"Gay" Gene?

The American Psychological Association recently revised their view of whether or not there is a "gay" gene and homosexuality is genetically determined.  Eleven years ago, their official statement was that there was such a genetic link.  Now, they've revised that statement reflecting the lack of research confirming such a gene.

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles.... [Emphasis mine]

Comments

[Joe]

And what if the law had simply failed to acknowledge or recognize the legality of interracial marriage? Is this really that different from the Virginia law in question? It's nice that we don't throw gay couples in jail, but again, if a gay couple attempts to act married with respect to benefits, rights, etc., then they are doing something illegal.

But what if we start with a situation in which no interracial relationships could ever be considered "marriage"? This is actually a more moderate position than the position taken by many states in the not to distant past. Ok, we won't jail interracial couples, but we will never, ever considered them to be married. They get none of the rights and benefits of same-race couples.

And now we change the law to recognize and legalize interracial marriage. Aren't we forcing those who consider interracial marriage to be immoral to "approve and endorse" interracial marriage? If I think that interracial marriage is immoral, in all 50 states, I'm being forced to approve and enforce it, despite it's immoral nature, right? Well, then, we'd better not legalize interracial marriage, right?

[Joe]

>"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

I thought that in Vermont, it grew out of the consent of the people.

[Joe]

>>"Now, is it right for the state to force people to approve and endorse interracial marriage when many people consider this immoral?"

>No.

So, interracial marriage should not be legal?

[David Hawkins]

I suspect if police were breaking into the bedrooms of sodomites and making arrests, we'd be hearing about it.

As a nation, we tolerate the act - and even promotion - of sodomy (between adults) very much.

Why give it it's own tax code?

[Joe]

You know, this is pointless. You think gay marriage is icky and evil, and nothing is going to change that, and now we've gone the "sodomite" route.

Again, the whole post seems pointless, because the genetics of sexual orientation will have no impact on your views.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary...

Sodomy: Anal or *oral* copulation with a member of the same or *opposite* sex.

Thank God for sodomy!

[Jesse]

>> And what if the law had simply
>> failed to acknowledge or recognize
>> the legality of interracial
>> marriage? Is this really that
>> different from the Virginia law in
>> question?

I don't see how active prohibition is the same thing as lack of acknowledgment or endorsement. Does the government acknowledge a teenage boy's relationship with his girlfriend?

It seems to me it's not so much whether the government recognizes a relationship as legal, but whether the government rewards that relationship with taxpayer dollars.

>> But what if we start with a situation
>> in which no interracial relationships
>> could ever be considered "marriage"?
>> This is actually a more moderate
>> position than the position taken by
>> many states in the not to distant past.

Really? Which states?

[Joe]

Fine.

[Joe]

Never mind.

[John Hannaford]

@ Mo -

I'll try to explain myself further and put it in a wider context.

If you read the article Olivia pointed us to you would see a very lonely young man who is crying out for genuine Christian fellowship.

We all need to experience true Love - to feel accepted, valued and to belong.

Some Christian same-sex attracted men who have come through the long process to become opposite sex attracted, testify to the importance of healthy, meaningful, intimate connection with other men as part of that healing process.

Thus ... "they need us".

The wider context? Often people outside the Church hear us saying: "Behave, believe and then you can belong". But through his table fellowship with sinners Jesus continually reversed that order (and scandalised existing religious sensibilities in the process).

If as his Church, we are to continue the mission of Jesus we should do nothing less.

Doesn't in fact the love of God, the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit demand it?

[Jesse]

For further contrast between lack of recognition of homosexual marriages and prohibition of interracial marriages, all one has to do is look at the anti-miscegenation laws that were in place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

[Joe]

Jesse and David,

You're a credit to your faith.

[Gravis]

Joe, I could be wrong, but I think this is not the first thread I have seen you leave and/or end up making sarcastic comments.

I sense you're none too impressed with the responses you get around here.

[Shame and Dishonour]

"Acceptance is not an act of love ...No the truest act of love is to tell them they are wrong, and NOT to accept them."

And I say this with as much sincerity as I can muster; God accepted me when I was neck deep in pornography. The least I can do is accept our dear homosexual brethern, and pray to God that he changes thier hearts. Im not speaking to accepting thier lifestyle, im also not speaking to outright stonewalling them. Who came into the Kingdom with perfection dripping off of thier backs?

[Shame and Dishonour]

"The wider context? Often people outside the Church hear us saying: "Behave, believe and then you can belong".

This is absolutely, and unfortunately true. Behave believe, and then.... is nothing but godless Religion. And there are plenty of religious people who have no idea who God is, and I was not exempt from this category. Ill stop there to keep from writing a novel in the comment section!

[Shame and Dishonour]

And Joe... To the point of there are plenty of immorality that we condone.. Sure. I agree. And in some senses I atleast understand the surgence of gay-rights. In some senses. Maybe they want tax breaks. And to be honest, I dont mind. My biggest concern is this underlieing push for "Gay-Marriage" not neccessairly as a 'civil right' (and i am speaking to legalities in saying that), but as a public endorsement. That being, when it gets voted down (and for good reason), people get angry and mindless, and instead of questioning that *perhaps* the people had good reason to vote it down, men and women are met with slander and strange accusations. Because unfortunately, it seems that spines are dissappearing, and people lack the ability to seriously question if it is atleast possible that those who disagree, JUST MIGHT not be biggots.

[David Hawkins]

Joe,

>>"I thought that in Vermont, it grew out of the consent of the people."

You are certainly right. It did.

The tung quote was just to stress the point of compliance as opposed to forced approval or endorsement.

Other things Vermont is/has done:

Judge Edward Cashman sentenced the rapist of a 6-year-old girl (over a period of 4 years, i.e. since she was 2) to 60 days in jail.

Judge David Howard sentenced a man who molested a 4-year-old boy to no jail time at all, just probation.

Lippert passes a transgender bill and kills Jessica's law...

12 year old girl in Vermont, Brooke Bennet, who disappeared, was found dead, and for whom it was discovered she had been betrayed by her family to a sex ring. Michael Jacques, the man arrested for killing her, had been in Vermont jails on a sentence of 9 YEARS for the brutal rape of another girl…and was let out early, for good behaviour. Now, he is in jail, again…but his niece is dead, at his hands.

and...

Vermont now allows 13 year-old children to send explicit pictures of themselves to each other via "sexting", and wants no parental consent for minor girls seeking an abortion.

Vermont - a genuine hallmark example.

Nice.

Just to see if we can find some common ground, Joe, what are your thoughts on this:

Homosexual marriage activists in CA, after losing the popular vote, posted a website displaying personal home addresses of Proposition 8 donors/supporters on the Internet for everyone to access.

Were you alright with that; and what do you think their purpose for do that was?

And why did they only petition outside churches, when 70% of the African-American vote supported Prop 8?

It seems, and this is just one guy talking, that "hate" is OK...as long as it's politically correct hate.

[Shame and Dishonour]

David's post essentially underscores my biggest problem with this entire 'controversy'. Hearts are being exposed, and some very strange things are coming out (no pun). I especially feel sorry for the whole Miss California ordeal.

[David Hawkins]

I said:
"what do you think their purpose for do that was?"

I think I had one eye closed or something..,sheesh!

2nd try: (should be "doing")
"What do you think their purpose for doing that was?"

[Joe]

....aaaaand we wrap things up with an act on the good people of Vermont. No maple syrup for you.

[Joe]

Guess I had an eye closed to. Let's try that again.

....aaaaand we wrap things up with an *attack* on the good people of Vermont. No maple syrup for you.

[Shame and Dishonour]

Strawberry is fine, just dont use as much :)

[Joe]

So you prefer something that's a bit...fruity?

[Shame and Dishonour]

I do!

[Neil]

Regarding what Jesus didn't say about homosexuality -- that is an argument from silence that fails at least 7 different ways -- http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/what-jesus-didnt-say/

To summarize: Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy, Jesus inspired all scripture, He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter, the “red letters” weren’t silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage and murder were, He emphasized many other important issues that these liberal theologians completely ignore (Hell, his divinity, his exclusivity, etc.), He was equally “silent” on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, etc.), abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews, and He did mention Sodom and Gomorrah.