New research from the Pink Tiger Institute: www.thedailytube.com/video/8854/gay-scientists-isolate-christianity-gene
I sent it to all of the "OUT" people on my Facebook list, plus a couple of siblings of the gay/bi/experimenting in her freshman year at an all-girls college in New England people on there... oh, and a guy who works in advertising.
funny stuff....but i have always wondered why finding the "gay gene" in any way justifies being gay? would that be true if we found a pedophilia gene? my point is not to conflate pedophilia with homosexuality, but just to point out that finding a genetic source of something in no way makes it good or bad.
AustinTxusa, it is a classic reductio ad absurdum argument. it is meant to show that if an argument can be used to show something absurd, (in this case that pedophilia is fine) then it is a logically flawed argument. if you don't understand this, it is your problem not mine.... i dont' think that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same thing remotely...
Why would a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a choice find this parody offensive? Such a person would say: it's absurd that there would be a Christianity gene, therefore it's absurd that there is a gay gene, therefore homosexuality is not genetic, its a choice.
Nordberg, it is no secret that some of us think homosexuality is immoral. for us, a genetic link doesn't make it any more moral than a genetic link explaining propensities towards violence, pedophilia or alcoholism make those actions moral. for those who find nothing wrong with homosexuality a genetic link means little as well. so my point is why even bring it up? it does nothing to further an argument unless you are one that believes that whatever is innate is somehow moral....but in that case i would be justified to behave link a philanderer because i seem to have an innate desire to have sex with more than just my wife. yet i am called to hold back that instinct of mine in my estimation, so i have chosen to only sleep with my wife.
alden, i am not terribly interested in being politically correct. i don't want to offend unnecessarily but if someone can't follow a simple logic stream i don't feel too bad about making my point regardless. on the other hand, if being gay is genetically pre-disposed, that doesn't speak to the morality (for those who believe in morality) any more than genetic links to a host of other issues would make them moral. i purposely used something like pedophilia to make the point that something being genetic would not make it moral. it was necessary to use something that shocks and offends to make my point, not to conflate the two issues. i think i was fairly clear in that with my follow up post. notice, despite your claims i did not compare homosexuality to pedophilia i compared a genetic argument in favor of homosexuality with a genetic argument in favor of pedophilia to show how absurd the logic is.
NAIU, it was a dig on bad logic, not on homosexuals. by the way, to make my point, plug in any non-controversial undesirable trait like Alcoholism, violence etc and see if it works on your first paragraph. whether or not you chose your homosexuality has little bearing on the discussion except for the fact that we should have compassion (which i do) on those who are genetically predisposed to something with which we disagree.
i honestly don't know what you mean. i am saying that we should be able to discuss controversial things without finding offense where there is none. my point was not to be offensive, it was to construct a clear syllogism that would illustrate my point. i think i succeeded. if you found a way to be offended i don't think that should be on me unless i said something that was wrong. if so, please show me so i can apologize. it just dawned on me...you are talking about my stance on homosexuality? yes...it is according to my understanding of Scripture that i take the stand that homosexuality is wrong. in that stance i am in agreement with 99.9% of the historical church and about 99 percent of the church around the world. the exception to my stance are the mainline denominations which have gone this way in the past 3 decades. they happen to also be the same denominations which are rapidly shrinking (i think that is tied to a larger worldview which lets go of Biblical truths in favor of being "relevant" on a host of issues, not merely homosexuality, but it is a microcosmic example of what ails them in my estimation.). do you find my understanding of Scripture to be flawed in some way?
mop, I am not offended by your syllogism. I get your point. Just noting that it's more likely to perturb posters than get a point across. As for your understanding of scripture, I think it is flawed. For a more entertaining explanation why: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWqgD7lGneU&feature=related
i've seen that before and it fails to delineate properly between the sacrificial system, including that which was considered clean and unclean, and moral codes. Jesus was a fulfillment of the sacrificial system and thereby called all things clean which were formerly unclean....but he didn't overturn the sexual laws. in fact, the prohibitions against homosexuality are repeated in the New Testament In Romans, Corinthians and Jude. that makes for cute lay theology on a television show but it is painfully lacking in depth of theological inquiry and satisfactory hermeneutical explanations. i have heard far better arguments for homosexuality being ok now than those though...but i don't buy them. by the way, for the record, i think God is very kind and very good. i don't think ANY law He has is capricious, arbitrary or mean. i think it is ultimately loving to tell people the truth about their sin. i think it is loving when God (or others) tell me the truth about my sin. unfortunately for all of us, we don't always do that well. i am no exception...i can be quite a jerk at times. having said that, i do believe homosexuality is wrong and is not God's plan for our lives.
i haven't said that it has anything at all to do with the laws of the United States. why? did you hear me saying something about laws? Nordberg....why does it take constraint to have a conversation? you must have a strange concept of tolerance.
alden, i don't know where you are coming from. of course there are some symbolic stories in the Bible and they make it clear when they are introduced. no, i don't think God planted dinosaur bones to trick us, i do think He created dinosaurs though. it hurts some that i think premarital sex is wrong and that i think adultery is wrong...should i let go of those too? it hurts others that i think greed and selfishness is wrong...should i let go of those values as well? where does it end? if the standard is just "hurting" someone in the way you describe then no morals would stand because every moral standard hurts those who don't want to abide by it. as for you last statement, i think it is you who is bogged down in the details. you are so trying to create a faith that is "relevant" to western modernist/post-modernist individualistic mindset that you are disregarding eternal standards God has given us. nordberg... you have not made your case, so i can't respond other than to say i read your comment and found it thin.
My "case" would involve a diatribe against fanatical religious bigots, and a whole host of other **** that would probably get me banned.
