toldailytopic: If it was proved that homosexuality was genetic, would it then make it

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for July 2nd, 2012 08:41 AM

toldailytopic: If it was proved that homosexuality was genetic, would it then make it okay?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[Lighthouse]

toldailytopic: If it was proved that homosexuality was genetic, would it then make it okay?

No.

But, seriously, if it were genetic they would have figured that out by now; seeing as they figured out genetic traits and how they work, etc. a long time ago.

 

[Rusha]

Yes, as long as any physical relationship was between consenting adults, it would be okay.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for July 2nd, 2012 08:41 AM

toldailytopic: If it was proved that homosexuality was genetic, would it then make it okay?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

Great question!

My answer would be no, it still wouldn't make it ok. I believe that when sin came into the world, it corrupted all of creation even down to the genetic level. There are a number of genetic diseases and disorders that we know of (cancer is caused by damaged DNA for example). So it would just be proof that homosexuality is an illness. Homosexual urges can be controlled, and I believe in the power of God to heal, so the person living the homosexual lifestyle would still be without excuse.

All that said, I do not believe that homosexuality will ever be proved to be genetic. The struggle of the homosexual isn't against his 'natural genetic makeup' or some 'innate, unchangeable and immutable characteristic' of that person. It is the struggle against sin, plain and simple.

 

[Lighthouse]

Yes, as long as any physical relationship was between consenting adults, it would be okay.

So, in truth it doesn't actually matter to you if it is proven to be genetic..?

 

[Lighthouse]

Great question!

My answer would be no, it still wouldn't make it ok. I believe that when sin came into the world, it corrupted all of creation even down to the genetic level. There are a number of genetic diseases and disorders that we know of (cancer is caused by damaged DNA for example). So it would just be proof that homosexuality is an illness. Homosexual urges can be controlled, and I believe in the power of God to heal, so the person living the homosexual lifestyle would still be without excuse.

All that said, I do not believe that homosexuality will ever be proved to be genetic. The struggle of the homosexual isn't against his 'natural genetic makeup' or some 'innate, unchangeable and immutable characteristic' of that person. It is the struggle against sin, plain and simple.

:thumb:

 

[CabinetMaker]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for July 2nd, 2012 08:41 AM

toldailytopic: If it was proved that homosexuality was genetic, would it then make it okay?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

No. I think that there is a genetic and/or hormonal component to homosexuality that is not yet understood. If true, that means that the same genetic/hormonal factors determine heterosexuality as well. Certain activities for heterosexuals are immoral and should be avoided. So even if homosexuality is genetically/hormonally determined, it is still immoral in the eyes of God.

 

[Buzzword]

Meh, I don't care one way or the other.

Each of us behave, think, and feel a certain way due to a huge number of factors ranging from fetal development to the current state of digestion.

I am not homosexual, and am thus automatically disqualified from making any grand statements regarding how homosexuals "should" behave, think, or feel, as long as their behavior does not infringe upon the rights of others.

First, do no harm.
Then, do as thou wilt, with whom thou wilt, and let no man tell thee thou shouldst be doing otherwise.

 

[Lighthouse]

First, do no harm.
Then, do as thou wilt, with whom thou wilt, and let no man tell thee thou shouldst be doing otherwise.

Did you forget to change your religious affiliation to Wicca?

 

[Silent Hunter]

opcorn:

 

[Buzzword]

Did you forget to change your religious affiliation to Wicca?

Nope, though I've heard they throw great weddings.

John 15:9-12

“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. "

Not sure how ya'll managed to fit "pontificate your personal interpretation of Scripture at passersby because only by shouting that they're going to hell will you bring them to church" into "Love each other as I have loved you," but it seems a miraculous feat of spacial engineering.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

First, do no harm.
Then, do as thou wilt, with whom thou wilt, and let no man tell thee thou shouldst be doing otherwise.

How very Christian of you to quote something non-Biblical to support your position.

 

[Alate_One]

But, seriously, if it were genetic they would have figured that out by now; seeing as they figured out genetic traits and how they work, etc. a long time ago.

Most genetic characteristics are far more complicated than simple mendelian traits. Many genes interact in complex ways to cause characteristics. The genetic basis of some of the simplest traits are relatively complex with at least 15 different genes being associated with eye-color, for example.

You can assess the heritability of a particular characteristic without actually knowing the genes involved by comparing identical twins with fraternal ones. You can assess and assign a percentage value to heritability. The studies of this (mostly done on males) have varied quite a bit but suffice it to say the correlation is not 100%. i.e. Identical twins are not always both homosexual but heritability is a component.

Here is an abstract from the most recent study conducted in Sweden in 2010.

There is still uncertainty about the relative importance of genes and environments on human sexual orientation. One reason is that previous studies employed self-selected, opportunistic, or small population-based samples. We used data from a truly population-based 2005–2006 survey of all adult twins (20–47 years) in Sweden to conduct the largest twin study of same-sex sexual behavior attempted so far. We performed biometric modeling with data on any and total number of lifetime same-sex sexual partners, respectively. The analyses were conducted separately by sex. Twin resemblance was moderate for the 3,826 studied monozygotic and dizygotic same-sex twin pairs. Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and 64–.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.

 

[Buzzword]

How very Christian of you to quote something non-Biblical to support your position.

How very anti-Christ of you to assume that God can only reveal Himself through the Roman-collected volume you apparently worship.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

How very anti-Christ of you to assume that God can only reveal Himself through the Roman-collected volume you apparently worship.

In your first post you quoted something non-Biblical. In your second post you quoted the Bible. It seems like you have some consistency issues here.

I worship God, not the Bible. I learn about the character of God and His message to humanity through the Bible. Though if you are the Christian that you claim, you should already be aware of this.

 

[Lighthouse]

John 15:9-12

Not sure how ya'll managed to fit "pontificate your personal interpretation of Scripture at passersby because only by shouting that they're going to hell will you bring them to church" into "Love each other as I have loved you," but it seems a miraculous feat of spacial engineering.

Yeah, because that's exactly what I do every day.

How very Christian of you to quote something non-Biblical to support your position.

Not only is it non-Biblical, it's pagan.

Most genetic characteristics are far more complicated than simple mendelian traits. Many genes interact in complex ways to cause characteristics. The genetic basis of some of the simplest traits are relatively complex with at least 15 different genes being associated with eye-color, for example.

You can assess the heritability of a particular characteristic without actually knowing the genes involved by comparing identical twins with fraternal ones. You can assess and assign a percentage value to heritability. The studies of this (mostly done on males) have varied quite a bit but suffice it to say the correlation is not 100%. i.e. Identical twins are not always both homosexual but heritability is a component.

Here is an abstract from the most recent study conducted in Sweden in 2010.

There is still uncertainty about the relative importance of genes and environments on human sexual orientation. One reason is that previous studies employed self-selected, opportunistic, or small population-based samples. We used data from a truly population-based 2005–2006 survey of all adult twins (20–47 years) in Sweden to conduct the largest twin study of same-sex sexual behavior attempted so far. We performed biometric modeling with data on any and total number of lifetime same-sex sexual partners, respectively. The analyses were conducted separately by sex. Twin resemblance was moderate for the 3,826 studied monozygotic and dizygotic same-sex twin pairs. Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and 64–.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.

Irrelevant. We know eye color, skin color, hair color, which hand you use, etc. are genetic; if homosexuality were genetic we would know by now.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Not only is it non-Biblical, it's pagan.

:nono:

How can a 'follower of Christ' be quoting something pagan in support of their position?

 

[Alate_One]

Irrelevant. We know eye color, skin color, hair color, which hand you use, etc. are genetic; if homosexuality were genetic we would know by now.

Traits are not always binary, genetic or not. Many traits are a combination of environment and genetics, and that can include things like eye color.

The studies do not say it is genetic period, but that there is a genetic component, but the environment also plays a role.

 

[Lighthouse]

:nono:

How can a 'follower of Christ' be quoting something pagan in support of their position?

I have doubted that Christ knows Buzzword for a while now.

Traits are not always binary, genetic or not. Many traits are a combination of environment and genetics, and that can include things like eye color.

The studies do not say it is genetic period, but that there is a genetic component, but the environment also plays a role.

Irrelevant. If genetics played a part we would know by now.

 

[Buzzword]

In your first post you quoted something non-Biblical. In your second post you quoted the Bible. It seems like you have some consistency issues here.

I worship God, not the Bible. I learn about the character of God and His message to humanity through the Bible. Though if you are the Christian that you claim, you should already be aware of this.

I'm not chained to my Bible.
God has revealed His character through MORE than just Scripture.

I didn't know how to love people until God brought people into my life to love.
No matter how much Scripture I studied (and I studied a LOT in my youth), God wasn't going to use the Bible to teach me how to love people.

That alone proves to me that the Bible is not the only tool in God's toolbox, no matter how much artificial importance some people try to ascribe to it.

Not to say it has ZERO importance, especially when studying how humanity's perception of God has evolved over time.
But God is not God if He doesn't have more at His disposal than a single anthology.

To use another example, do you think Don Richardson was able to reach the Sawi by throwing Bible verses at them?

NO.

God reached the Sawi through THEIR OWN RITUALS, by leading Richardson to put Christ's sacrifice in the context of the Sawi Peace Child ritual.

How can a 'follower of Christ' be quoting something pagan in support of their position?

Because Christ is not limited to one volume, nor is God's character, nor is wisdom for this life.