Is homosexuality biological? John Barrowman is on a quest to find out.

[Mercy Medical]

Alright, so I'm sure that 90% of the AP.net politics community would state that yes, it is in fact biological. However, this thread isn't about asking that question...it's about an episode of The Making of Me (BBC) with John Barrowman where he goes out to determine if homosexuality is in fact biological and if so, where does it come from? What creates it? Why are we the way we are? This is just a portion of the full episode, the remainder are also available on YouTube if you're interested in watching the entire thing.

m27Awmlgi38

After watching this episode, I really cannot fathom how anyone could ever argue or think that it is not biological. Yes, they haven't proven it 100%. No, they haven't determined that there is any sort of gay gene, but the majority of evidence they have found has proven that homosexuality is in fact biological and is something that is hard wired into an individual's brain. I would imagine that it's a lot easier for them to do these kind of studies on gay men in comparison to gay women, just for the fact that a woman's sexuality tends to be a lot more fluid and complex then a male's, however, that does not change the fact that evidence shows that people are just born that way.

[perceptrons]

From what I've learned, they don't believe it's 100% biological, though it's still not a choice.

[MattADALIE]

I believe it's biological with the exception of consciously choosing to have same-sex relations despite an otherwise heterosexual lifestyle. The gray area to me would be looking into the "bi-curious" crowd, especially high school and college students because that's where it seems most common. Which way will they ultimately turn?

[joeag1985]

I can't see how it's not biological.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't understand how anybody would make a choice to live a so-called abnormal lifestyle, willingly suffering inequality and what-not. When I hear people describe how they realized they were gay, they acknowledge an internal struggle with fighting the social norms and the feelings that they simply 'have.' I've never heard one say "I just decided to be gay one day." It always appear to be some internal voyage of recognizing that for better or worse, they are gay.

But I don't even see the reason to discover the biology behind because I see that leading to science to reprogram people who are gay to make them straight. If there is a gay gene, so what? These people can still live lives, the gay gene is a health detriment. It's a social detriment. The only science involved here is the science of society.

[Broclee]

Not really my thoughts on homosexuality (I believe it's biological, btw), but that program seems fascinating.

[ScottishAnarchi]

I'm not so sure either way, I'm agnostic so until they come with good scientific evidence i'm undecided. I'm concerned with the motives of people who want to look for a gay gene, is it to prove that being gay is natural diversity or if they find it will they try to do gene therapy on a gay person. The program looks interesting. I know that we're specifically discussing whether it is biological but i would just like to state that i think its probably a mixed interaction of biological processes and environmental factors though which is more significant i dont know. And then there might be differences between gay women and gay men.

[Kammy]

I lose respect for anyone that claims it's a choice. I've argued with so many people about this topic, and the conversation always highlights how ignorant they are. Why would anyone choose to be hated by so many people? Why would they choose a sexuality that's illegal in their country, and that could end with them in prison, or even dead? Why would I choose to be gay, when I know it'll just end with me being disowned by my entire family?

That argument just doesn't make any sense.

[kesto4]

For all the idiots out there that believe it is biological, think about this:

Two identical twins were born, one turned out gay, the other straight.

Yes, this has happened tons and tons of times. Care to take a nibble all you dumb Sherlockers?


What more proof do you need?

[RyanFTW]

Even If they discovered a gay gene, I could see certain people spending a lot of money trying to destroy it (and that would be the only thing getting conservatives to fund science programs). People just don't choose to be gay. It isn't some one off choice, I had friends that struggled with that realization for years. I'm glad they finally came out, they're better people for coming to terms with their own instincts.

Also: John Barrowman is the man. Jack Harkness FTW.

EDIT: CAPTAIN Jack Harkness FTW

[Animalhill]

For all the idiots out there that believe it is biological, think about this:

Two identical twins were born, one turned out gay, the other straight.

Yes, this has happened tons and tons of times. Care to take a nibble all you dumb Sherlockers?


What more proof do you need?
Identical twins doesn't mean they are genetically completely identical. ;-)

[kesto4]

I lose respect for anyone that claims it's a choice. I've argued with so many people about this topic, and the conversation always highlights how ignorant they are. Why would anyone choose to be hated by so many people? Why would they choose a sexuality that's illegal in their country, and that could end with them in prison, or even dead? Why would I choose to be gay, when I know it'll just end with me being disowned by my entire family?

That argument just doesn't make any sense.

1.There are so many people who would stand for their beliefs, no matter what. For some people, belief is worth more than anyone's opinion. What if I love a woman but everyone else thinks I'm an idiot because they hate her...well my love is more important than their opinions, because I don't care what they think.

2. It's not completely illegal, but yes for the mostpart. It doesn't still mean they can't be together, they just don't get benefits.

3. Technically, you cannot go to prison just for being homosexual. These are different times, the 21st century. It's not like the olden times where you were prosecuted as a witch and if you floated, you were believe to be one and put to death. There are fair courts for the most part. And yes you could be killed, but the chances are so low, its really out of the question.

4. It's not so disowning anymore. Many families are fine with it, although definitely not all or anywhere close to it. Again, this person doesn't really care what their family thinks, it is about what they think.

All in all, I am definitely convinced YOU are the IGNORANT one. I do not think it is biological, but am not convinced it is all a choice either.

[Mercy Medical]

For all the idiots out there that believe it is biological, think about this:

Two identical twins were born, one turned out gay, the other straight.

Yes, this has happened tons and tons of times. Care to take a nibble all you dumb Sherlockers?


What more proof do you need?
You are beyond fucking retarded that it doesn't even warrant an actual response. Seriously, sit down for a second...reread what you just wrote and think about it.

[RyanFTW]

For all the idiots out there that believe it is biological, think about this:

Two identical twins were born, one turned out gay, the other straight.

Yes, this has happened tons and tons of times. Care to take a nibble all you dumb Sherlockers?


What more proof do you need?

Yeah, you're totally right. Extensive research and study has nothing on what you just said.

[Mercy Medical]

1.There are so many people who would stand for their beliefs, no matter what. For some people, belief is worth more than anyone's opinion. What if I love a woman but everyone else thinks I'm an idiot because they hate her...well my love is more important than their opinions, because I don't care what they think.

2. It's not completely illegal, but yes for the mostpart. It doesn't still mean they can't be together, they just don't get benefits.

3. Technically, you cannot go to prison just for being homosexual. These are different times, the 21st century. It's not like the olden times where you were prosecuted as a witch and if you floated, you were believe to be one and put to death. There are fair courts for the most part. And yes you could be killed, but the chances are so low, its really out of the question.

4. It's not so disowning anymore. Many families are fine with it, although definitely not all or anywhere close to it. Again, this person doesn't really care what their family thinks, it is about what they think.

All in all, I am definitely convinced YOU are the IGNORANT one. I do not think it is biological, but am not convinced it is all a choice either.
I highly suggest prior to posting in a thread, you read the OP and watch the video the OP posted so you will have a full understanding of what the topic is actually about.

[briewer]

I think it's biological in the same way that someone's personality is biological. It's not necessarily connected to genes or that type of thing, where we could find it and track it down, but it is densely hardwired enough for us to think that it's not just a manifestation of personal experiences but something more permanent, i.e., nature beating nurture.

[admkbl]

Coming from a very conservative, deeply evangelical Christian family... I know for me it was not a choice and I highly doubt it was caused by style of nurture either. My dad is into the macho thing, my mom didn't treat me any differently than most other mothers, and up until the past two years I didn't actually know anyone who was gay (outside of an online acquaintance who I said was going to hell for it... I later apologized but still feel horrible about it). Everything I heard about homosexuality was demonizing and incredibly negative. I have no reason to "choose" something that, once I completely come out, will most likely cause a huge schism between myself and most of the people I've known my entire life. Why would anyone ever invite significant condemnation and pain into their lives?

The first video was interesting, I'll have to watch the other five.

[briewer]

For all the idiots out there that believe it is biological, think about this:

Two identical twins were born, one turned out gay, the other straight.

Yes, this has happened tons and tons of times. Care to take a nibble all you dumb Sherlockers?


What more proof do you need?
lol you're retarded. Okay, two twins come out, one is colic and the other is not. That's OBVIOUSLY the choice of this newborn, not something natural, right? Because they should both do the same exact thing, right? They may be genetically identical, but genetics isn't the only determining factor in someone's development. It's not G.R.E.A.M., Genetics rules everything around me, Get the money, dollah dollah bill, y'all (yes, I referenced Wu-Tang in a debate on genetics).

[Kammy]

1.There are so many people who would stand for their beliefs, no matter what. For some people, belief is worth more than anyone's opinion. What if I love a woman but everyone else thinks I'm an idiot because they hate her...well my love is more important than their opinions, because I don't care what they think.

2. It's not completely illegal, but yes for the mostpart. It doesn't still mean they can't be together, they just don't get benefits.

3. Technically, you cannot go to prison just for being homosexual. These are different times, the 21st century. It's not like the olden times where you were prosecuted as a witch and if you floated, you were believe to be one and put to death. There are fair courts for the most part. And yes you could be killed, but the chances are so low, its really out of the question.

4. It's not so disowning anymore. Many families are fine with it, although definitely not all or anywhere close to it. Again, this person doesn't really care what their family thinks, it is about what they think.

All in all, I am definitely convinced YOU are the IGNORANT one. I do not think it is biological, but am not convinced it is all a choice either.

There's so much wrong about this comment.

1. Some people's beliefs are racist and sexist, just because they believe in them, doesn't mean they're right.

2. I'm sorry, but this is fucking ignorant. I'm not talking about western countries, but countries in the middle east where men and women are still stoned to death for being gay.

3. India only just made homosexuality legal last month. Before that you could be imprisioned. And people are now trying to overturn this and making it illegal again.

4. Oh, it's not disowning anymore? Wow, do I feel relieved now that I won't disowned when I come out! Oh wait...yes, I will. My family have made comments about how AIDs is a disease created by god to kill homosexuals. They are ignorant and homophobic, and the second I come out to them, they'll want nothing to do with me.

Don't try to talk about an issue you obviously know nothing about. And don't tell a gay person that they're the ignorant one, when you're the one that's living with so much privilege.

[Animalhill]

Coming from a very conservative, deeply evangelical Christian family... I know for me it was not a choice and I highly doubt it was caused by style of nurture either. My dad is into the macho thing, my mom didn't treat me any differently than most other mothers, and up until the past two years I didn't actually know anyone who was gay (outside of an online acquaintance who I said was going to hell for it... I later apologized but still feel horrible about it). Everything I heard about homosexuality was demonizing and incredibly negative. I have no reason to "choose" something that, once I completely come out, will most likely cause a huge schism between myself and most of the people I've known my entire life. Why would anyone ever invite significant condemnation and pain into their lives?

The first video was interesting, I'll have to watch the other five.
This is an awesome perspective to have in the thread. Best of luck my friend.

[Animalhill]

lol you're retarded. Okay, two twins come out, one is colic and the other is not. That's OBVIOUSLY the choice of this newborn, not something natural, right? Because they should both do the same exact thing, right? They may be genetically identical, but genetics isn't the only determining factor in someone's development. It's not G.R.E.A.M., Genetics rules everything around me, Get the money, dollah dollah bill, y'all (yes, I referenced Wu-Tang in a debate on genetics).
Which is fucking awesome.
But yes, this person clearly has no knowlege of the inner and unbelievably complex workings of the human brain.

[GeeBee]

1.There are so many people who would stand for their beliefs, no matter what. For some people, belief is worth more than anyone's opinion. What if I love a woman but everyone else thinks I'm an idiot because they hate her...well my love is more important than their opinions, because I don't care what they think.

2. It's not completely illegal, but yes for the mostpart. It doesn't still mean they can't be together, they just don't get benefits.

3. Technically, you cannot go to prison just for being homosexual. These are different times, the 21st century. It's not like the olden times where you were prosecuted as a witch and if you floated, you were believe to be one and put to death. There are fair courts for the most part. And yes you could be killed, but the chances are so low, its really out of the question.

4. It's not so disowning anymore. Many families are fine with it, although definitely not all or anywhere close to it. Again, this person doesn't really care what their family thinks, it is about what they think.

All in all, I am definitely convinced YOU are the IGNORANT one. I do not think it is biological, but am not convinced it is all a choice either.

1. Only an idiot would stand for beliefs that have no basis and hurt people around them.
2. lolwut
3. Yeah...no one's suffered for being gay. :rolleyes:
4. You may want to read up on www.affirmation.org just to see how wrong you are on this point.

You are officially an idiot.

There's so much wrong about this comment.

1. Some people's beliefs are racist and sexist, just because they believe in them, doesn't mean they're right.

2. I'm sorry, but this is fucking ignorant. I'm not talking about western countries, but countries in the middle east where men and women are still stoned to death for being gay.

3. India only just made homosexuality legal last month. Before that you could be imprisioned. And people are now trying to overturn this and making it illegal again.

4. Oh, it's not disowning anymore? Wow, do I feel relieved now that I won't disowned when I come out! Oh wait...yes, I will. My family have made comments about how AIDs is a disease created by god to kill homosexuals. They are ignorant and homophobic, and the second I come out to them, they'll want nothing to do with me.

Don't try to talk about an issue you obviously know nothing about. And don't tell a gay person that they're the ignorant one, when you're the one that's living with so much privilege.

This.

[Broclee]

For all the idiots out there that believe it is biological, think about this:

Two identical twins were born, one turned out gay, the other straight.

Yes, this has happened tons and tons of times. Care to take a nibble all you dumb Sherlockers?


What more proof do you need?

Jesus Fucking H. Christ, there is no way in hell you can be serious. Do you seriously believe that what you just said is an honest-to-God worthy argument against biological, or at least non-choice, homosexuality? You obviously believe in choice homosexuality, based on other posts, but this post is just so chock full of stupidity that I can't even comprehend.

I have no problem with people believing whatever, even if I think it's completely wrong, but saying completely ridiculous things as your defense just makes an ass of you.

[Praetor]

lol you're retarded. Okay, two twins come out, one is colic and the other is not. That's OBVIOUSLY the choice of this newborn, not something natural, right? Because they should both do the same exact thing, right? They may be genetically identical, but genetics isn't the only determining factor in someone's development. It's not G.R.E.A.M., Genetics rules everything around me, Get the money, dollah dollah bill, y'all (yes, I referenced Wu-Tang in a debate on genetics).
I never thought that I would see this day.

[thehereaway]

I saw this documentary when it first aired, really interesting. The nature vs. nurture debate for homosexuality is fascinating. I think a lot of people seem to instantly disregard the nurture side of the debate though, because they instantly assume that nurture means its something to do with a 'choice' - which is idiotic. Its an entirely different thing.

Personally i think its a mixture of both nature and nurture. I think that different people have different potential to be gay/straight/bi from birth (gay gene?) and this potential develops throughout life from environmental factors, such as a parents influence on their child.

I also believe sexuality is fluid for most people, not in the sense that they can forcefully change who they are attracted to but in the sense that their is the potential to change, if their body desires. My Mum ,who has a straight twin, is a lesbian. However, she came out in her mid-thirties and was married to my Dad for 10 years prior. Perhaps its just me subconsciously refusing to accept that my Mum was never happy with my Dad, but i believe she was straight and that her sexuality was fluid and therefore her attraction changed toward women. It also makes sense to me that sexuality is fluid because it explains to me why some people can go through huge phases over a period of years thinking they are gay then going back to being straight. So, yeah, i believe sexuality is fluid - i don't believe you are born straight/gay/bi and its set in stone, that just seems to black and white to me. I don't think you could ever forcefully change your sexuality though, let me just make that clear.

Sorry if any of that came off as ignorant or didn't make sense, i'm extremely tired.

[TotalCollapse]

That was very interesting. I've always believed that it's biological.

[RyanFTW]

lol you're retarded. Okay, two twins come out, one is colic and the other is not. That's OBVIOUSLY the choice of this newborn, not something natural, right? Because they should both do the same exact thing, right? They may be genetically identical, but genetics isn't the only determining factor in someone's development. It's not G.R.E.A.M., Genetics rules everything around me, Get the money, dollah dollah bill, y'all (yes, I referenced Wu-Tang in a debate on genetics).

That was amazing.

[macabre]

For all the idiots out there that believe it is biological, think about this:

Two identical twins were born, one turned out gay, the other straight.

Yes, this has happened tons and tons of times. Care to take a nibble all you dumb Sherlockers?


What more proof do you need?

You shouldn't be so arrogant about something you clearly don't understand. Twin studies of homosexuality have revealed that there is definitely a dominant genetic influence, most studies find about a 50 percent concordance rate (which means that identical twins will both be gay about 50 percent of the time, even if they're reared apart). Taking this into account, it seems like there is also an environmental influence but just because the concordance rates aren't 100 percent doesn't mean that genetics doesn't play a role. You're creating a false dichotomy between nature and nurture. Both have influences on the individual, it's not one or the other.

[pseudonym28]

For all the idiots out there that believe it is biological, think about this:

Two identical twins were born, one turned out gay, the other straight.

Yes, this has happened tons and tons of times. Care to take a nibble all you dumb Sherlockers?


What more proof do you need?

tegan and sara are identical twins and both of them are gay.

[BrennanHickson]

tegan and sara are identical twins and both of them are gay.
This is a bit of an irrelevant post, considering it's only one case of that occurring. I am not, in any way, attempting to defend this ignoramus, as I myself do not believe homosexuality is caused by choice. However, I am just stating that you may want to get more reliable information (statistics), rather than just spouting off individual cases.

[Animalhill]

tegan and sara are identical twins and both of them are gay.
And untalented :-)
Couldn't help myself.

[pseudonym28]

This is a bit of an irrelevant post, considering it's only one case of that occurring. I am not, in any way, attempting to defend this ignoramus, as I myself do not believe homosexuality is caused by choice. However, I am just stating that you may want to get more reliable information (statistics), rather than just spouting off individual cases.

he didn't have any statistics.

[BrennanHickson]

he didn't have any statistics.
And yet, you're trying to prove him wrong by doing the same exact thing he did.

[pseudonym28]

And yet, you're trying to prove him wrong by doing the same exact thing he did.

i don't have a problem with that, we can argue with each other any way we want.

[GeeBee]

And untalented :-)
Couldn't help myself.

:lol:

[Animalhill]

:lol:
*high five*

[paper halo]

For all the idiots out there that believe it is biological, think about this:

Two identical twins were born, one turned out gay, the other straight.

Yes, this has happened tons and tons of times. Care to take a nibble all you dumb Sherlockers?


What more proof do you need?

Woah! You just blew my mind!

Idiot.

[saysmydoctor]

For all the idiots out there that believe it is biological, think about this:

Two identical twins were born, one turned out gay, the other straight.

Yes, this has happened tons and tons of times. Care to take a nibble all you dumb Sherlockers?


What more proof do you need?
By far the dumbest post I've ever read on AP. No such thing as genetic identicals.

[Mercy Medical]

And untalented :-)
Couldn't help myself.
Excuse me sir? No....very, very far from the truth.

You can dislike their music. You can dislike their voices. But they are far, far, far from being untalented.

[Animalhill]

Excuse me sir? No....very, very far from the truth.

You can dislike their music. You can dislike their voices. But they are far, far, far from being untalented.
Agree to disagree then. :-)

[Mercy Medical]

By far the dumbest post I've ever read on AP. No such thing as genetic identicals.
But they're CLONES! THEY LOOK EXACTLY ALIKE! EVERYTHING ABOUT THEM IS THE SAME!

[Mercy Medical]

Agree to disagree then. :-)
Come on now...I'm sorry, but saying that Tegan & Sara are untalented is just an ignorant statement. You can dislike their music, but the shit they do is crazy. They are very talented. Metro Station is untalented. The White Tie Affair is untalented. Brokencyde is untalented.

I hate the Beatles as well as Nirvana, but it would be ignorant of me to say they lacked talent (don't get me wrong, not trying to compare T&S to those...just using a familiar example).

[saysmydoctor]

If I remember correctly, identical twins don't even have the same fingerprints. I may be wrong. But it's irrelevant, they always have different personalities. A boy/girl twin combination can be visually identical, but they biologically different. Apples and motherfucking oranges.

[Broclee]

If I remember correctly, identical twins don't even have the same fingerprints. I may be wrong. But it's irrelevant, they always have different personalities. A boy/girl twin combination can be visually identical, but they biologically different. Apples and motherfucking oranges.
You're right, they don't have the same fingerprints.

[Stormtrooper]

I don't understand how anybody would make a choice to live a so-called abnormal lifestyle, willingly suffering inequality and what-not. When I hear people describe how they realized they were gay, they acknowledge an internal struggle with fighting the social norms and the feelings that they simply 'have.' I've never heard one say "I just decided to be gay one day." It always appear to be some internal voyage of recognizing that for better or worse, they are gay.

But I don't even see the reason to discover the biology behind because I see that leading to science to reprogram people who are gay to make them straight. If there is a gay gene, so what? These people can still live lives, the gay gene is a health detriment. It's a social detriment. The only science involved here is the science of society.

There are plenty of people who live abnormal lifestyles subjecting themselves to various hate. Look at all the people getting piercings, insane tattoos, plastic body insertions, etc. Have you ever watched the show Taboo? These people do things just for the sake of being different and to not be accepted by the mainstream.

[perceptrons]

The stats, if I remember correctly, are 52% of identical twins are both gay, and 20% of fraternal, in case people wondered.

[saysmydoctor]

There are plenty of people who live abnormal lifestyles subjecting themselves to various hate. Look at all the people getting piercings, insane tattoos, plastic body insertions, etc. Have you ever watched the show Taboo? These people do things just for the sake of being different and to not be accepted by the mainstream.
I'm not talking about appearance, that's a different thing in comparison to being the polar opposite to the social norm of a man/woman coupling. I mean I get what you are saying, but I don't see it as being nearly the same as being a homosexual.

[Animalhill]

Come on now...I'm sorry, but saying that Tegan & Sara are untalented is just an ignorant statement. You can dislike their music, but the shit they do is crazy. They are very talented. Metro Station is untalented. The White Tie Affair is untalented. Brokencyde is untalented.

I hate the Beatles as well as Nirvana, but it would be ignorant of me to say they lacked talent (don't get me wrong, not trying to compare T&S to those...just using a familiar example).
I guess I would respond with saying that I don't appreciate the talent they have? Its not that I'm biased against femal singer/songwriters (Mirah's "Advisory Committee" is one of my top 10 favorite albums), I just feel in comparison to other artists, they are not very talented.

[admkbl]

There are plenty of people who live abnormal lifestyles subjecting themselves to various hate. Look at all the people getting piercings, insane tattoos, plastic body insertions, etc. Have you ever watched the show Taboo? These people do things just for the sake of being different and to not be accepted by the mainstream.

Let's say you are totally straight... could you force yourself to be attracted to guys? You could pretend, sure, but ultimately it'd likely be damaging unless you just accepted your heterosexuality. There are undoubtedly some gay people out there who invite the extra attention and enjoy causing a ruckus, however I think you'll find that they are the minority rather than the majority. It's not really something you do out of rebellion, social protest, or wanting to be unique - there are far easier and safer (both physically and mentally) ways to achieve your desired result.

[BTBAM777]

If anyone ever says it's not biological ask them if they think Richard Simmons was born straight

However, many homosexuals could have been sexually abused by the same sex. So I think straight people can turn gay too under certain circumstances such as this

[Jason Tate]

For all the idiots out there that believe it is biological, think about this:

Two identical twins were born, one turned out gay, the other straight.

Yes, this has happened tons and tons of times. Care to take a nibble all you dumb Sherlockers?


What more proof do you need?
Your science teacher failed you.

[danielineffigy]

There was never a point in my life where I had to ask myself "hmmm, do I like guys or girls?". I'm just attracted to females because it's my human nature. I can only assume it's the same way for homosexuals.

[jawstheme]

I don't understand how anybody would make a choice to live a so-called abnormal lifestyle, willingly suffering inequality and what-not. When I hear people describe how they realized they were gay, they acknowledge an internal struggle with fighting the social norms and the feelings that they simply 'have.' I've never heard one say "I just decided to be gay one day." It always appear to be some internal voyage of recognizing that for better or worse, they are gay.

But I don't even see the reason to discover the biology behind because I see that leading to science to reprogram people who are gay to make them straight. If there is a gay gene, so what? These people can still live lives, the gay gene is a health detriment. It's a social detriment. The only science involved here is the science of society.

Hmm that could definitely open up a can of worms. There could be parents discovering the gene, or whatever the cause, and having it reversed without the child's consent. However, assuming that former scenerio is somehow barred by law, do you think that people should have a choice whether or not they want their gene changed so they can be strait.? Or maybe they would have their gene changed so they could be gay. Either way, do you think people should get that choice? I mean it is just another choice that science would be able to offer us, to bar it would be a small form of fascism. Obviously there would be some type of age requirement for this to happen. Just a few questions to think about I guess.

[punkrocks22]

So I might get crap for this but, I don't think it's genetics or choice. I think it has to do with a variety of different factors primarily based on the environment they are surrounded in. I wouldn't call it nurture either, parents (for the most part) are not nurturing their child to be gay. We all are different and react differently to the environment around us. Thus identical twins grow up to be two totally different people. And those of you that said identical twins do not have the same genetics, look it up. Identical, or monozygotic, twins develop from a single egg/sperm combination that splits a few days after conception. Their DNA originates from a single source, thus their genetic makeup is the SAME and the characteristics that are determined by genetics will be similar. I think that someone being gay is determined by the complex ways the brain reacts to its surroundings. The person becomes hardwired to homosexuality due to the ways the brain reacts to what it sees, hears, and feels. Homosexuality in my opinion cannot be traced to genetic makeup or to choice.

[sdbrown]

For all the idiots out there that believe it is biological, think about this:

Two identical twins were born, one turned out gay, the other straight.

Yes, this has happened tons and tons of times. Care to take a nibble all you dumb Sherlockers?

What more proof do you need?
I want the studies you took this information out of. Was there a mutation in one of their genes during development? And although yes, monozygotic twins usually have almost identical DNA, genes can get turned on and off depending on the prenatal conditions. Maybe one takes a larger percentage of the hormones from the mom. Not to mention environmental conditions can affect gene expression so maybe both MZ twins have that gay gene, it's just the environmental conditions activates it in one and not the other.

There was never a point in my life where I had to ask myself "hmmm, do I like guys or girls?". I'm just attracted to females because it's my human nature. I can only assume it's the same way for homosexuals.
Yep, except the other way around of course!

I wish I could watch the documentary but this computer spazzes the second I open youtube. I love Torchwood

[GeeBee]

So I might get crap for this but, I don't think it's genetics or choice. I think it has to do with a variety of different factors primarily based on the environment they are surrounded in. I wouldn't call it nurture either, parents (for the most part) are not nurturing their child to be gay. We all are different and react differently to the environment around us. Thus identical twins grow up to be two totally different people. And those of you that said identical twins do not have the same genetics, look it up. Identical, or monozygotic, twins develop from a single egg/sperm combination that splits a few days after conception. Their DNA originates from a single source, thus their genetic makeup is the SAME and the characteristics that are determined by genetics will be similar. I think that someone being gay is determined by the complex ways the brain reacts to its surroundings. The person becomes hardwired to homosexuality due to the ways the brain reacts to what it sees, hears, and feels. Homosexuality in my opinion cannot be traced to genetic makeup or to choice.

I need you to introduce you to kids who grew up on uber-conservative Mormon families who are now gay. Environment has little to do with it.

[BrennanHickson]

i don't have a problem with that, we can argue with each other any way we want.
Homosexuality may not be a choice, but ignorance -- especially when given advice on how not to be -- sure is.

If I remember correctly, identical twins don't even have the same fingerprints. I may be wrong. But it's irrelevant, they always have different personalities. A boy/girl twin combination can be visually identical, but they biologically different. Fatherfucking apples and motherfucking oranges.
Fixed.

[John JD Dorian]

be it known that very few things are 100% genotype.

phenotype = genotype + environment

[bladerdude360]

For all the idiots out there that believe it is biological, think about this:

Two identical twins were born, one turned out gay, the other straight.

Yes, this has happened tons and tons of times. Care to take a nibble all you dumb Sherlockers?


What more proof do you need?
You are a dumb twat.

[sdbrown]

No such thing as genetic identicals.
Well, most of the time, barring some mutation during the pregnancy, I believe MZ twins are genetically identical. They have the same DNA. It doesn't mean that they'll both express that DNA exactly the same way, but their DNA is the same. That's why they're so useful in nurture/environment studies. You're working with the same basic material and seeing what conditions will turn it on or off.

[Love As Arson]

Both homosexuality and heterosexuality are social constructs that obscure a true understanding of the human as a sexual being.

[Jason Tate]

Well, most of the time, barring some mutation during the pregnancy, I believe MZ twins are genetically identical. They have the same DNA. It doesn't mean that they'll both express that DNA exactly the same way, but their DNA is the same. That's why they're so useful in nurture/environment studies. You're working with the same basic material and seeing what conditions will turn it on or off.
Identical Twins' Genes Are Not Identical

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical

[SlappedActor]

Both homosexuality and heterosexuality are social constructs that obscure a true understanding of the human as a sexual being.

Heterosexuality is a biological construct that perpetuates the species.

(Not attacking homosexuality or saying it isn't biologically based, but saying heterosexuality is purely a social construct is just plain incorrect.)

[bladerdude360]

I know so many people who seem open minded and intelligent who just completely reject the notion that homosexuality is biological and it just boggles my mind. After taking a Psych class I understand that nothing is purely nurture or nature, but in this case I really believe that in this case biology plays a huge role. Sure, nurture and environment can affect development, but to say that someone is gay because of the way they were raised or where they were raised seems absurd.

[Love As Arson]

Heterosexuality is a biological construct that perpetuates the species.

(Not attacking homosexuality or saying it isn't biologically based, but saying heterosexuality is purely a social construct is just plain incorrect.)
Heterosexuality, as an identity, as in I am heterosexual, is a social construct that arose during the nineteenth century. Heterosexual acts, on the other hand, can relate back to biological urges; even that isn't a fixed determinant in whether heterosexuality is expressed in a given individual.

[John JD Dorian]

The stats, if I remember correctly, are 52% of identical twins are both gay, and 20% of fraternal, in case people wondered.

lorenz butterfly -- nice.

[vodyanoj]

For all the idiots out there that believe it is biological, think about this:

Two identical twins were born, one turned out gay, the other straight.

Yes, this has happened tons and tons of times. Care to take a nibble all you dumb Sherlockers?


What more proof do you need?

Easily. Biological =/= genetic; it also includes prenatal environment (chemical gradients in the womb affecting one twin and not the other) and formative experiences that are outside of individual's control. Moreover, a gene can be triggered by some event after birth, for example, an exposure to specific hormones.

And, of course, statistically, idnetical twins are FAR more likely to have the same sexual orientation than not.

[John JD Dorian]

For all the idiots out there that believe it is biological, think about this:

Two identical twins were born, one turned out gay, the other straight.

Yes, this has happened tons and tons of times. Care to take a nibble all you dumb Sherlockers?


What more proof do you need?

wow your post is ignorant.

it starts with really sad bigotry and ends with a gross misunderstanding of how the human body works.

[SlappedActor]

Heterosexuality, as an identity, as in I am heterosexual, is a social construct that arose during the nineteenth century. Heterosexual acts, on the other hand, can relate back to biological urges; even that isn't a fixed determinant in whether heterosexuality is expressed in a given individual.

I took your first statement to mean something else, I see what you are saying now.

[denissuxx]

I didn't know much at all about this subject, and I can say that I have learned quite a bit from this thread, and I am keen to see the aforementioned TV show, as it seems quite interesting.

[LENS!E.love.]

bwhahahahhaha. this is funnny.

[eraserhead]

It's not a choice. That much is certain. It's just the way you're wired.

[recall reality]

Human sexuality is inherently complex. Genetic and biological factors, behavioral and environmental psychology and our own social constructs likely all have their influence. Glad to see videos like these, anything really to help show people "it's a choice" is downright moronic.

Heterosexuality is a biological construct that perpetuates the species.

(Not attacking homosexuality or saying it isn't biologically based, but saying heterosexuality is purely a social construct is just plain incorrect.)

Homosexual behavior is often cited as perpetuating the survival of species as well.

[peder458]

Both homosexuality and heterosexuality are social constructs that obscure a true understanding of the human as a sexual being.

both insightful and true.

[mattmatumbo]

For all the idiots out there that believe it is biological, think about this:

Two identical twins were born, one turned out gay, the other straight.

Yes, this has happened tons and tons of times. Care to take a nibble all you dumb Sherlockers?


What more proof do you need?

Yeah good point, i knew some twins one time, they both wore red alot.

Btw, i don't agree with this post in any form.

[saysmydoctor]

Both homosexuality and heterosexuality are social constructs that obscure a true understanding of the human as a sexual being.
They are unavoidable social constructs. It's the consequences of the unique human culture. I mean, you are right, that essentially says the two constructs are simply terms for unimportant things, in the grand scheme of things, but that's the nature of humans, to differentiate and categorize.

[ArtForLovers]

I think there could be multiple reasons why someone is a homosexual. I'm not completely convinced that it is biological. Mainly because of my beliefs, but I will not get into that. I know a guy who was semi-feminine growing up, and people called him "so gay" with most things he did. Couldn't play sports that well. Was more into drama. But always liked the ladies up until junior in HS. It was sort of a shocker to many because he was quite a ladies man. But i think people had this influence on him because he had some feminine qualities. Just not a macho man. However, I know another guy who also has feminine qualities and it shows. But I don't know anyone who calls him "gay" In fact, we would always play sports (although he was not very good at them) but never said anything to him about him being a little different. Today he is not gay. I don't believe he ever will be. He's quite content with himself.
Anyways, I think that the environment has influence on people in some way. Maybe not all the way, but a pretty good amount.

[Love As Arson]

They are unavoidable social constructs. It's the consequences of the unique human culture. I mean, you are right, that essentially says the two constructs are simply terms for unimportant things, in the grand scheme of things, but that's the nature of humans, to differentiate and categorize.
A particular human culture/period produced homosexuality. Other periods viewed an individual as someone who happened to have sex with people of their own gender. I think we can learn from this and establish an understanding of sexuality which isn't repressive;there need not be a default sexuality,nor would we ascribe an identity based on what one does in the bedroom.

[saysmydoctor]

A particular human culture/period produced homosexuality. Other periods viewed an individual as someone who happened to have sex with people of their own gender. I think we can learn from this and establish an understanding of sexuality which isn't repressive;there need not be a default sexuality,nor would we ascribe an identity based on what one does in the bedroom.
I agree entirely. Ultimately, what they do is irrelevant in a day-by-day setting.

I believe even if being gay was a choice or not, it's irrelevant, that's why I'm not concerned with the science researching it. Aren't there more important things to discover? Cures for diseases?

[sdbrown]

Identical Twins' Genes Are Not Identical

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical
Well, that undoes about half the information I learned in college. Excellent.

[macabre]

I believe even if being gay was a choice or not, it's irrelevant, that's why I'm not concerned with the science researching it. Aren't there more important things to discover? Cures for diseases?

It's important in dispelling myths and preconceived notions. I had a friend that adamantly believed that homosexuality was a choice until he took a genetics class for his major. I've known people in my psychology classes that have completely changed their point of view on the subject after finding out about the research on the topic. Curing disease is definitely one of the great purposes of science but I don't think it's the only purpose; sometimes curing the disease of intolerance takes precedence.

[yves.]

Identical Twins' Genes Are Not Identical

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical

one of the comments:


Bluebuilder at 08:38 PM on 04/04/08
My momma says twins are when god loves someone so much, he makes em twice. So, that means theys the same, no matter what some wacky doctor says. I think they should spend more time prayin' and less time snooping.

:hitself:

[blowmybutthole]

Identical Twins' Genes Are Not Identical

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical

im an identical twin and totally didn't know that the genes weren't completely identical. i always wondered if we had kids with other identical twins... if the kids would resemble each other remarkably.

oh and both me and my bro are J. Tate so are you my father?

do not rip on the wakefield avatar, its a joke. im your son don't worry.

[macabre]

im an identical twin and totally didn't know that the genes weren't completely identical. i always wondered if we had kids with other identical twins... if the kids would resemble each other remarkably.

oh and both me and my bro are J. Tate so are you my father?

do not rip on the wakefield avatar, its a joke. im your son don't worry.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2445799/Identical-twins-marry-give-birth-to-identical-twins.html

[GeeBee]

What about identical twins who want to sess EACH OTHER?
Solve THAT one.

[sargentlgfuad]

As far as i'm concerned everyone's born gay and you choose to be heterosexual.

[omgrawr]

i think its biological. ive herad so many cases of somebody trying to hold back their feelings toward members of the opposite sex because they were afraid of being ridiculed for it. they legitimitely seemed like they didnt want to be gay but thats just what they were. i mean its either that or theyre wizards.

[Ryzenfall]

I don't understand how anybody would make a choice to live a so-called abnormal lifestyle, willingly suffering inequality and what-not. When I hear people describe how they realized they were gay, they acknowledge an internal struggle with fighting the social norms and the feelings that they simply 'have.' I've never heard one say "I just decided to be gay one day." It always appear to be some internal voyage of recognizing that for better or worse, they are gay.

But I don't even see the reason to discover the biology behind because I see that leading to science to reprogram people who are gay to make them straight. If there is a gay gene, so what? These people can still live lives, the gay gene is a health detriment. It's a social detriment. The only science involved here is the science of society.

Basically my sentiments. I've not heard any good scientific proof for the argument that it's biology, but I've heard a lot of proof from the mouths of people who are homosexual that it's not exactly some kind of voluntary sign-up state of being like the other extreme view keeps wanting to insist.

[x togepi x]

Heterosexuality is a biological construct that perpetuates the species.

(Not attacking homosexuality or saying it isn't biologically based, but saying heterosexuality is purely a social construct is just plain incorrect.)

No, heterosexual acts can perpetuate the species, but the sexuality itself is a social construct which may not perpetuate the species. i mean, there are insanely many features of heterosexuality that have absolutely nothing to do with reproduction such as its relation to gender roles.

[tonyC4L]

im an identical twin and totally didn't know that the genes weren't completely identical. i always wondered if we had kids with other identical twins... if the kids would resemble each other remarkably.
these two kinda look alike:
http://www.twinstuff.com/bigmalms.jpg

[matt_bergeron]

I highly suggest prior to posting in a thread, you read the OP and watch the video the OP posted so you will have a full understanding of what the topic is actually about.

did he basically state that being homosexual should be illegal??

also technically you cant go to jail for being homosexual?? i thought you just couldn't, no technicalities.

i fully support the theory that it is genetic.

[Duexy]

For all the idiots out there that believe it is biological, think about this:

Two identical twins were born, one turned out gay, the other straight.

Yes, this has happened tons and tons of times. Care to take a nibble all you dumb Sherlockers?


What more proof do you need?

Successful troll is successful

[Shoes]

Of course it's genetic. No one wakes up one day and says, "You know, I don't think I have enough problems in my life. I think I'll become a social outcast and fall in love with the same sex. No flaws!"

[MattRM]

As far as i'm concerned everyone's born gay and you choose to be heterosexual.
lolwut? You're kidding, right? That's really no different than saying everyone's born straight and you choose to be homosexual.

[sargentlgfuad]

lolwut? You're kidding, right? That's really no different than saying everyone's born straight and you choose to be homosexual.
no i'm completely serious... :stick:

[DItaliaO]

in my Human Sexuality Class, I learned that everybody is homosexual in some way. no one is 100% homo and no one is 100% hetero.

we watched a program with two little twin boys, one had all the army stuff on the wall in his room, while the other had "feminine" colors and dolls, he showed no interest in his brothers toys. both were brought up the same way, parents still together.

[DItaliaO]

For all the idiots out there that believe it is biological, think about this:

Two identical twins were born, one turned out gay, the other straight.

Yes, this has happened tons and tons of times. Care to take a nibble all you dumb Sherlockers?


What more proof do you need?

I watched a program on this and just commented in this thread, but this shows it is biological you doof. People that claim that homosexuality is a choice, also claim how a child is brought up to be a factor. In the case I studied, both children were brought up the same way, parents still together. At a very young age the differences were already remarkable.

Here's an idea open a fucking book before you spout off.

[ValleyForge]

I firmly believe that homosexuality is not biological. I'm not quite sure if it's a choice either. Maybe it's psychological. I'm straight, but I'd be lying if I said homosexual thoughts never crossed my mind. I think it's safe to say that everyone has had some thoughts like that or the other. It just happens. For me though, I love women. I know that I'm straight and I always will be. But maybe because of a situation someone is in or something like that they have a homosexual thought and start to believe, "well, I've got these thoughts in my mind, perhaps I'm gay." and then get themselves convinced that they are gay and that they were born that way. So where I could have a thought and think, "whoa that was weird, think about something else," someone could have the same thought and in their head think that because of those thoughts they are gay. All psychological. That's just a random opinion though...I'm not saying I'm right, just a thought.

[Posthardcore]

Choice

[Jason Tate]

Choice
Unintelligent.

[macabre]

I firmly believe that homosexuality is not biological. I'm not quite sure if it's a choice either. Maybe it's psychological.

Everything that is psychological has a biological and environmental component. Most of the research on the topic has found that there is a dominant biological component that predisposes one to homosexuality and that certain environmental factors may cause it to emerge within the individual. No one in the scientific community thinks that these genes wholly determine your orientation, it's a bit of both genetics and environment that contribute to an individual's orientation. This seems to lead to the conclusion that it's definitely not a choice but it's also not something that is determined from birth. If the environment doesn't trigger the gene, it usually doesn't get expressed.

[Mercy Medical]

Choice
I hope you're kidding.

[ValleyForge]

Everything that is psychological has a biological and environmental component. Most of the research on the topic has found that there is a dominant biological component that predisposes one to homosexuality and that certain environmental factors may cause it to emerge within the individual. No one in the scientific community thinks that these genes wholly determine your orientation, it's a bit of both genetics and environment that contribute to an individual's orientation. This seems to lead to the conclusion that it's definitely not a choice but it's also not something that is determined from birth. If the environment doesn't trigger the gene(s), it usually doesn't get expressed.

Well thank you for clearing that up for me. I know next to nothing about genes and the like

[paper halo]

I hope you're kidding.

If I remember correctly, that kid is a moron. So he's probably not joking, sadly.

[Gil Schwartzman]

I don't know how anyone can view this as a choice... that is completely ignorant. My little brother is gay, I've seen the effects that such a lifestyle can have on someone. The four years he spent in high school is a portion of his life that was completely destroyed because of people treated him. He was ridiculed to the point where he wanted to move schools just to have a fresh start, because everyone in my little high school of 800 kids knew he was gay. He hated every bit of high school, something many people would probably view as the best years of their life, and no less than a month after graduation he moved half way across the country because he couldn't stand to be in this town where he was treated the way he was for something he couldn't help. Who in their right-fucking-mind would CHOOSE to live that lifestyle? I'm sure he would have loved to wake up one morning and decide to be heterosexual, it doesn't work that way. He even tried dating girls in the first years of high school, and had an incredibly difficult time coming to terms with the fact that while he really like these people as friends, there was no attraction.

He's been out of high school for only a year, but things are still incredibly difficult for him. He didn't come out to my parents until recently (I knew for years, but that is not something I would share with my parents), and that was probably the most difficult thing i've ever seen him go through. Between my dad's homophopia and my mothers religious beliefs, he found very little comfort or understanding from my family. Again... not something that anyone would willingly go though.

Thanks for the link OP, very interesting to watch.

[mattmatumbo]

I agree entirely. Ultimately, what they do is irrelevant in a day-by-day setting.

I believe even if being gay was a choice or not, it's irrelevant, that's why I'm not concerned with the science researching it. Aren't there more important things to discover? Cures for diseases?

According to my English 3100 professor, that's exactly how it used to be. The catholic church just lumped all things regarding homosexuality, bestiality and the like into one term, sodomy. Thus all these "sins" were more easily overlooked because for one, the average person is committing these "sins", and for two, you don't know exactly which one they're committing, you just know them as a sodomite. She said that lumping all these sins into a big dark ball of hecceity that most of the population fell into made it less evil and ridiculed. Now we have names for everything we can sense, which divides people up and puts them into smaller groups, thus removing the commonality with the major populous.

In conclusion, Gays are regarded the way they are because it's a "sin" and they're a minority. Furthermore, even bi-sexuals are regarded very very differently, probably because of the nomenclature.

Just and interesting look at how these things were regarded and treated at the beginning of the catholic church in the Roman empire.

And yes, i do believe that there is something inside our brains that makes us develop the way we do, straight, gay, bi or any of the rest of the gamete of sexuality.

[BrennanHickson]

Choice
Your logical reasoning is almost swaying me to think the same things...

[BrennanHickson]

Yeah good point, i knew some twins one time, they both wore red alot.

Btw, i don't agree with this post in any form.
I'm a twin. Not identical, though. That's because I chose to be a fraternal twin.

[alltimecam]

For all the idiots out there that believe it is biological, think about this:

Two identical twins were born, one turned out gay, the other straight.

Yes, this has happened tons and tons of times. Care to take a nibble all you dumb Sherlockers?


What more proof do you need?
If one twin is born gay the other is 50% more likely to be gay. Same goes for children who are born who have a gay uncle on their mother's side.
50% is a huge increase considering only 2 or 3% of our population is gay
Also they have found a gay gene in fruit flies.

[saysmydoctor]

I chose to be a boy. It was a choice at a molecular level, but a choice nonetheless.

[GeeBee]

If one twin is born gay the other is 50% more likely to be gay. Same goes for children who are born who have a gay uncle on their mother's side.
50% is a huge increase considering only 2 or 3% of our population is gay
Also they have found a gay gene in fruit flies.

I fail to believe it. At the rate those little bastards multiply, I could've sworn they were all hetero and horny as hell.

[DItaliaO]

I chose to be a boy. It was a choice at a molecular level, but a choice nonetheless.

what about people born with both sets of Sexual organs?

[AloneInTheDark]

If one twin is born gay the other is 50% more likely to be gay. Same goes for children who are born who have a gay uncle on their mother's side.
50% is a huge increase considering only 2 or 3% of our population is gay
Also they have found a gay gene in fruit flies.

I've read/heard this numerous times, but I'm pretty sure my uncle is not gay haha.

I am 100% certain that this is all genetic, my father is gay, I am gay, and I am almost positive that my brother is gay, and just not willing to admit it quite yet.

[alltimecam]

I fail to believe it. At the rate those little bastards multiply, I could've sworn they were all hetero and horny as hell.
I did learned it in skool, boy.

Haha but seriously:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316316,00.html

Or were you saying you knew about this, but you are just skeptical?

[DWill]

It's not a choice, that's all that matters, really.

[GeeBee]

what about people born with both sets of Sexual organs?
Double your pleasure, double your fun...
Wrap it all up with some Double-mint gum.
I did learned it in skool, boy.

Haha but seriously:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316316,00.html

Or were you saying you knew about this, but you are just skeptical?

Just making a bad joke. Fruit flies are the worst.

[paper halo]

what about people born with both sets of Sexual organs?

They were indecisive.

[saysmydoctor]

what about people born with both sets of Sexual organs?
Thus forth will be no one as hermaphrodites but rather those suffering from the debilitating, yet still chosen, syndrome known as the Hannah Montana Syndrome. HMS (not to be confused with British ships).

[tragic_harmony]

people who think its not biological are just homophobics who want a reason to hate someone. it pisses me off.

[ValleyForge]

people who think its not biological are just homophobics who want a reason to hate someone. it pisses me off.

Fail post. "They hate gays, so I'll hate them." yep, that'll solve the problem. btw, I don't believe for a second that it's biological and I'm not a homophobe.

[Mercy Medical]

Fail post. "They hate gays, so I'll hate them." yep, that'll solve the problem. btw, I don't believe for a second that it's biological and I'm not a homophobe.
I suggest you watch the documentary...especially after reading your initial post.

[baseballking]

i find it hilarious how quickly supporters of this theory cry ignorance at anyone who does not see it their way. anyone who denies the most basic of human rights, freedom of choice, is truly the ignorant one. i personally believe that there is the possibility of a biological cause to homosexuality, but that does not mean that a person has no control over their thoughts and actions. now the point of the topic, from what i understand, is not whether homosexuality is good or evil. the purpose of the study is to determine if there could be a biological link to homosexuality. i feel that there is, but that does not mean that homosexuality is an epidemic of uncontrollable genetic mutation. it is an emotion and attraction that can very much be controlled. if we say that attraction is not a choice, then why aren't all straight men attracted to all straight women or vice versa? . the same goes for people have this "gay gene". the answer is that we do have control over who and what attracts our sexual attention.

[macabre]

btw, I don't believe for a second that it's biological and I'm not a homophobe.

Didn't you state earlier that you don't know much about genetics? I think it would be wise to educate yourself on the subject before jumping to that conclusion.

[Mercy Medical]

i find it hilarious how quickly supporters of this theory cry ignorance at anyone who does not see it their way. anyone who denies the most basic of human rights, freedom of choice, is truly the ignorant one. i personally believe that there is the possibility of a biological cause to homosexuality, but that does not mean that a person has no control over their thoughts and actions. now the point of the topic, from what i understand, is not whether homosexuality is good or evil. the purpose of the study is to determine if there could be a biological link to homosexuality. i feel that there is, but that does not mean that homosexuality is an epidemic of uncontrollable genetic mutation. it is an emotion and attraction that can very much be controlled. if we say that attraction is not a choice, then why aren't all straight men attracted to all straight women or vice versa? . the same goes for people have this "gay gene". the answer is that we do have control over who and what attracts our sexual attention.
Attraction at the core is not a choice. I have a choice to act or not act on said attraction, but the attraction itself just happens. Now, while attraction may be a choice for some, I would say the majority of people have no choice in the matter.

Love is not a choice. I can't pick or chose who I'm going to love...it just happens. I can, however, chose whether or not I'm going to act on that love and those feelings.

And in regards to the bolded portion, I do not understand the point you are trying to make with this example.

[ValleyForge]

I suggest you watch the documentary...especially after reading your initial post.

Already did. I have yet to see any definitive proof saying that it's biological and until that happens I don't believe it. And if you ask me, it will never happen, because it's not biological. I've never even said I think anything is wrong with it, I just don't believe it's a biological thing. If homosexuals want to just become a normal integrated part of society (like they should be) maybe they should stop caring so much about why they are gay and just be gay. It's like they are finding a way to justify their homosexuality...like "you guys can't make fun of us anymore, because our genes made us gay, it's not a choice." Just be yourself and let it be. Use that money to fund the search for cancer or something else that's actually important.

[Broclee]

Already did. I have yet to see any definitive proof saying that it's biological and until that happens I don't believe it. And if you ask me, it will never happen, because it's not biological. I've never even said I think anything is wrong with it, I just don't believe it's a biological thing. If homosexuals want to just become a normal integrated part of society (like they should be) maybe they should stop caring so much about why they are gay and just be gay. It's like they are finding a way to justify their homosexuality...like "you guys can't make fun of us anymore, because our genes made us gay, it's not a choice." Just be yourself and let it be. Use that money to fund the search for cancer or something else that's actually important.
You do realize that most gay people would love for life to be that simple, right?

[Mercy Medical]

Already did. I have yet to see any definitive proof saying that it's biological and until that happens I don't believe it. And if you ask me, it will never happen, because it's not biological. I've never even said I think anything is wrong with it, I just don't believe it's a biological thing. If homosexuals want to just become a normal integrated part of society (like they should be) maybe they should stop caring so much about why they are gay and just be gay. It's like they are finding a way to justify their homosexuality...like "you guys can't make fun of us anymore, because our genes made us gay, it's not a choice." Just be yourself and let it be. Use that money to fund the search for cancer or something else that's actually important.
Did you watch the entire video, not just the one clip I posted? Everything they are finding is leading to it being biological...whether that be a gene or some type of hormone makeup in the womb, tests are pointing to something happening in the womb that influences our sexuality.

Your entire post in a nutshell :wallbash:

[macabre]

if we say that attraction is not a choice, then why aren't all straight men attracted to all straight women or vice versa? . the same goes for people have this "gay gene". the answer is that we do have control over who and what attracts our sexual attention.

I commend you on being able to choose who you're attracted to but that's not the norm. I tend to be attracted to short brunettes. In no way do I choose this attraction, there's just something in my mind that gets triggered and suddenly my heartbeat is racing. I can't wake up tomorrow and choose to be attracted to red heads, that just seems absurd to me. I'm attracted to a certain type of girl and I'm sure it's the same way for homosexuals. They have standards too, their standard just seems to fall within members of their own sex.

[ValleyForge]

Didn't you state earlier that you don't know much about genetics? I think it would be wise to educate yourself on the subject before jumping to that conclusion.

I don't need to know how genes work for me to personally believe that it's not biological. It's my belief. Like I said, I don't think it's a choice either. But I believe that people aren't just born either gay or straight.

[baseballking]

Attraction at the core is not a choice. I have a choice to act or not act on said attraction, but the attraction itself just happens. Now, while attraction may be a choice for some, I would say the majority of people have no choice in the matter.

Love is not a choice. I can't pick or chose who I'm going to love...it just happens. I can, however, chose whether or not I'm going to act on that love and those feelings.

And in regards to the bolded portion, I do not understand the point you are trying to make with this example.

i guess i should have clarified. just want to make it clear that i am not in any way a gay basher, homophob or anything like that. my point is merely this...many people claim that homosexuality is not a choice. i concede that attraction is genetically determined and there for homosexuality does exist in nature. but to say that human will does not exist and one must completely surrender to these desires is a fallacy. example: i am genetically predisposed to develop diabetes. i have no control over that, just has a person may not have control over what attracts them sexually. now i'm not saying in any way that homosexuality is a disease, just merely an analogy of choice. anyway, just because i possess this genetic predisposition in my biology does not mean that i must succumb to it. i read many post stating that we have no choice at all. this topic is not all inclusive...we do have choice. maybe not in our genetic make-up, but most definitely how we take that biological composition and use it. once again, i do not intend to start a war of words...i support gays in their quest to live life. but at the same time i refuse to accept that human will cannot overcome genetic "setbacks"

[Mercy Medical]

I don't need to know how genes work for me to personally believe that it's not biological. It's my belief. Like I said, I don't think it's a choice either. But I believe that people aren't just born either gay or straight.
I'm sorry, but science is not a "belief" system...this isn't religion. If theories and studies are pointing to it being some sort of biological aspect, then it most likely isn't a biological aspect and you can't just magically believe it's not just because that's what you believe.

[Mercy Medical]

i guess i should have clarified. just want to make it clear that i am not in any way a gay basher, homophob or anything like that. my point is merely this...many people claim that homosexuality is not a choice. i concede that attraction is genetically determined and there for homosexuality does exist in nature. but to say that human will does not exist and one must completely surrender to these desires is a fallacy. example: i am genetically predisposed to develop diabetes. i have no control over that, just has a person may not have control over what attracts them sexually. now i'm not saying in any way that homosexuality is a disease, just merely an analogy of choice. anyway, just because i possess this genetic predisposition in my biology does not mean that i must succumb to it. i read many post stating that we have no choice at all. this topic is not all inclusive...we do have choice. maybe not in our genetic make-up, but most definitely how we take that biological composition and use it. once again, i do not intend to start a war of words...i support gays in their quest to live life. but at the same time i refuse to accept that human will cannot overcome genetic "setbacks"
And while I agree with the majority of your post, I think your initial wording was wrong. There of course exists a choice in regards to acting on ones feelings whether you are gay, straight, bi, whatever....attraction just happens, people don't have control over that, but they do have control over their own actions in regards to that attraction.

However, this can lead into an entire conversation of why it is not healthy for homosexuals to deny their attraction for the same sex (and I mean that in the most basic sense...there are obviously actions or feelings of certain things like lust or whatever that one should be mindful of). There is a certain level of control and will power in this matter, however no one should have to control their feelings for the same-sex just because a decent majority of the population thinks it's a "no no".

[ValleyForge]

I'm sorry, but science is not a "belief" system...this isn't religion. If theories and studies are pointing to it being some sort of biological aspect, then it most likely isn't a biological aspect and you can't just magically believe it's not just because that's what you believe.


Ok, they are pointing to it but there is no proof so I don't believe it. I'd be more than happy to believe that's the reason why people are gay if they ever prove it, but until then I don't. And I'm sorry I set off your religion radar by using the word belief. Would it be better if I said that was my opinion on the subject? Since there is no definitive proof for one side or the other, I'd like to think that it's ok for me to have an opinion about it.

[baseballking]

And while I agree with the majority of your post, I think your initial wording was wrong. There of course exists a choice in regards to acting on ones feelings whether you are gay, straight, bi, whatever....attraction just happens, people don't have control over that, but they do have control over their own actions in regards to that attraction.

However, this can lead into an entire conversation of why it is not healthy for homosexuals to deny their attraction for the same sex (and I mean that in the most basic sense...there are obviously actions or feelings of certain things like lust or whatever that one should be mindful of). There is a certain level of control and will power in this matter, however no one should have to control their feelings for the same-sex just because a decent majority of the population thinks it's a "no no".

and i agree with your stance...i should have worded it better, but sometimes in the heat of a furious post, words get out of order and misinterpretations happen. attraction is not a choice, action is. i just get so worked up when some say that they are powerless to overcome "who they are". what's to stop alcoholics, drug addicts or even child molesters from claiming the same thing. the only way choice would be take out of the equation is if there was some sever mental handicap involved where one is incapable of making choices on their own. good topic...many good points and even some bad ones

[mattmatumbo]

I'm curious to hear the argument that gay is a choice, anyone want to point out some good scientific points?

[ValleyForge]

I'm curious to hear the argument that gay is a choice, anyone want to point out some good scientific points?

I don't think it's a choice, but how about you give me some proof that it's not a choice first. It works both ways

[baseballking]

I'm curious to hear the argument that gay is a choice, anyone want to point out some good scientific points?

read a few posts up

[Mercy Medical]

Ok, they are pointing to it but there is no proof so I don't believe it. I'd be more than happy to believe that's the reason why people are gay if they ever prove it, but until then I don't. And I'm sorry I set off your religion radar by using the word belief. Would it be better if I said that was my opinion on the subject? Since there is no definitive proof for one side or the other, I'd like to think that it's ok for me to have an opinion about it.
Their evidence shows that there are biological aspects. The psychologist flat out told John Barrowman that all data is indicating that it is a biological factor that is determined or created in the womb...the MRI and the penis test (don't remember the technical term) indicated that he had a very large predisposition towards attraction to men...significantly more then women. The guy doing the little wiener test stated that one cannot manipulate their sexual arousal...it just happens. This isn't something you can say "oh hey, that's a picture of a lady, I think I'll get my dick hard." All their research and data shows that gay men's (although I will say that this documentary was a bit one side and I'd like to see the outcome of these tests for women as I believe female sexuality is much more complex then male) brains function more like straight women. If he went and took one test and it showed that homosexuality was biological, I would say that's not enough...but everyone test he took whether it was a physical or psychological test indicated that his homosexuality was a biological factor.

So, with that being said...do you know better then the experts?

[Mercy Medical]

and i agree with your stance...i should have worded it better, but sometimes in the heat of a furious post, words get out of order and misinterpretations happen. attraction is not a choice, action is. i just get so worked up when some say that they are powerless to overcome "who they are". what's to stop alcoholics, drug addicts or even child molesters from claiming the same thing. the only way choice would be take out of the equation is if there was some sever mental handicap involved where one is incapable of making choices on their own. good topic...many good points and even some bad ones
And I agree, but there are all negative outcomes to those actions...hence why we view them as "bad." There are obvious negative outcomes to acting on ones homosexual attractions, such as having promiscuous sex and getting AIDs or some other STD...however, the basic act of being attracted to the same sex and acting on that in a responsible manner has no negative outcomes.

People should be responsible with their actions and that's where free will and choice comes into play...but if they are responsible, then it shouldn't be an issue.

[mattmatumbo]

read a few posts up

I think i read a few posts up that being gay isn't a choice, it is based on someone born liking a gender, and this is non dependent on the gender of the person in question. Thus, a person can act on their feelings of being gay, bi or straight. So the choice isn't being gay, the choice is acting on their perception of who they find attractive, be that a man or a woman or both for either sex.

This made perfect sense to me. Someone is born gay or straight, but then can act on those feelings or not.

[macabre]

I don't need to know how genes work for me to personally believe that it's not biological. It's my belief. Like I said, I don't think it's a choice either. But I believe that people aren't just born either gay or straight.

If you're going to hold a belief, wouldn't it make sense to make sure that the belief is correct? There is a wealth of knowledge that could either confirm or disconfirm your belief but you're choosing ignorance instead, way to throw human reason out the window.

[ValleyForge]

So, with that being said...do you know better then the experts?

Never said I did. But all of that proves nothing. It points to a possible answer, but it does not definitively prove anything. Saying that we are in America still, is it okay if I have my opinion? I love how supporters of this theory are so quick to insult those who don't agree with it. It's still a theory. The dictionary describes a theory as an "unproved assumption." So saying that this is still a theory and not fact, I don't believe it. It's not like im bashing gays here. I'm sure they also have evidence that "points to" it not being biological. I'm sure they have no proof either. If I showed you a video of it would you immediately throw down what you think about the subject and take what they say? I doubt it. So don't expect me to do the same.

[ValleyForge]

If you're going to hold a belief, wouldn't it make sense to make sure that the belief is correct? There is a wealth of knowledge that could either confirm or disconfirm your belief but you're choosing ignorance instead, way to throw human reason out the window.

Do you believe that it is biological?

[Mercy Medical]

Never said I did. But all of that proves nothing. It points to a possible answer, but it does not definitively prove anything. Saying that we are in America still, is it okay if I have my opinion? I love how supporters of this theory are so quick to insult those who don't agree with it. It's still a theory. The dictionary describes a theory as an "unproved assumption." So saying that this is still a theory and not fact, I don't believe it. It's not like im bashing gays here. I'm sure they also have evidence that "points to" it not being biological. I'm sure they have no proof either. If I showed you a video of it would you immediately throw down what you think about the subject and take what they say? I doubt it. So don't expect me to do the same.
So if you don't believe that it's biological...then what do you believe it is?

[ValleyForge]

So if you don't believe that it's biological...then what do you believe it is?

I have no idea. Like you pointed out, I don't know more than the experts. But in my opinion (since there is nothing to disprove it) I just don't think it's biological. Just like in your opinion (since there is nothing to prove it) you think it is biological. There is nothing that definitively says it's one or the other so lets just both have our opinions and let it be, eh?

[Mercy Medical]

I have no idea. Like you pointed out, I don't know more than the experts. But in my opinion (since there is nothing to disprove it) I just don't think it's biological. Just like in your opinion (since there is nothing to prove it) you think it is biological. There is nothing that definitively says it's one or the other so lets just both have our opinions and let it be, eh?
I think it's biological because there is scientific evidence that indicates it as such.

You don't think it's biological, you ignore evidence that is provided and you have no idea what it is....I mean, Jesus Christ, the man took how many tests that all indicated that it was hard wired into him...that it was in fact biological on a physical and mental level.

EDIT: And I also think it's biological because I'm living it.

[ValleyForge]

I think it's biological because there is scientific evidence that indicates it as such.

You don't think it's biological, you ignore evidence that is provided and you have no idea what it is....I mean, Jesus Christ, the man took how many tests that all indicated that it was hard wired into him...that it was in fact biological on a physical and mental level.

EDIT: And I also think it's biological because I'm living it.

Okay. PM when they prove that it's biological. I'll talk to ya then ;-)

[macabre]

Do you believe that it is biological?

I believe it's both biological and environmental, this is not a black and white issue. Humans are complex beings, we're neither wholly determined by our genes or our environment. You are born with genetic predispositions and the environment activates those genes. For example, someone can be predisposed to having bipolar disorder but the disorder may not be triggered because the environmental factor (i.e. stress) isn't there. I believe it's the same for homosexuality, people have a predisposition to homosexuality and the environment may or may not trigger that gene. Here are a few theories on what those environmental factors might be. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation) Long story short, if you're predisposed to be gay and that gene is triggered, you're gay. There's no turning back, you cannot change your orientation.

[atainder]

Both homosexuality and heterosexuality are social constructs that obscure a true understanding of the human as a sexual being.

So much win.

[peder458]

Okay. PM when they prove that it's biological. I'll talk to ya then ;-)

science works to support theories, not "prove" them. there is ample evidence to support the theory that sexual orientation is biological. you are ignoring mountains of solid evidence that points at the same assertion the video makes. it is your right to ignore that evidence, but you sound somewhat confused when people confront you about it.

[mattmatumbo]

I don't think it's a choice, but how about you give me some proof that it's not a choice first. It works both ways

I posed this question to hear the other side of the argument.

[brandonsuicide]

The whole gay gene reversal theroey scares me because even though my life is a hell of alot harder! I would never want to be straight cause the challenges ive faced have just helped shape who I am and I like who I am even if people have a problem with it.

[iamreppard]

um...has anyone here read the studies that show a massive majority of gay males were victims of child molestation....i don't think its biological

[Broclee]

um...has anyone here read the studies that show a massive majority of gay males were victims of child molestation....i don't think its biological
Lol.

[MattRM]

um...has anyone here read the studies that show a massive majority of gay males were victims of child molestation....i don't think its biological
What about gay females?

[Love As Arson]

um...has anyone here read the studies that show a massive majority of gay males were victims of child molestation....i don't think its biological
Well,that was idiotic.

[Love As Arson]

Even if it were a choice,one has to demonstrate why this choice requires an individual to be a second-class citizen.

[macabre]

Even if it were a choice,one has to demonstrate why this choice requires an individual to be a second-class citizen.

Because the Bible says so

[ostartero]

Someone who isn't gay and says it's a choice is like a man telling a woman that being pregnant is easy.

They wouldn't fucking know.

[ValleyForge]

Because the Bible says so


Bullshit. I'm a deeply religious Christian and I don't think homosexuals should be 2nd class citizens. Way to stereotype. I bet that you are one of those people who are all for everybody being able to do their own thing and believe what they want, but heaven forbid if someone is a Christian. Such an awful show of bias. Just because you have a problem with what some people believe, don't take that out on my religion.

[sargentlgfuad]

um...has anyone here read the studies that show a massive majority of gay males were victims of child molestation....i don't think its biological
i don't think i've ever been molested. do you want to explain that one then, since you're obviously so into reading and education...

[ValleyForge]

um...has anyone here read the studies that show a massive majority of gay males were victims of child molestation....i don't think its biological

I like to think maybe he is kidding. Pray for the human race if not.

[sargentlgfuad]

Bullshit. I'm a deeply religious Christian and I don't think homosexuals should be 2nd class citizens. Way to stereotype. I bet that you are one of those people who are all for everybody being able to do their own thing and believe what they want, but heaven forbid if someone is a Christian. Such an awful show of bias. Just because you have a problem with what some people believe, don't take that out on my religion.
i'm glad you don't think that, but you really can't be that deeply religious without thinking of us gays as less than you. I mean, it's in your teachings.

[Inaction]

i'm glad you don't think that, but you really can't be that deeply religious without thinking of us gays as less than you. I mean, it's in your teachings.

This is quite possibly one of the stupidest things i've ever read.

EDIT/ the second stupidest.

um...has anyone here read the studies that show a massive majority of gay males were victims of child molestation....i don't think its biological

This is the stupidest.

[sargentlgfuad]

This is quite possibly one of the stupidest things i've ever read.
how? the teachings of the bible say that i'm living a mortal sin, meaning that I will go to hell for being the way I was born, while he'll be going to heaven. how is believing in that not looking at someone as less than you?

[ValleyForge]

i'm glad you don't think that, but you really can't be that deeply religious without thinking of us gays as less than you. I mean, it's in your teachings.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that gays are lesser people. It can be argued whether or not it even describes homosexuality as a sin. It is only directly mentioned a couple of times, but it doesn't say anything definitive. Honestly, I couldn't tell you whether or not it is a sin. If I had to answer, I would say that it is sin, I guess. But that doesn't mean that gays are less than me. I'm a sinner myself. We all are. If homosexuality is a sin, it's a sin in the same sense that me lusting over a girl or me lying to someone is a sin. No better and no worse.

My religion consist of 3 things. Emulate Christ in my life. Follow the great commandment (love your God and love your neighbor). And follow the great commission (spread the gospel.)

We are all supposed to show Christ in our own lives at all times. Christ wouldn't hate gay people. He would love them. So I love gay people just like I would love anyone else. Just because you have had a bad experience with some christians (hypocrites), please don't think that we are all like that.

Edit: I apologize for starting a religious flamewar

[macabre]

Bullshit. I'm a deeply religious Christian and I don't think homosexuals should be 2nd class citizens. Way to stereotype. I bet that you are one of those people who are all for everybody being able to do their own thing and believe what they want, but heaven forbid if someone is a Christian. Such an awful show of bias. Just because you have a problem with what some people believe, don't take that out on my religion.

As someone who was raised in a Christian household, was once a devout Christian, and has plenty of Christian friends, most of the arguments I have heard concerning homosexuality from people of faith have found their justification in the Bible. From my experience, I've never heard an argument against gay marriage or homosexuality in general that has not referenced the Bible. Denying people the right to marry the person they love is definitely treating them like 2nd class citizens and for most people of faith, the Bible justifies that belief.

[sargentlgfuad]

As someone who was raised in a Christian household, was once a devout Christian, and has plenty of Christian friends, most of the arguments I have heard concerning homosexuality from people of faith have found their justification in the Bible. From my experience, I've never heard an argument against gay marriage or homosexuality in general that has not referenced the Bible. Denying people the right to marry the person they love is definitely treating them like 2nd class citizens and for most people of faith, the Bible justifies that belief.
you said it way better than i could've.

[ValleyForge]

I've never heard an argument against gay marriage or homosexuality in general that has not referenced the Bible. Denying people the right to marry the person they love is definitely treating them like 2nd class citizen.

I can tell you this, if Christ was here right now, he would not treat homosexuals as 2nd class citizens. Saying that Christian means "Christ Follower" and we are commanded to emulate Christ in our lives, anyone who treats a homosexual as a 2nd class citizen is a hypocrite. And I apologize for that. I hate that people have such a biased and bigoted view on Christianity because a few Christians have decided to take their own interpretation of what the Bible says. If I was in power, you can sure as hell expect me to make homosexual marriage legal.

Edit: it also never says that homosexuals will go to Hell. It says that if you do not receive God's forgiveness for you sins you will go to Hell. So if homosexuality is a sin (notice the if), if you ask for forgiveness for you sins you will go to Heaven. I'm so tired of so called Christians making all of us seem so bad

[Inaction]

how? the teachings of the bible say that i'm living a mortal sin, meaning that I will go to hell for being the way I was born, while he'll be going to heaven. how is believing in that not looking at someone as less than you?

Because there are more important and significant messages in the bible which trump specifics, especially instances that are prone to personal interpretation and manipulation/bias over the years. I'd imagine for the majority the messages of love, acceptance and the like are much more important and defining of (in this case) Christianity than whether or not a specific passage makes a fleeting reference to sexuality (especially something like Leviticus which let's face it isn't exactly adhered to anyway. Shellfish anyone?).

It's also stupid because it suggests that religion isn't a personal thing. Religion isn't some unyeilding force, rather it's fluid and relatively loosely structured. You'd be hard pressed to find a large number of religious people who have completely identical interpretations and views on the bible or on society itself. Your comment also negates and ignores the fact there are plenty of GLBT people who identify as Christian and many congregations that are welcoming.

In fact i'd go as far as to say your comment is no different from someone saying that all gays have aids. It's completely uneducated, ignorant and rather offensive. It's damaging and stupid. This us verses them mentality has to go.

[Inaction]

As someone who was raised in a Christian household, was once a devout Christian, and has plenty of Christian friends, most of the arguments I have heard concerning homosexuality from people of faith have found their justification in the Bible. From my experience, I've never heard an argument against gay marriage or homosexuality in general that has not referenced the Bible. Denying people the right to marry the person they love is definitely treating them like 2nd class citizens and for most people of faith, the Bible justifies that belief.

Well, yes and no. I would classify the 'it's not natural' argument as more a combination with biology and history than purely religious. What I mean is it's sort of based on procreation and the idea of a union being for that reason. Not that I agree or think it's remotely valid but it's something to think about. I'm sure there are plenty of non-religious people in the world who are against gay marriage.

I probably didn't explain that well.

[macabre]

I can tell you this, if Christ was here right now, he would not treat homosexuals as 2nd class citizens. Saying that Christian means "Christ Follower" and we are commanded to emulate Christ in our lives, anyone who treats a homosexual as a 2nd class citizen is a hypocrite. And I apologize for that. I hate that people have such a biased and bigoted view on Christianity because a few Christians have decided to take their own interpretation of what the Bible says. If I was in power, you can sure as hell expect me to make homosexual marriage legal.

I'm glad you're a lot more open minded than some of the Christians out there. It's just the ignorance of some people that really gets to me, my comment wasn't meant as an attack on your religion. I'm sorry if my comment offended you, some of the most important people in my life are religious and I would never want to make a mockery of their religion.

[sargentlgfuad]

Because there are more important and significant messages in the bible which trump specifics, especially instances that are prone to personal interpretation and manipulation/bias over the years. I'd imagine for the majority the messages of love, acceptance and the like are much more important and defining of (in this case) Christianity than whether or not a specific passage makes a fleeting reference to sexuality (especially something like Leviticus which let's face it isn't exactly adhered to anyway. Shellfish anyone?).

It's also stupid because it suggests that religion isn't a personal thing. Religion isn't some unyeilding force, rather it's fluid and relatively loosely structured. You'd be hard pressed to find a large number of religious people who have completely identical interpretations and views on the bible or on society itself. Your comment also negates and ignores the fact there are plenty of GLBT people who identify as Christian and many congregations that are welcoming.

In fact i'd go as far as to say your comment is no different from someone saying that all gays have aids. It's completely uneducated, ignorant and rather offensive. It's damaging and stupid.
Jesus taught love and acceptance, which I agree with and find nothing wrong with his teachings, but how can you go around and be like oh well it was in the Leviticus part, so it doesn't count as much as the others.

[coolwithme19]

For all the idiots out there that believe it is biological, think about this:

Two identical twins were born, one turned out gay, the other straight.

Yes, this has happened tons and tons of times. Care to take a nibble all you dumb Sherlockers?


What more proof do you need?
honestly, might be the dumbest post ive ever seen on this site. worse then kids that profess their love for brokencyde.
two identical twins don't have the same 100% genetic makeup. god, your stupid.

[macabre]

Well, yes and no. I would classify the 'it's not natural' argument as more a combination with biology and history than purely religious. What I mean is it's sort of based on procreation and the idea of a union being for that reason. Not that I agree or think it's remotely valid but it's something to think about. I'm sure there are plenty of non-religious people in the world who are against gay marriage.

I probably didn't explain that well.

Thinking back, I've definitely heard that argument before but I've heard it from religious people so I guess that's why I grouped it all together. I'm sure a non-religious person could rephrase it but I've heard it presented as "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", referencing how it's not natural if we're to take Genesis literally.

[ValleyForge]

I'm glad you're a lot more open minded than some of the Christians out there. It's just the ignorance of some people that really gets to me, my comment wasn't meant as an attack on your religion. I'm sorry if my comment offended you, some of the most important people in my life are religious and I would never want to make a mockery of their religion.

Don't worry about it. I got a little fired up. But it's just something I feel so strongly about...I want so bad for people to understand what the Christian religion is really about. So many hypocritical Christians have made it out to be an inclusive group of people who hate everyone who doesn't believe what they believe. That's not what my religion is.

[thetimmyk]

Does anyone know how many gay retards there are? And for that matter how many straight retards are there?

My opinion has nothing to do with the above questions.
And in my opinion I would right now be inclined to say that intelligence and sexuality are similar. Both are more so environmental (I'm not referring to mental disabilities) than anything else. You can't control how quickly you can think or store memory, but this is the result of development at a very young age.

[ValleyForge]

Jesus taught love and acceptance, which I agree with and find nothing wrong with his teachings, but how can you go around and be like oh well it was in the Leviticus part, so it doesn't count as much as the others.

Well, in Leviticus it also says that women shouldn't speak in church and should sit in the back by themselves. Leviticus has many rules that adhered to the social structure of the day but mostly aren't still adhered to today. That's where the homosexual christian view comes from. If we don't take all the teachings from Leviticus, why should we take the one that says homosexuality is wrong? Personally, I think that verse about homosexuality refers to not sexually abusing a man more than not being gay. Because, you know, people sexually abused each other a lot back then.

Leviticus also says that you shouldn't eat shellfish because they are an abomination. Or pig haha. It also states that you have to sacrifice animals in the proper way to be forgiven. The reason why Christians don't adhere to those laws is because Jesus became all those things for us. It says that instead of us making sacrifices to God, God sacrificed himself. So we don't have to follow all that stuff anymore

[Inaction]

Jesus taught love and acceptance, which I agree with and find nothing wrong with his teachings, but how can you go around and be like oh well it was in the Leviticus part, so it doesn't count as much as the others.

Because that's what happens when society matures. The bible, like anything, is a reflection of the times it was created. There's a lot in there that isn't relevant or socially acceptable anymore (slavery etc) and a lot that's contradictory (I'd say its more a guide rather than a complete unfaltering set of rules). And you still are ignoring the fact the bible is based completely on your own interpretation of it. You evidently believe what's written should be taken literally, whilst I do not. Therefore it's rather ridiculous to question the degree of someones faith purely because they don't have the same interpretations as you do.

[ValleyForge]

Because that's what happens when society matures. The bible, like anything, is a reflection of the times it was created. There's a lot in there that isn't relevant or socially acceptable anymore (slavery etc) and a lot that's contradictory (I'd say its more a guide rather than a complete unfaltering set of rules). And you still are ignoring the fact the bible is based completely on your own interpretation of it. You evidently believe what's written should be taken literally, whilst I do not. Therefore it's rather ridiculous to question the degree of someones faith purely because they don't have the same interpretations as you do.

You are wrong, brother. The Bible is not supposed to be something you interpret. The Bible is God-breathed. What it says is what it means.

[Inaction]

You are wrong, brother. The Bible is not supposed to be something you interpret. The Bible is God-breathed. What it says is what it means.

That doesn't make sense. I mean, yeah sure it's nice to say that but it's not possible. If I read something, i'm going to read it differently to you. If I see something, I'll see it differently. The experiences in my life are going to shape the way I interact, interpret and view everything written or not, including the bible. If this wasn't the case then every single congregation, every single pastor would have the exact same sermon, the exact same beliefs. And this is definitely not the case.

Now there's no point arguing whether or not the creation of the bible was influenced by the people writing it, so I'm going to assume that it was created purely. Yes, it says what it means. But what that meaning is will always be in some way influenced by the person reading it. Always.

[ValleyForge]

That doesn't make sense. I mean, yeah sure it's nice to say that but it's not possible. If I read something, i'm going to read it differently to you. If I see something, I'll see it differently. The experiences in my life are going to shape the way I interact, interpret and view everything written or not, including the bible. If this wasn't the case then every single congregation, every single pastor would have the exact same sermon, the exact same beliefs. And this is definitely not the case.

I misinterpreted you. I apologize. I thought you meant take your own interpretation to a much higher degree than that.

[Inaction]

I misinterpreted you. I apologize. I thought you meant take your own interpretation to a much higher degree than that.

Well, I guess I could say this is a perfect example of what I meant. Ha ha.

[ValleyForge]

Well, I guess I could say this is a perfect example of what I meant. Ha ha.

Exactly. All I was saying is that if the Bible directly states something then that is exactly what it means. You can't interpret it any way different than what it says. I thought you were saying you could take your own interpretation of what it directly says is right or wrong. I completely agree that everyone will read it a different way.

[Inaction]

Exactly. All I was saying is that if the Bible directly states something then that is exactly what it means. You can't interpret it any way different than what it says. I thought you were saying you could take your own interpretation of what it directly says is right or wrong. I completely agree that everyone will read it a different way.

I don't doubt the words were written as they were intended to be written and I don't argue that there are clear cut instances of what's right and wrong. But for the most part I'd say it's one big grey area. And that is where the different interpretations arise.

But to keep things topic-related, I don't think either side hating on each other will get us anywhere. Both acts are just as wrong as the other, regardless.

[sargentlgfuad]

well, that was off topic...

[Skunk]

Does anyone know how many gay retards there are? And for that matter how many straight retards are there?
"Gay retards" exist. I counsel one at a summer camp. But, just like anything else, homosexuality probably isn't 100% nature or 100% nurture.

In my opinion, legalizing homosexuality should be obvious. It's absurd how fascist the U.S. can be, especially in cases like this. We're taught as children to stay out of other people's business. If it isn't affecting people who aren't involved, then what's the big deal?

[mattmatumbo]

You are wrong, brother. The Bible is not supposed to be something you interpret. The Bible is God-breathed. What it says is what it means.

I read the bible off and on, and i was told it's mostly allegories for real life situations. Such as, and i don't know where this is in the bible my step father told me it and that it means inter-racial relationships are not okay; "A cow will not lie with a donkey and camel will not lie with a sheep" or something along those lines. Regardless, i think the bible is pretty up-and-front about homosexuality, i just wanted to point out what i have heard.

[vodyanoj]

The dictionary describes a theory as an "unproved assumption.".

LOL. This statement invalidates everything else you have to say.

Hint: gravity is also a theory.

[vodyanoj]

um...has anyone here read the studies that show a massive majority of gay males were victims of child molestation....i don't think its biological

Links? Evidence? Um, didn't think so, cause there are none.

[vodyanoj]

Bullshit. I'm a deeply religious Christian and I don't think homosexuals should be 2nd class citizens. Way to stereotype. I bet that you are one of those people who are all for everybody being able to do their own thing and believe what they want, but heaven forbid if someone is a Christian. Such an awful show of bias. Just because you have a problem with what some people believe, don't take that out on my religion.

"Christianity is stupid. Give up."

Just quotin'...

[vodyanoj]

I read the bible off and on, and i was told it's mostly allegories for real life situations. Such as, and i don't know where this is in the bible my step father told me it and that it means inter-racial relationships are not okay; "A cow will not lie with a donkey and camel will not lie with a sheep" or something along those lines. Regardless, i think the bible is pretty up-and-front about homosexuality, i just wanted to point out what i have heard.

Of course, considering that all humans are the same species, unlike cows and donkeys, that interpretation is ridiculously wrong. But then, what do you expect from a Bible?

(Fair disclosure: I AM in an "interracial" relationship, and she is the best woman I have ever known, in all senses).

[Praetor]

Even if it were a choice,one has to demonstrate why this choice requires an individual to be a second-class citizen.
This is the most important post in the thread. The argument over 'choice' or 'genetics' is ultimately irrevalent for a multitude of reasons. All the argument does is give bigots justification for their bigotry, because they can argue 'choice' and say things like 'If he wants to get married, then he should settle down with a woman' or 'If she wants to serve in the military, she should start sleeping with a man' and feel justified. Choice or genetics...doesn't matter.

[Mercy Medical]

You are wrong, brother. The Bible is not supposed to be something you interpret. The Bible is God-breathed. What it says is what it means.
Then why is it so vague...then why do so many different denominations of Christianity practice in different ways. Then why can two Christians argue a topic and use scripture to support their opposing views?

The Bible may not have initially meant to be open to interpretation, but many thousand years of translation have left it that way. The Bible you are reading today is not the Bible that was initially written.

[mattmatumbo]

Of course, considering that all humans are the same species, unlike cows and donkeys, that interpretation is ridiculously wrong. But then, what do you expect from a Bible?

(Fair disclosure: I AM in an "interracial" relationship, and she is the best woman I have ever known, in all senses).

Yeah, no i completely understand the problem with this "allegory", i was told this because my girlfriend at the time was half Mexican.

[ValleyForge]

Then why is it so vague...then why do so many different denominations of Christianity practice in different ways. Then why can two Christians argue a topic and use scripture to support their opposing views?

The Bible may not have initially meant to be open to interpretation, but many thousand years of translation have left it that way. The Bible you are reading today is not the Bible that was initially written.

Like I said, what I meant was that there are clear cut rights and wrongs in the bible. I know that they are many instances of grey areas, like baptism, but what I meant was that if the bible says that something is wrong, it's wrong.

Edit: And I know the Bible is the not the same as it originally was. Trust me, If i could have the original Hebrew text I would read it. I read the NIV bible which, imo is the most faithful adaption besides the KJV. The only difference is NIV leaves out the thee's and thou's

[ValleyForge]

Yeah, no i completely understand the problem with this "allegory", i was told this because my girlfriend at the time was half Mexican.

Nowhere in the bible does it say it's wrong to have interracial relationships. It probably literally means that you shouldn't breed a donkey and a cow

[mattmatumbo]

Nowhere in the bible does it say it's wrong to have interracial relationships. It probably literally means that you shouldn't breed a donkey and a cow

I don't know, a lot of older religious folk 'round here believe it is totally wrong, especially the Mormons. But look at the history of this country, or of any, a black man and a white woman together was straight up blaspheme!

No, now i see, misinterpretations of the bible are common and commonplace.

[ValleyForge]

I don't know, a lot of older religious folk 'round here believe it is totally wrong, especially the Mormons. But look at the history of this country, or of any, a black man and a white woman together was straight up blaspheme!

Oh the Mormons...Mormons are an example of a group of people that take what they want out of the bible and change what they don't want.

On topic: Regardless of it being biological, choice, a combination of the two, or anything else, anyone who treats homosexuals as 2nd class citizens is a bigot and should be a 2nd class citizen themselves

[Mercy Medical]

Like I said, what I meant was that there are clear cut rights and wrongs in the bible. I know that they are many instances of grey areas, like baptism, but what I meant was that if the bible says that something is wrong, it's wrong.

Edit: And I know the Bible is the not the same as it originally was. Trust me, If i could have the original Hebrew text I would read it. I read the NIV bible which, imo is the most faithful adaption besides the KJV. The only difference is NIV leaves out the thee's and thou's
The Bible is not as clear cut on homosexuality as many people think it is due to the individual's inability to properly understand context.

And the NIV Bible is actually one of the worst translations of the Bible.

[Mercy Medical]

Nowhere in the bible does it say it's wrong to have interracial relationships. It probably literally means that you shouldn't breed a donkey and a cow
But that is YOUR interpretation of the Bible...someone could take those passages as a metaphor. Who is wrong and who is right? The literal interpretation or the metaphorical interpretation? There's no answer to that question...

[ValleyForge]

The Bible is not as clear cut on homosexuality as many people think it is due to the individual's inability to properly understand context.

And the NIV Bible is actually one of the worst translations of the Bible.

Whoa. I never said that the Bible is clear cut on homosexuality. And how can you say the NIV Bible is one of the worst translations?

[mattmatumbo]

Oh the Mormons...Mormons are an example of a group of people that take what they want out of the bible and change what they don't want.

On topic: Regardless of it being biological, choice, a combination of the two, or anything else, anyone who treats homosexuals as 2nd class citizens is a bigot and should be a 2nd class citizen themselves

Oh yes, Mormons...

And i think NIV is the least accurate translation because it's a translation of a translation, instead of just a translation.

[Mercy Medical]

Whoa. I never said that the Bible is clear cut on homosexuality. And how can you say the NIV Bible is one of the worst translations?
From my understanding and from what I have read and heard, the NIV Bible is one of the worst translations. In fact, I think I heard that from someone here on this board who is very well versed in historical facts and Biblical aspects.

[Jason Tate]

Nowhere in the bible does it say it's wrong to have interracial relationships. It probably literally means that you shouldn't breed a donkey and a cow
Deuteronomy 7:3-4 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Deuteronomy%207.3-4)
2 Corinthians 6:14 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/2%20Corinthians%206.14)

See also:
Leviticus 19:19
Deuteronomy 23:2

[Jason Tate]

From my understanding and from what I have read and heard, the NIV Bible is one of the worst translations. In fact, I think I heard that from someone here on this board who is very well versed in historical facts and Biblical aspects.
Five popular versions of the bible fall into the following categories of translation:
The NASB is considered to be strictly literal.
The KJV and NKJV are considered to be literal.
The NIV is considered to be thought-for-thought.
The NLT is considered to be functionally equivalent.

"And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature" (NASB).

"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person" (KJV).

"Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person" (NKJV).

"The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being" (NIV).

"The Son reflects God's own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly" (NLT).

[ValleyForge]

But that is YOUR interpretation of the Bible...someone could take those passages as a metaphor. Who is wrong and who is right? The literal interpretation or the metaphorical interpretation? There's no answer to that question...

first of all, somebody point out the verse where it says that. And second of all, whenever something is to be taken metaphorically, it is said as a parable. So unless this was in a parable, I'd say it really means to not cross breed animals. But it is probably scripture from the OT anyways that is not relevant today.

[Mercy Medical]

first of all, somebody point out the verse where it says that. And second of all, whenever something is to be taken metaphorically, it is said as a parable. So unless this was in a parable, I'd say it really means to not cross breed animals. But it is probably scripture from the OT anyways that is not relevant today.
But that is still YOUR interpretation or method of interpreting the Bible and there are many, many, many, many, many other "Christians" interpret it the same way.

So once again, I pose the question to you...who is interpreting correctly and who isn't? And what facts do you have to justify your answer?

[ValleyForge]

Deuteronomy 7:3-4 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Deuteronomy%207.3-4)
2 Corinthians 6:14 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/2%20Corinthians%206.14)

See also:
Leviticus 19:19
Deuteronomy 23:2

Those scriptures all say that you are to not intermarry with someone who has a different God which I completely agree with. If you are a christian, you are not supposed to marry or reproduce with a non-believer. It doesn't say that you aren't supposed to marry someone of a different race...

[Animalhill]

Like I said, what I meant was that there are clear cut rights and wrongs in the bible. I know that they are many instances of grey areas, like baptism, but what I meant was that if the bible says that something is wrong, it's wrong.

Edit: And I know the Bible is the not the same as it originally was. Trust me, If i could have the original Hebrew text I would read it. I read the NIV bible which, imo is the most faithful adaption besides the KJV. The only difference is NIV leaves out the thee's and thou's
Those differences are enormously critical.

[ValleyForge]

But that is still YOUR interpretation or method of interpreting the Bible and there are many, many, many, many, many other "Christians" interpret it the same way.

So once again, I pose the question to you...who is interpreting correctly and who isn't? And what facts do you have to justify your answer?

I haven't a clue then. Everything I've said has been supporting the homosexual christian view so I don't see what the problem is. It's like you're trying to convince me to be a bigot and start hating homosexuals like the rest of 'em.

[Jason Tate]

Those scriptures all say that you are to not intermarry with someone who has a different God which I completely agree with. If you are a christian, you are not supposed to marry or reproduce with a non-believer. It doesn't say that you aren't supposed to marry someone of a different race...
"The Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites" -- those are not different religions. What are you talking about?

[ValleyForge]

Those differences are enormously critical.

How so? Instead it saying Thou shall not... it says You shall not...

and I know there are more differences. The reason I like the NIV is that I think it is the best bible for a young contemporary christian today.

[Mercy Medical]

I haven't a clue then. Everything I've said has been supporting the homosexual christian view so I don't see what the problem is. It's like you're trying to convince me to be a bigot and start hating homosexuals like the rest of 'em.
My post you just quoted has zero to do with the issue of homosexuality and everything to do with the issue that the Bible is interpreted in many different ways by many different people, therefore it is inaccurate to every assume there is a "proper" method of interpretation because everyone thinks the way they do it is right.

You made the statement previously that the Bible is "God breathed" and that it should speak for itself and there should be no interpretation needed. I'm pointing out the fact that while that may be true for you, that is not true for everyone. There is no wrong or right way of interpreting it as there is no method to prove that one way is right and the other way is wrong. Just one of the many flaws with the Bible.

[Jason Tate]

How so? Instead it saying Thou shall not... it says You shall not...

and I know there are more differences. The reason I like the NIV is that I think it is the best bible for a young contemporary christian today.
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/niv.asp

[Animalhill]

How so? Instead it saying Thou shall not... it says You shall not...

and I know there are more differences. The reason I like the NIV is that I think it is the best bible for a young contemporary christian today.
Well a good example (forgive me not being exact with the quotations) is in the Hebrew version, there is hebrew word, "Timshel" that translates to, "Thou mayest overcome sin", which was translated into, "Thou must overcome sin". The seperate translations illustrate a very different god (ie benevolent/free will vs demanding).

[ValleyForge]

"The Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites" -- those are not different religions. What are you talking about?

They are too different religions. Those 7 groups of people were the 7 Canaanite tribes. They were gentiles, God's people were Jews. also, take into account that this was in the Old Testament. God is telling Jews to not marry gentiles. Nowhere in the NT does it say that Christians are to not intermarry with gentiles.

[ValleyForge]

Just to clarify myself, I'm not too incredibly concerned with whether anyone thinks I'm reading the wrong translation of the Bible or that I'm interpreting it wrong. I know what I believe and that is I'm supposed to emulate Christ in my life. I don't even need the Bible to do that. I know that Christ wouldn't hate gays, and I know that Christ wouldn't hate people of a different race. So why would I?

[Mercy Medical]

Just to clarify myself, I'm not too incredibly concerned with whether anyone thinks I'm reading the wrong translation of the Bible or that I'm interpreting it wrong. I know what I believe and that is I'm supposed to emulate Christ in my life. I don't even need the Bible to do that. I know that Christ wouldn't hate gays, and I know that Christ wouldn't hate people of a different race. So why would I?
No one is attempting to discount your specific beliefs....we are just discounting the text that you use and how it's faulty. Congrats on approving of homosexuality and congrats on not being racist. No one is saying you are either of those things. You have brought up issues regarding Biblical interpretation, however, and people are just responding to that.

[Animalhill]

They are too different religions. Those 7 groups of people were the 7 Canaanite tribes. They were gentiles, God's people were Jews. also, take into account that this was in the Old Testament. God is telling Jews to not marry gentiles. Nowhere in the NT does it say that Christians are to not intermarry with gentiles.
M-( Do not ignite my Jew fury

[GeeBee]

M-( Do not ignite my Jew fury

I saw a guy get gored at a "running of the jew". Can't remember where though. Probably on some movie.

[GeeBee]

Just to clarify myself, I'm not too incredibly concerned with whether anyone thinks I'm reading the wrong translation of the Bible or that I'm interpreting it wrong. I know what I believe and that is I'm supposed to emulate Christ in my life. I don't even need the Bible to do that. I know that Christ wouldn't hate gays, and I know that Christ wouldn't hate people of a different race. So why would I?

But Christ would say that unless people believe in him, they don't get to heaven. Seems like discrimination to me. He also said he came to bring a sword, not peace. Seems violent.

[Animalhill]

I saw a guy get gored at a "running of the jew". Can't remember where though. Probably on some movie.
That was me provding the "goring", and it was a Disney movie entitled, "Why Jews Are Dangerous: A Diary of Walt Disney".

[Jason Tate]

They are too different religions. Those 7 groups of people were the 7 Canaanite tribes. They were gentiles, God's people were Jews. also, take into account that this was in the Old Testament. God is telling Jews to not marry gentiles. Nowhere in the NT does it say that Christians are to not intermarry with gentiles.
Using the Bible itself as a reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Nations

You, yourself, just said God told interraces (as Jews are an ethnorace) not to marry.

[ValleyForge]

M-( Do not ignite my Jew fury

Im not...

Seriously, its the OT. There are no Christians. He's talking to the Jews. Also, another reason the Jew's weren't to intermarry with the Canaanites is that the Canaanites were "full of iniquity" and would lead them away from him.

[Animalhill]

Im not...

Seriously, its the OT. There are no Christians. He's talking to the Jews. Also, another reason the Jew's weren't to intermarry with the Canaanites is that the Canaanites were "full of iniquity" and would lead them away from him.
It was a joke ;-)

[ValleyForge]

No one is attempting to discount your specific beliefs....we are just discounting the text that you use and how it's faulty. Congrats on approving of homosexuality and congrats on not being racist. No one is saying you are either of those things. You have brought up issues regarding Biblical interpretation, however, and people are just responding to that.

Ok then. I already said earlier that I know there is no one right interpration of the Bible. That is a fact. I know that. That's why I'm not raining fire and brimstone down on whoever doesn't agree with my interpretation. What I'm trying to get at is that there are two things anyone should get out of the bible and those are to emulate Christ in your life and follow the great commandment. Most Christians who take their interpretation of the Bible as a means to discriminate against others aren't following those two things.

So maybe I have the completely wrong interpretation. Maybe the bible really does say you shouldn't intermarry and that homosexuality is wrong. I don't care. I'll face that when I die, but right now, I'll believe what I believe and if my interpretation is wrong, oh well. At least I'm following the great commandment.

[Animalhill]

Ok then. I already said earlier that I know there is no one right interpration of the Bible. That is a fact. I know that. That's why I'm not raining fire and brimstone down on whoever doesn't agree with my interpretation. What I'm trying to get at is that there are two things anyone should get out of the bible and those are to emulate Christ in your life and follow the great commandment. Most Christians who take their interpretation of the Bible as a means to discriminate against others aren't following those two things.

So maybe I have the completely wrong interpretation. Maybe the bible really does say you shouldn't intermarry and that homosexuality is wrong. I don't care. I'll face that when I die, but right now, I'll believe what I believe and if my interpretation is wrong, oh well. At least I'm following the great commandment.
Emulate to what degree? And I'm not being an asshole, genuinely curious.

[ValleyForge]

Using the Bible itself as a reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Nations

You, yourself, just said God told interraces (as Jews are an ethnorace) not to marry.

Ok since we're all about interpretations here, I interpret that as God telling his people not to marry the Caanaites because they are "full of iniquity" and will lead them away from Him. It's not because they are different race. Again, that is my "interpretation" of the Bible. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Mercy Medical]

Ok then. I already said earlier that I know there is no one right interpration of the Bible. That is a fact. I know that. That's why I'm not raining fire and brimstone down on whoever doesn't agree with my interpretation. What I'm trying to get at is that there are two things anyone should get out of the bible and those are to emulate Christ in your life and follow the great commandment. Most Christians who take their interpretation of the Bible as a means to discriminate against others aren't following those two things.

So maybe I have the completely wrong interpretation. Maybe the bible really does say you shouldn't intermarry and that homosexuality is wrong. I don't care. I'll face that when I die, but right now, I'll believe what I believe and if my interpretation is wrong, oh well. At least I'm following the great commandment.

lol wut at the bolded part. I suggest you go back and read your previous post, that I've provided below...

You are wrong, brother. The Bible is not supposed to be something you interpret. The Bible is God-breathed. What it says is what it means.

[ValleyForge]

Emulate to what degree? And I'm not being an asshole, genuinely curious.

Well as childish as this sounds, basically the whole What.Would.Jesus.Do. thing. In situations, I always think how would Jesus treat this person, or how would Jesus handle this situation. Jesus was the perfect sinless man, who showed God's love to everyone. So I try to show people maybe a sliver of the love God has for them by acting as Christ would.

I know that sounds childish. Really it's just about being the best person you can be. It doesn't even have to be a religious thing. Be slow to anger, quick to listen, love your neighbor. that kinda stuff

[Jason Tate]

Ok since we're all about interpretations here, I interpret that as God telling his people not to marry the Caanaites because they are "full of iniquity" and will lead them away from Him. It's not because they are different race. Again, that is my "interpretation" of the Bible. Maybe I'm wrong.
Pretty much a cop out answer. Why follow any word if you can make it mean whatever you want it to?

[ValleyForge]

lol wut at the bolded part. I suggest you go back and read your previous post, that I've provided below...


Ok I've said this many times in this thread. What I meant by that was that there are clear cut rights and wrongs. I know that there are a million different gray areas up for interpretation, because sometimes the Bible doesn't clearly state what it says or means.

[Mercy Medical]

Ok I've said this many times in this thread. What I meant by that was that there are clear cut rights and wrongs. I know that there are a million different gray areas up for interpretation, because sometimes the Bible doesn't clearly state what it says or means.
I'm sorry, but making a statement like "the Bible is not supposed to be something you interpret" is pretty straight forward...

[ValleyForge]

Pretty much a cop out answer. Why follow any word if you can make it mean whatever you want it to?

I don't see how I'm taking it to be whatever I want it to be. It never directly states "do not marry the canaanites because they are a different race." It does directly say "do not marry the canaanites because they will lead you away from me."

In the NT Jesus tells his followers to spread the word to Jews and Gentiles alike. So now we aren't separate anymore. It says you aren't to marry an unbeliever. That unbeliever could be a Jew or a Gentile. Their race has no affect on that anymore.

[ValleyForge]

I'm sorry, but making a statement like "the Bible is not supposed to be something you interpret" is pretty straight forward...

I didn't use my words well then. What I said was not what I meant. Sorry that it's caused so much trouble...

[Animalhill]

Well as childish as this sounds, basically the whole What.Would.Jesus.Do. thing. In situations, I always think how would Jesus treat this person, or how would Jesus handle this situation. Jesus was the perfect sinless man, who showed God's love to everyone. So I try to show people maybe a sliver of the love God has for them by acting as Christ would.

I know that sounds childish. Really it's just about being the best person you can be. It doesn't even have to be a religious thing. Be slow to anger, quick to listen, love your neighbor. that kinda stuff
I guess my confusion stems from those who choose to "emulate" Christ tend to cherry pick which parts to emulate.
To truly "emulate Christ", wouldn't one have to renounce all of their earthly possessions? Or would Christ drive an STI?

[Mercy Medical]

I didn't use my words well then. What I said was not what I meant. Sorry that it's caused so much trouble...
I'm sorry, but what I've gathered from most of your posts in this thread so far is that you are very wishy washy. Initially you state that you didn't believe homosexuality was biological, but you didn't think it was a choice either and you had no opinion as to what it was, but you weren't going to believe any evidence that has been present that indicates it is in fact biological.

Then you stated that the Bible isn't meant to be interpreted, but now you state that it is. You're constantly going back and forth on your statements that you make and most of what you post doesn't make any clear cut sense whatsoever. You don't seem to have a solid stance on anything for any reason.

[ValleyForge]

I guess my confusion stems from those who choose to "emulate" Christ tend to cherry pick which parts to emulate.
To truly "emulate Christ", wouldn't one have to renounce all of their earthly possessions? Or would Christ drive an STI?

You are absolutely right. I wish I had the kind of faith to give up all I own and just walk from town to town spreading the gospel. I don't have that, I'll be the first to admit it. But I do the best I can, I know that.

[ValleyForge]

I'm sorry, but what I've gathered from most of your posts in this thread so far is that you are very wishy washy. Initially you state that you didn't believe homosexuality was biological, but you didn't think it was a choice either and you had no opinion as to what it was, but you weren't going to believe any evidence that has been present that indicates it is in fact biological.

Then you stated that the Bible isn't meant to be interpreted, but now you state that it is. You're constantly going back and forth on your statements that you make and most of what you post doesn't make any clear cut sense whatsoever. You don't seem to have a solid stance on anything for any reason.

I still have no stance either way towards homosexuality. I never went back and forth on that. I said I don't think it's completely biological and I don't think that it's a complete choice either. I also said I won't believe it's biological until there is definitive proof saying it is. Why should I make a stance on something I know nothing about and don't understand. I'd rather stay on the middle ground on that.

And the only "wishy-washy" thing I said about interpreting the bible was that one post in which I did not say what I meant to say.

[Jake Denning]

choice.

[ValleyForge]

I'll leave you all alone now. I've failed pretty hard in this topic because I didn't really think through what I was saying. If you take anything from it, please just know that there is at least one christian out there who is open-minded and doesn't hate homosexuals, even though he isn't very good with words. Sorry about that.

[Animalhill]

You are absolutely right. I wish I had the kind of faith to give up all I own and just walk from town to town spreading the gospel. I don't have that, I'll be the first to admit it. But I do the best I can, I know that.
I know this is totally off-topic to the thread, but I don't understand why one would let a relgion dictate their personality, temperment, and view of LIFE- yet it has no bearing on their physical, material existence.

[GeeBee]

Im not...

Seriously, its the OT. There are no Christians. He's talking to the Jews. Also, another reason the Jew's weren't to intermarry with the Canaanites is that the Canaanites were "full of iniquity" and would lead them away from him.

Ok since we're all about interpretations here, I interpret that as God telling his people not to marry the Caanaites because they are "full of iniquity" and will lead them away from Him. It's not because they are different race. Again, that is my "interpretation" of the Bible. Maybe I'm wrong.

Sorry, but the DNA markers and archaeological finds in regard to the Old Testament say that "Canaanites" and "Jews" were the exact same people. There's no evidence of Jews in Egypt, nor of an Exodus, nor of any "conquering" of Canaan. Hence the point of what "god was saying" is pretty much moot.
Well as childish as this sounds, basically the whole What.Would.Jesus.Do. thing. In situations, I always think how would Jesus treat this person, or how would Jesus handle this situation. Jesus was the perfect sinless man, who showed God's love to everyone. So I try to show people maybe a sliver of the love God has for them by acting as Christ would.

I know that sounds childish. Really it's just about being the best person you can be. It doesn't even have to be a religious thing. Be slow to anger, quick to listen, love your neighbor. that kinda stuff
How about just love your neighbor WITHOUT all the magic stuff? Why not Secular Humanism INSTEAD of Christianity?
I'll leave you all alone now. I've failed pretty hard in this topic because I didn't really think through what I was saying. If you take anything from it, please just know that there is at least one christian out there who is open-minded and doesn't hate homosexuals, even though he isn't very good with words. Sorry about that.
I still don't understand why you had to be so inflammatory against Jews.
I know this is totally off-topic to the thread, but I don't understand why one would let a relgion dictate their personality, temperment, and view of LIFE- yet it has no bearing on their physical, material existence.
Thisness.

[Animalhill]

Sorry, but the DNA markers and archaeological finds in regard to the Old Testament say that "Canaanites" and "Jews" were the exact same people. There's no evidence of Jews in Egypt, nor of an Exodus, nor of any "conquering" of Canaan. Hence the point of what "god was saying" is pretty much moot.

How about just love your neighbor WITHOUT all the magic stuff? Why not Secular Humanism INSTEAD of Christianity?

I still don't understand why you had to be so inflammatory against Jews.

Thisness.
Thank you, sire.
OFF TOPIC NOTE: At the Cursive show I went to monday night, some chick threw a rosary at Tim Kasher while he was playing. After the song, he held it up to the light, examined it for 30 seconds, and exclaimed into the mic, "I would put this on, but I'm afraid it may burn a hole through my chest".

[Khaos]

he looks and sounds like tom cruise (not a complement), but when he talks to his parents he has a scotish accent? wtf!

[GeeBee]

Thank you, sire.
OFF TOPIC NOTE: At the Cursive show I went to monday night, some chick threw a rosary at Tim Kasher while he was playing. After the song, he held it up to the light, examined it for 30 seconds, and exclaimed into the mic, "I would put this on, but I'm afraid it may burn a hole through my chest".

Also meant to tell you, I'm starting to think of Carl Sagan's "Variety of Scientific Experience" and Lucifer Principle as my new OT/NT combo.

[Khaos]

You are beyond fucking retarded that it doesn't even warrant an actual response. Seriously, sit down for a second...reread what you just wrote and think about it.

HAHAHAHAHA, best response EVAR!

[Mercy Medical]

he looks and sounds like tom cruise (not a complement), but when he talks to his parents he has a scotish accent? wtf!
He is Scottish born (his parents are Scottish) and they moved to the US when he was little. I don't know why he only speaks in a Scottish accent to his parents though.

[Animalhill]

Also meant to tell you, I'm starting to think of Carl Sagan's "Variety of Scientific Experience" and Lucifer Principle as my new OT/NT combo.
That's totally understandable. I feel that way with the Lucifer Principle- it truly changed the way that I saw the world. I really, really wish that book has a different title though.