Debating Christianity and Religion

Is homosexuality something you are born with? Well I am not aware of any studies but if I had to guess I would say it probably has a part in it.

Now people use that to defend homosexuality from the Bible, but is it really a good defense?

According to numerous studies, children of criminals are born with a genetic tendency to be criminals as well. Including studies of adopted children that were born to criminals growing up in another law-abiding household.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 2892520530

Also it is well established that Native Americans are born with a tendency to be predisposed to alcoholism. Much more so than other races.

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh301/3-4.htm

So using the same logic, we should allow the children of criminals to walk free and Native Americans who drink and drive free as well. But wait, that sounds ridiculous right?

[Replying to post 1 by TheGreatDebate]

Why would it matter at all whether or not it's a choice?
There's nothing wrong with it.

"To defend it from the Bible"
You mean to defend it from people quoting the Bible. Which further assumes the Bible has any authority at all, let alone the people quoting from it.

Think about this:
How did people defend the abolition of slavery from the Bible?

It's as clear that the Bible is pro-slavery as it is anti-homosexual (to my knowledge the Bible doesn't address lesbianism at all) - often in the same chapters.

(the following doesn't apply to all of Christianity)

But, what about it being a choice?
Some branches of Christianity believe wrong deeds are penalised.
If homosexuality is such a wrong deed, it should be penalised.
If homosexuality isn't a choice, then one can be penalised for something they didn't choose - mere fate. An injustice.

TheGreatDebate wrote: Is homosexuality something you are born with? Well I am not aware of any studies but if I had to guess I would say it probably has a part in it.

Now people use that to defend homosexuality from the Bible, but is it really a good defense?

According to numerous studies, children of criminals are born with a genetic tendency to be criminals as well. Including studies of adopted children that were born to criminals growing up in another law-abiding household.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 2892520530

Also it is well established that Native Americans are born with a tendency to be predisposed to alcoholism. Much more so than other races.

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh301/3-4.htm

So using the same logic, we should allow the children of criminals to walk free and Native Americans who drink and drive free as well. But wait, that sounds ridiculous right?

People are born with dispositions for certain things. Whom we are attracted to is one of those things.
I mean, if we got to choose who and or what we like, there would be a lot less variance than there is now. It seems to be an evolutionary-type of thing where some are attractive to taller, some to shorter, some to thinner, some to fatter, some to blondes, some to red-heads, some men to men some to women, some women to women some to men. It's all what makes us "us".
Trying to interfere with that is playing God to me and probably not a good idea considering we are so mentally limited to the things in our visible universe, not to mention the other universes/dimensions that interact with us on an almost daily basis.

[Replying to post 2 by Jashwell]

How did people defend the abolition of slavery from the Bible?

It's as clear that the Bible is pro-slavery as it is anti-homosexual (to my knowledge the Bible doesn't address lesbianism at all) - often in the same chapters.

You are absolutely right. It does address lesbianism though (Rom 1:26.)

If homosexuality isn't a choice, then one can be penalised for something they didn't choose - mere fate. An injustice.

So you would allow the children of criminals to walk away from crimes because it would be an injustice to penalize them?

[Replying to post 3 by ten10ths]

People are born with dispositions for certain things. Whom we are attracted to is one of those things.

Although I would tend to agree with this, you cannot state it as fact, for to the best of my knowledge, there is no science to back it up concerning whom we are attracted too, at least yet.

not to mention the other universes/dimensions that interact with us on an almost daily basis.

Be careful, there is not even a consensus on any of this yet, let alone solid evidence.

Trying to interfere with that is playing God to me and probably not a good idea considering we are so mentally limited to the things in our visible universe

Man should not try to play God. I agree. Good thing God Himself played God or we would be in a bigger mess than we are.

TheGreatDebate wrote: [Replying to post 3 by ten10ths]

People are born with dispositions for certain things. Whom we are attracted to is one of those things.

Although I would tend to agree with this, you cannot state it as fact, for to the best of my knowledge, there is no science to back it up concerning whom we are attracted too, at least yet.

not to mention the other universes/dimensions that interact with us on an almost daily basis.

Be careful, there is not even a consensus on any of this yet, let alone solid evidence.

Trying to interfere with that is playing God to me and probably not a good idea considering we are so mentally limited to the things in our visible universe

Man should not try to play God. I agree. Good thing God Himself played God or we would be in a bigger mess than we are.

If you're looking for scientific proof, then no. We also don't have scientific proof that some people prefer blondes over redheads, but people do. Or there's no proof why some people like animals enough to make a career out of it while others would rather build a home or create code, or like peas and not green beans.
We don't need scientific proof to state the obvious, only to understand the obvious.
I say God played god and didn't do a goo job. After all, He allowed the fall of man and that's not very loving for His creation. Unless that's His plan. Though that is very disturbing as well lol But that's a different story

[color=olive]TheGreatDebate[/color] wrote: So using the same logic, we should allow the children of criminals to walk free and Native Americans who drink and drive free as well. But wait, that sounds ridiculous right?

Whether or not homosexuality is a choice has no moral relevance (it's not a choice, by the way -- all evidence points to this). What is ethically relevant (in my subjective, emotionally based opinion) is whether or not an act is harmful. [Violent] crime and drunk driving are both harmful. Homosexuality isn't harmful, therefore it's not wrong.

[Replying to post 4 by TheGreatDebate]

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural"
Could be bestiality, which has been addressed by the bible before.
But I'm surprised the Bible seems to differ on the scale of it's dislike for lesbianism and male homosexuality

And I take it you didn't read the rest of what I said.
"Some branches of Christianity believe wrong deeds are penalised"
"If homosexuality isn't a choice, then one can be penalised for something they didn't choose - mere fate. An injustice."

First, I don't believe deeds are punished, I believe intent is.
Second, the children of criminals don't always make criminals.
Third, if they commit a crime when they are young, they would be sent to a problem school (or whatever they're called), if they commit it when they are old, they would be punished - and receive rehabilitation.

The justice system in real life doesn't deal retribution.
It tries to avoid making criminals suffer when it serves no function.

The Christian justice system appears to.
If one can be denied heaven for this "transgression", and it is not a choice, then it IS a problem for (most of) Christianity because it means people were born destined for heaven or hell.

Haven wrote:

[color=olive]TheGreatDebate[/color] wrote: So using the same logic, we should allow the children of criminals to walk free and Native Americans who drink and drive free as well. But wait, that sounds ridiculous right?

Whether or not homosexuality is a choice has no moral relevance (it's not a choice, by the way -- all evidence points to this). What is ethically relevant (in my subjective, emotionally based opinion) is whether or not an act is harmful. [Violent] crime and drunk driving are both harmful. Homosexuality isn't harmful, therefore it's not wrong.

How does a "homosexual," a person "born that way," to desire same gender sexual behavior . . . that, say, is born into a village or town where there are no other "gay" children, how do they find their sexual partners without coercing and/or seducing non homosexual people into having sexual intercourse with them?

And since the homosexual "born that way" condition is shown to be rare in the human species, said to be something like only less than 2% of the populace, this scenario is not at all far fetched.

[color=violet]99percentatheism[/color] wrote: How does a "homosexual," a person "born that way," to desire same gender sexual behavior . . . that, say, is born into a village or town where there are no other "gay" children, how do they find their sexual partners without coercing and/or seducing non homosexual people into having sexual intercourse with them?

They could go somewhere else and find other gay people. There is no seducing or coercing of straight people. "Gay recruiting" is a lie.