Posted on 08/26/2009 10:36:12 AM PDT by topcat54
The response to my article “Reba McEntire says “Don’t Judge Homosexuals” was encouraging. Not all agreed. That’s OK. American Vision is about exposing errors in reasoning in addition to putting forth a coherent biblical worldview. One poster wrote the following:
I’m so sick of the anti-homosexual rants among professed religious people. There is overwhelming evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. If it isn’t a choice, it cannot properly be thought of as sin. Many studies have shown the homosexual brain is physically different from heterosexual brains. Additionally, studies have shown that the occurrence of homosexuality is statistically unchanged among different cultures.
If homosexuality is based on genetics, so the reasoning goes, then homosexual behavior is as normal as heterosexual behavior (and any other type of sexual behavior). But it’s not. How do we know this reasonably and scientifically? By the nature and fruit of the behavior. What homosexuals do is contrary to what we know about biology and reproductive results; it’s biologically illogical. It takes a male and a female to reproduce. Homosexual couples cannot reproduce. A lesbian must be artificially inseminated or the couple must adopt. Male homosexuals must adopt or use a surrogate. All that the geneticists have shown, if they’ve shown anything, is that they’ve discovered genetic abnormalities that do not accord with the norm of heterosexuality.
So what’s new? Adam and Eve’s fall was both spiritual and physical. The ultimate genetic abnormality is death. Paul writes, “The creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it. . . . For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth until now” (Rom. 8:20-22). Physical maladies of all types are the result of that first sin (not necessarily because we sin, although there’s some of that), the unnatural consequences of the fall. We should expect, therefore, to find our bodies, even our genetic structure, damaged by sin.
Abnormalities, genetic or self-inflicted, are treated as deviations from the norm that need to be fixed. But this assumes a norm. We spend billions of dollars on fixing genetic problems. Gene therapy is the holy grail of DNA research. Just because some condition has a genetic determiner does not mean that it should be left in its abnormal condition. The genetic factor moves to the important question of whether those who practice homosexuality can change their behavior. Anne Heche and Ellen DeGeneres made nearly constant headlines as Hollywood’s most famous lesbian couple until Heche left DeGeneres, got married, and had a baby the normal way. There are others.
Some will claim that the desires are still there, so they are still homosexuals. All of us have sinful desires. Alcoholics still desire alcohol. Former smokers who have quit often desire a cigarette. People who have lost weight crave the foods they love. There are thieves who “steal no longer” (Eph. 4:28). Adulterers mend broken marriages. The issue of whether people engaged in homosexual behavior can leave the lifestyle is an old one. Paul addressed the topic, along with other sinful behaviors, when he wrote and “such were some of you” (1 Cor. 6:11; see verses 9–10).
For years I have been collecting articles on genetic explanations for various diseases, abnormalities, and behaviors. In each case, the genetic cause is viewed as undesirable. Extraordinary measures are recommended to fix the flaws. When scientists say they had discovered a “fat gene,” “the finding was hailed by other researchers as pointing to a day when drugs might correct imbalances that cause some people to be hounded by food cravings and extra pounds while others remain lean.”[1] If the cause of fatness is genetic, as homosexuals claim is true of their “orientation,” then why the elation over the fat-gene discovery? If you’re fat, it’s not your fault. Anyone who proposes that a fat person should get thin, considering homosexual logic, is “fatophobic.” Here are some other examples of gene-related conditions:
- “A genetic double-whammy rarely found in whites dramatically increases the risk of congestive heart failures in blacks.”I have many more examples in my files that suggest that when a genetic marker is found for a behavior or condition, it’s considered a scientific breakthrough that can result in fixing undesirable behavior. The only exception to a gene-related cause is homosexuality. If a gene is found for rape, adultery, promiscuity, bigamy, polygamy, self-mutilation, murder, theft, dementia, diabetes, bestiality, child abuse, and nose picking, scientists will petition the government for funds to find a fix.
- “Scientists say they have found a gene that predicts whether prostate cancer will develop into its most lethal form.”
- “Researchers at McGill University in Montreal have discovered the gene that causes a devastating neurological disorder that is found almost exclusively among families along Quebec’s North Shore.”
- “A research team at two Mideast universities has developed a new way to genetically alter cells in living mice; offering new possibilities in the war against cancer and other diseases.”[2]
- “Some of us, it seems, were just born to be bad. Scientists say they are on the verge of pinning down genetic and biochemical abnormalities that predispose their bearers to violence. An article in the journal Science . . . carried the headline EVIDENCE FOUND FOR POSSIBLE ‘AGGRESSION’ GENE.”[3]
- “Apparently healthy men with normal weight and cholesterol levels are at three times higher risk of a heart attack if they have a common variation of a particular gene, researchers say.”[4]
- “Salk Institute scientists say they have uncovered a gene that triggers certain forms of Leukemia, a discovery that may lead to the development of a screening test within the next few months.”[5]
- “Researchers have found a brain chemical that boosts the craving for fat—and a way to block it without affecting the appetite for healthier foods.”[6]
- “Why do gamblers often bet more after a losing hand? Or investors throw good money after bad? The answer may lie in the science of the brain.”[7]
- “Is racism simply human nature or something learned from society? Neither, says a team of psychologists who, despite criticism, argue that racism represents an accidental side effect of evolution.”[8]
- A recent article published in The Sciences, a New York Academy of Science magazine, stated that “rape is a ‘natural, biological’ phenomenon, springing from men’s evolutionary urge to reproduce.”[9]
Biological determinism rules the day. Of course, this is to be expected since every major university doing research has bought into the myth of Darwinism. How else can these bought-and-paid-for research scientists explain behavior? There are no conceptions of reality outside of biology. Sin? The fall of mankind? Self-government? Self-determination? What are these? All behavior has to be biological in origin given the underlying assumptions of evolution. If that’s the case, then no behavior can be judged, even anti-homosexual beliefs. As Arthr Leff argued, “Everything is up for grabs.”[10]
Endnotes:
[1] Jeff Nesmith, “Dieters’ dream: Gene to control fat found,” Atlanta Constitution (December 1, 1994), C1.
[2] These four examples were taken from the “Science News” section of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (October 10, 2002), A9.
[3] Dennis Overbye, “Born to Raise Hell?,” Time (February 21, 1994), 76.
[4] Amanda Huted, “Gene variant could mean higher risk of heart attack,” Atlanta Journal/Constitution (October 15, 1992), C3.
[5] “Gene discovery could lead to leukemia screening test,” Atlanta Journal/Constitution (October 3, 1992), E8.
[6] Tim Friend, “Brain chemical may feed craving for fat,” USA Today (October 29, 1992), 1A.
[7] Faye Flam, “Study: Reckless gambler, blame your brain,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (March 22, 2002), A18.
[8] Dan Vergano, “Racism may have evolutionary link,” USA Today (December 11, 2001), 11.
[9] Dan Vergano, “‘Natural, biological’ theory of rape creates instant storm,” USA Today (January 28, 2000), 8D.
[10] Arthur Allen Leff, “Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law,” Duke Law Journal (1979), 1249.
That can get exciting.
I think it was more likely the removal of the jeans that did it.
If engaging in homosexual behavior is not a choice, then NO sexual conduct is a choice.
Believe what you want about sexual orientation, but if behavior is not voluntary then much of the underpinnings of our criminal justice system, not to mention our society, are nullified.
(I only skimmed the article, but I assume it is making the same point.)
For me this is the bottom line: whether you are born a homosexual or not it manifests itself in a behavior and all behaviors can be controlled.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/summary.pdf
Those researchers who know most about genes and SSA say “Your genes did not make you do it”.
Let’s review the evidence bearing in mind that many of the following arguments apply to all human
behaviours.
Genetics:
Science has not yet discovered any genetically dictated behavior in humans. So far, genetically
dictated behaviors of the “one-gene-one-trait” variety have been found only in very simple
organisms. (Ch 1)
From an understanding of gene structure and function
there are no plausible means by which
genes could inescapably force SSA or other behaviors on a person (Ch 1)
No genetically determined human behavior has yet been found. The most closely geneticallyrelated
behavior yet discovered (mono-amine oxidase deficiency leading to aggression) has
shown itself remarkably responsive
to counselling. (Ch 1)
If (exclusive) SSA were genetically inherited, it would have bred itself out of the population in
only several generations, and wouldn’t be around today. (ie. gays with no children would not be
able to reproduce their genes.) (Ch 1)
Generally, geneticists settle for some genetic influence
of rather undefined degree, most
agreeing that many genes (from at least five or six to many hundreds) contribute to any
particular human behavior. (Ch 1) This means:
If SSA were caused by many genes it could not suddenly appear and disappear
in families the way it does. It would stay around for many (eg. at least 30)
generations because it would take that long for that many genes to be bred out.
Therefore SSA cannot be caused by many genes. (Ch 1)
The occurrence of SSA (2.6%) in the population is too frequent to be caused by a chance
mutation in a single gene. Therefore SSA cannot be caused by a single gene. (Ch 1)
Researchers trying to find “homosexual” sequences of genes on the recently mapped
human genome have not found any such sequences although they have found them for
schizophrenia, alcoholism etc. (Ch 9)
The occurrence of SSA is about five time too high to be caused by a faulty (non-genetic)
pre-natal developmental process, so it is not innate in that sense either. (Ch 1)
First same-sex attraction occurs over a very long time span, unlike pre-programmed genetic
events eg puberty, menopause. This argues that first same-sex attraction is not a genetically
programmed event. (Ch 1)
The human race shares most of its genes - something between 99.7 percent and 99.9 percent.
That means all ethnic groups will have most of them. This has the following three implications...
If homosexuality is genetically dictated, homosexual practices will be identical or
extremely similar in all cultures. But there is an enormous range and diversity of
homosexual practice and customs among different cultures (and within cultures)
(Ch 6)
There would be a similar incidence of homosexuality in all cultures. But
homosexuality has been unknown in some cultures and mandatory in others.
(Ch 6)
Changes in homosexual practice and behavior in different cultures would take
place very slowly, over many centuries. But this is not what history shows. The
decline of whole models of homosexuality (the Greek, over a couple of centuries,
and the Melanesian, within a century); the relatively sudden [in genetic terms]
emergence of the present Western model over a couple of centuries; and abrupt
changes of practice within an ethnic group, even over a single generation, are not
consistent with anything genetic. Even less so the swiftly changing sexual practices
within the current Western model. (Ch 6)
The drop in SSA attraction and practice over the lifespan is too great to attribute to genetic
change – or for that matter, deaths from AIDS. It could indicate some change in sexual
orientation. (Ch 2)
Recent increases in the percentage of those experimenting with same-sex behaviour suggest
social influence rather than genetic change. (Ch 2)
Dean Hamer, one of the strongest advocates of a genetically-based homosexuality, has
remarked that he doesn’t think a gene exists for sexual orientation. (Ch 9)
Twin studies: These very complex comparisons of identical twins and non-identical twins
definitively rule out genetic determinism. If homosexuality were genetic, identical co-twins of
homosexual men and women would also be homosexual 100% of the time, but they aren’t.
The genetic influence is indirect, certainly lower than 30% for men and 50% for women
and may be as low as 10%. This is illustrated further by the fact that identical twins with
identical genes are at most 11 and 14% concordant for SSA (ie. if one twin is SSA the cotwin
will be gay only 11 % of the time (males), 14% (females.) (Other studies have even lower
concordances). And remember this: everyone has at least a 10% genetic influence in his or
her behaviour - simply because without genes there can be no bodily activity of any kind, or
human behaviour.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm
When someone states “there is overwhelming evidence that homosexuality is not a choice”, make them delineate that evidence.
I have never met anyone who could cite non-statistical evidence. Until there is a genetic or physiological marker identified for homosexuality, it remains a choice.
which is what secular humanist subjectivist moral relativists, new age subjectivist amoral cynics, and postmodernist subjectivist moral agnostics want and which will and is leading to the spread of evil in the world.
No, there is not (good ref.in post 6). But...there is great advantage to building a radical political/social network to justify behaviour. What has historically been the biggest roadblock to the radical gay movement? Religion. Infiltrate that, get the “leaders” of those churches to fall for the “I’m a good person”, “We’re all God’s children” argument, throw in some wishy-washy psychobabble and tada! And if you don’t agree, you’re a bad person, intolerant, short-sighted...you pick your (least) favorite buzzword.
Nail on the head!
Indeed, if we find a genetic marker that makes 50 year-old male junior high teachers want to have sex with their young female students, should it be sanctioned by society/the state or be eradicated through treatment?
Yes, that’s the question.
Many behaviors - left-handedness, homosexuality, obesity, alcoholism, pedophilia, among others - are presently thought to have a genetic component. But they are still behaviors! Some are deemed harmful to society, and others are not.
Respiration, heartbeat, brain activity and reflexes are the only truly “involuntary” actions I can think of.
One will never see a study asserting that, say, dislike of members of another race is “inherent” and “genetic.”
Society frowns upon the behavior, and it is discouraged. (Or at least outside of Rev. Wright’s church it usually is.)
Behaviors may be harmful or not. But like you I am very concerned with society saying people “can’t help” engaging in certain conduct. That kind of “logic” could lead to all rape defendants being released from prison!
There is no credible scientist on Earth that believes that homosexuality has any genetic cause. This idea is pure politics of the sleaziest kind.
Even if there is a genetic predisposition - assuming so for argument - I can’t see how genes can force someone to perform a sex act against one’s will. Genes don’t put a body part inside another body part without free will coming in there somewhere. (I can’t be any more graphic than this.)
Say what you will, but that makes me think it is as much nurture as nature.
Everyone is born with free will, which is not genetic.
Love the sinner, condemn the sin...
Great book- Beyond Gay David Morrison Once gay activist for the gay agenda- discovery God’s will in human sexuality. David has outlined how he came from activist to Catholic Christian. Hollywood celebrities have the misfortune to go with the crowd. They can’t see how following holy scripture and the teaching the proper interpretation could possibly change someone’s life. But then they don’t have to look into themselves to see the truth in relation to God’s will. That is why they can’t judge because they are afraid of being judged themselves. Better to be judge in wrong doing now then wait to you’re dead and then be judged!
Interesting study!
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.