Posted on 02/16/2005 3:15:22 PM PST by churchillbuff
You're correct that the Bible calls that fornication. As for it not being biological, however, it is one biological strategy for passing on the genes.... spreading them to as many places as possible.
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues" |
Homosexuality is a CHOICE.
One is either male or female.
It is a decision and you cannot prove a decision.
Homosexuality is a CHOICE.
One is either male or female.
It is a decision and you cannot prove a decision.
Homosexuality is a CHOICE.
One is either male or female.
It is a decision and you cannot prove a decision.
Homosexuality is a CHOICE.
One is either male or female.
It is a decision and you cannot prove a decision.
Homosexuality is a CHOICE.
One is either male or female.
It is a decision and you cannot prove a decision.
I'm not sure why your post was directed to me, as I really have no opinion on the subject, other than to say if there is a genetic tendancy (as there is with alcoholism), then it could be overcome.
That said, I do see a flaw in the study you mention, in that it assumes that a "gay gene" would be the dominant factor every time (i.e., the twin would always be gay, too).
If there is a gay gene (if!), I suspect it would work more like the "alcoholic tendancy" gene --- which is present in most every Native American --- in that it gives a person a greater % chance than the overall population at being gay.
For example, if the chances of a non-gene-carrying person being gay was 3%, then the chances of the gene-carrying person being gay would be 5% or somesuch (to use arbitrary figures).
Hence, you would need a study of thousands of twin sets to see if there was a like, ala the studies done on breast cancer in families, etc.
I just doubt the sample size of twins is big enough to get a viable study. (Plus there is the polluting factor of how they were brought up, which could junk the study, too.)
That said, I don't disagree with you that there is not good evidence of a "gay gene." I just don't think the study you cite is reliable.
A chosen Lifestyle that defys logic and works contrary to Creator God who doesn't make junk or flawed goods!
Personally, I don't know whether it's biological or not, and tend to think it's learned in almost all cases. However, there was a kid in my class and although none of us had a name for it yet, we all knew he was different way back in 2nd grade. It was no surprise to any of us when he left for the city right after HS and brought back a boyfriend. I'm not sure where or how he learned it because all his brothers are hetero, and he came from a good Christian background.
I believe they were born with a tendency to be gay. That's why so many of them became preists and nuns...they knew they were different...and believed God made them that way. I do not believe it's a CHoice. You are either attracted to the opposite sex or you're not....it is not a choice.
being of scientific mind and a Christian, it always puzzled me that if this is a choice, does it occur in the wild because of choice? Long before this penguin thing, I learned in Animal Pyschology that geese for instance have exhibited homosexual behavior for as long as they have been studied....now I learned this back the late 1970's as an undergrad and there was no real bias at the time towards that idea nor where I went to school was there any widespread liberal bias......just curious as to why this occurs in nature.......
I agree the study is quite small as are most of the other twin studies. This is also true for alcoholism. Although alcoholism tends to run in families, none of the studies have shown convincing evidence that it is "genetic' rather than "environmental". For example there are studies of identical and fraternal twins in England that show no difference in tendency toward alcoholism between the two groups.
Agree. if he hard evidence that condition was biological, he would have fit into that long winded propaganda piece.
In the 60s there was a coordinated effort among gays to go into the priesthood for number of reasons, mostly to change the Church. Previous generations were not so.
I honestly don't know the answer to the question. However, it has been my subjective experience that every homosexual I've ever known had two things in common - a controlling mother and a weak or absentee father.
Just an observation based on my experience.
I believe that most gays are born that way. I also believe that if a gay gene is isolated and can be identified in utero it will spell the end of Roe v. Wade and the dem party within ten years after the first abortion to avoid having a gay child.
The Church doesn't teach that homosexuals are BORN that way, but the teaching reflects the knowledge that some people grow into homosexual feelings because of influences beyond their control in early life. Since the Church teaches that homosexual ACTIVITY is sinful, not the feeling that one might be homosexual, it calls those in that situation to be chaste, and not act on their feelings.
Of course, others just simply want to be different, or break taboos, so they engage in homosexuality, thereby taking on that lifestyle. In either case, the person DECIDES whether or not to act on their desires, so it is, in the end, a choice
As for it not being biological, however, it is one biological strategy for passing on the genes.... spreading them to as many places as possible.
Come again? In other words, huh?
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.