worthy on our own merits and Jesus would not have had to die for us. You can twist the Good News any way you want and apply any canons/tenets/philosophies you want, but the truth of the matter is that we are all as sullied as the vilest homosexual without Jesus' blood to wash away our sins. There's just a bunch of us that hate that fact and they have to try to prove that they have some sort of spiritual superiority - Jesus ran into a bunch of folks like that and called them some sort of hypocrites.
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. Folks will descry a Baptist Minister preaching brimstone and hell-fire w/o including the Love of Jesus, then we ignore the message of Love and concentrate on what's wrong. Telling the Good News as often as one can has a far greater chance of helping someone become saved than telling them that they stink and leaving it at that.