Is this the gay lobby's argument?
I would reply that the particular cause of homosexuality is irrelevant -- totally beside the point -- because society experiences gayness exclusively as a *behavior*. We don't know someone is gay until they do certain things or act a certain way. Not so with race. Unlike sexual orientation, you can know a person's race simply by glancing at their photograph. This is because unlike sexual orientation, race is something you are rather than something you do.
Now, it's normal and just for a society to pass judgements on people's behavior. In fact, Martin Luther King implored us to judge a man not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character -- i.e. by his behavior. Ending the bigotry of race-based marriage laws was in perfect accord with this, since skin color has no bearing on the things married couples do. After all, a marriage across racial lines can be just as healthy and fruitful as any other marriage. A mixed couple can bring children into the world and be a father and mother for them just as any other couple can.
Not so with a homosexual couple. They can never do these things. And because society has a right to judge and to make laws based upon behavior (i.e. what people do), it has the right to deny a homosexual couple public license for their relationship. Thus the barring of homosexual marriage is in no way harmed by arguments based on descrimination against a person's DNA.
Case closed.
bttt
Nothing is less interesting to me than other people's bedroom antics. People can do whatever they desire with man, woman, goat, (or any combination thereof) without the slightest danger of interference from me. In fact: Please leave me out of the discussion altogether. I don't want to hear about it.
People tell me "what I do in my own bedroom is my business." I completely agree. Please keep it there. The restroom at the park or gym is not your bedroom. Screaming "I'm queer, I'm here, I'm in your face!!" with every cultural megaphone imaginable is definitely not a reasonable plea for tolerance but an aggressive attack on the way we normal people choose to to live our lives.
The idea that "gay" people were "made that way," as a sort of third gender, is absolutely preposterous and in a sane world would be discarded out of hand. Why would people be wired that way? The purpose of sex is reproduction. How would an anti-survival behavior that eliminates any possibility of mating evolve by natural selection? "Gay" is an extraordinary and counterintuitive idea that requires a rigorous level of proof. No proof is forthcoming.
People choose to engage in homosexual activities just as they choose, of their own free will, to partake or abstain from many other activities: boxing, soccer, stamp collecting. To deny that people choose to do these things because of "sexual orientation" is to deny them their humanity: It dehumanizes people which is why the left embraces the idea. I reject it. All people are free to choose.
Anyone who tells me "I'm gay" in the "made that way" sense is asserting something as absurd as claiming to be an elf, a sasquatch, or Napoleon Bonaparte. If someone wants to believe they are a UFO abductee then please, have fun. I have no obligation, however, to take them seriously and every right to consider them a fruitcake.
At least until dissent is made a hate crime as in Canada and Europe.
However, congenital factors are not necessarily genetic. There is a lot of variation in even the expression of one gene. Why else, would there be some variation in identical twins.
There is evidence that suggests, in pairs of identical twins (even those that are raised apart), an elevated incidence of homosexual behavior. It is not 100% concordance, but it is elevated.
We should also examine the case of girls born with CAH (congenital adrenal hyperplasia). CAH involves excess levels of androgens produced by the adrenal gland. These girls are masculinized in their behavior. About 40% are lesbian, versus about 5% in the total population. Occam's Razor would tell us the most likely reason is the exposure to androgens in the womb.
My opinion of Concerned Women of America, like a lot of other groups tied to television evangelism, is probably afflicted with "True Believer Syndrome", an inability to accept alternate explanations. Sort of like some of the leftist groups, but in reverse.
Our Creator-God still has the only realistic solution for homosexuality.
Thanks. Very long and difficult for this old brain to comprehend. Wish someone would do a correct summary.
Absolutely brilliant.
As an evangelical Christian with very traditional, biblical theology (which of course completely condemns homosexual behavior), I can't help but think that the "there is no genetic component" tact is the wrong argument to make...
Classical (biblical) theology, Protestant and Catholic, teaches that all of us are born in sin--that is each of us has a tendency inborn to sin. This is typically called a "sin nature" or a "fallen nature" due to "original sin." I have a tendancy to covet, commit adultery, steal, lie, etc. etc..... Without Christ in one's life, these tendancies tend to run wild--and people tend to stay the same or get worse.
One of the manefestations of that sin nature is in sexual sin....all of which, be it lust, adultery or...sodomy (or worse) is perversion from what God intends. The only completely unperverted (perfect) man was the Lord Jesus. Those who practice the sin of homosexual behavior are just showing their fallen nature....as do the 97% of us who don't practice that particular sin do, when we do other sins.
Because of my firm belief in everyone's inborn sin nature...which often shows up in patterns (be they be behaviorally influenced or simply hereditary) and our individual quirts and weaknesses, different people are tempted (and fall) to different kinds of sins. I for one, have never been very tempted to steal...but my Dad was not a thief, and I wasn't raised to think any kind of stealing was OK.....as some people are. However, coveting is another thing, and clearly my old sin nature shows up all the time. Fortunately my Lord Jesus helps me to overcome that old nature, and over time I think I'm doing better (but definitely not perfect).
Most homosexuals I've talked with can hardly remember a time when they did not have a homosexual attraction. However, I think the above article is correct in that there is no genetic link toward this particular pattern of behavior(though it may not be)....and many (many) I've read about were "recruited" in puberty or earlier by an older pervert...thus twisting their normal development. Even those who were not may have had other factors BEYOND THEIR CONTROL which influenced them toward perverted desires. And of course when they gave into those desires, the desires grew--in a sad downward spiral. Whether the no genetic component argument is correct or not though, who cares!? Like all sin-patterns the individual is responsible for it....however, and homosexual behavior is no more damning than heterosexual sin....(even if some consequences make it worse) and today, even in Christian circles, heterosexual sin is often ignored or treated lightly (why so many divorces, even among clergy!?).
Anyway, my point is, if the tendency to have homosexual desires is caused by 1)how one is raised, OR 2)some genetic quirk--it doesn't excuse the giving-in to those twisted desires. Alcoholism may well have a genetic component too, but we don't tell a drunkard to have another drink because he can't help it....but we do try to help them overcome their sin-pattern, and not just to condemn them.
Since society as a whole, since the '60s at least, has an "if it feels good do it, it's OK" mentality, this is the reason why the homosexuals have worked so hard to try and prove they were born with it, and can't help it, which, at least as far as their BEHAVIOR is concerned is bunk. One can say the same for any wrong desire though, so if inborn, or acquired--it doesn't matter, it was, is and always will be perverted behavior.
Like all people the homosexual (and heterosexual) sinner needs to turn to Jesus for any hope at all. Let's hope more evangelical congregations and denominations will take the lead in helping those who are willing to leave the downward spiral of homosexual behavior, to repent, turning back to sanity--forgiveness and purity.
"Pushers" is indeed the right word to use. They might as well be pushing heroin.
Ironically, Brokeback Mountain, which is in major part pro-gay propaganda, presents a true picture of the deep source of same-sex attraction--the young male's need for affirmation from another male. While the characters handle their same-sex attraction in a destructive manner, the story and the film unambiguously trace their desperate need for one another to the wounds inflicted on them by their fathers. Despite its romanticization of dead-end sentimentality, Brokeback Mountain, in my view, could in the long run lead to opening at least some minds to the truth.
Personally, I suspect that there is a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality. In some cases, the predisposition is similar to what the writer describes. A boy who isn't particularly masculine when he's young and doesn't receive good reinforcement for trying to be masculine may be vulnerable to being influenced towards homosexuality. In other cases, the predisposition isn't going to be that simple. Scientists certainly haven't proved the existence of this predisposition, but I won't be surprised if they find it someday.
I can remember when similar studies were trying to show a genetic predisposition towards alcoholism. I'm sure that those studies had their problems, but I suspect that the predisposition exists. I never had time to follow all of the studies, but I wouldn't be surprised if they finally found the connection.
I know that there is a "brainless right" contingent that doesn't want to understand the root causes of anything. (They mirror the "brainless left" contingent that thinks half-baked explanations excuse any deviancy.) They are terrified that if we find explanations of why some people have certain problems, then we no longer have any justification for asking those people to take responsibility for their lives. People need to take responsibility for themselves regardless of their predispositions. Those who refuse to think about why some people have certain problems really aren't doing the conservative cause any good.
Getting back to alcoholism, would the discovery of a "drunk gene" make alcoholism any less degrading to the alcoholic? Regardless of whether there's a genetic predisposition, there's nothing normal, natural, or healthy about being an alcoholic. A predisposition isn't an immutable fate. A predisposition can be overcome, and if the behavior is unhealthy, one should try to overcome the behavior. Whether one is an alcoholic because of nature or nurture, overcoming alcoholism is necessary to success. We shouldn't mistreat alcoholics, but their destructive behavior shouldn't have its own set of civil rights.
Getting back to homosexuality, the question is whether homosexual behavior is normal, natural, and healthy. If the behavior is none of those things, then society has the right to set certain limits on those who practice that behavior. I'm not in favor of violating their privacy or persecuting them. If there is a predisposition, whether they choose to overcome that predisposition or whether they follow it is none of my business. However, I don't have a problem with refusing to let them adopt children, serve as role models in organizations like the Boy Scouts, or serve openly in the military.
Bill
I have not yet seen it mentioned (I may have missed it) but is it possible that there could be a nutritional aspect to the homosexual persuasion?
Another good post - if you have a ping list - feel free to add me.
My thought is that the fact that the homosexual protagonists have to advertize and encourage the bahavior is proof enough that people aren't "born that way". I'd say that varying degrees of gullability combined with weird life experiences is what moves people towards homosexual behavior.
Am I wrong in some fashion if I find the prospect of studying a group of possibly/probably bisexual 16-to 23 year old females to be, shall we say, intriguing? Just sayin,s all.
bttt
I wonder how many politicians have gay children. I bet it is over the national average.
I knew it was a bunch of pooh.
bump for reading tomorrow