Fact Checking LBGTQ+

[Dibby53]

They just discovered there isn't a "gay gene". How can they undiscover what's already been discovered? I suggest reading the article will answer that question. The fact is homosexuality is a choice, which means you are not created to be homosexual genetically by God. If children weren't evidence enough for heterosexual relationships, which I think they are, this pushes it further.

Homosexuality also occurs in the animal kingdom so this would surely mean it is not really a choice.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/190987/scientists-explore-evolution-animal-homosexuality/

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Homosexuality also occurs in the animal kingdom so this would surely mean it is not really a choice.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/190987/scientists-explore-evolution-animal-homosexuality/

When homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom, it usually manifests under certain circumstances; inferior males in bachelor groups where dominant male exile other males, and in domination, something like we see in humans in prison. It's not the normal natural state of things.

 

[posthuman]

 

[posthuman]

Homosexuality also occurs in the animal kingdom so this would surely mean it is not really a choice.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/190987/scientists-explore-evolution-animal-homosexuality/

animals in heat copulating with anything they can get close enough to doesn't really count as homosexuality. it counts as blind pan-sexuality. dogs hump couches. that isn't proof they are naturally predisposed to form lifelong partnerships with couches.
people do exactly the same thing, but people try to justify themselves, and dogs don't bother.
if it was genetic, seeing that it's impossible for a homosexual couple to produce offspring, then it would never exist in a second generation.

 

[Dibby53]

animals in heat copulating with anything they can get close enough to doesn't really count as homosexuality. it counts as blind pan-sexuality. dogs hump couches. that isn't proof they are naturally predisposed to form lifelong partnerships with couches.
people do exactly the same thing, but people try to justify themselves, and dogs don't bother.
if it was genetic, seeing that it's impossible for a homosexual couple to produce offspring, then it would never exist in a second generation.

With respect, I don't think you read the article.

 

[Dibby53]

When homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom, it usually manifests under certain circumstances; inferior males in bachelor groups where dominant male exile other males, and in domination, something like we see in humans in prison. It's not the normal natural state of things.

This is not what the researchers are saying.

 

[vashweb2]

Your theory makes one big mistake: Incest is found in nature as well and therefore natural as well. If you used the animal kingdom to posit homosexuality as natural than incest is too. Here is an article to back up my claim that incest is natural in Nature: https://www.livescience.com/2226-incest-taboo-nature.html

 

[Alertandawake]

I will give my opinion on this matter, but I will never accept "God made me this way" for a person to justify said lifestyle. It goes against the design of man and woman.

To me, for someone to even say this, and even support this concept of being made that way by The Most High is showing disrespect.

Now with all the medications and drugs and all sorts of other poisons and toxins in the world today, we don't know if the creation process of said child can be tampered along the way. Now this is beyond my understanding, but I can only go by what I see and what I know about the world we live in. I can accept some external element or influence interfering with the creation process, or even corrupting the creation process along the way, but I will never accept the argument "God made me this way".

 

[Dibby53]

Your theory makes one big mistake: Incest is found in nature as well and therefore natural as well. If you used the animal kingdom to posit homosexuality as natural than incest is too. Here is an article to back up my claim that incest is natural in Nature: https://www.livescience.com/2226-incest-taboo-nature.html

Thanks Vashweb.
I read the article you sent. It makes very interesting reading. Nathaniel Wheelwright says creatures evolve from asexual methods of reproduction to sexual as genetic mixing is favoured to perpetuate a more robust, healthy species. He mentions examples of incest, particulary on islands (as there are usually limited options) and where the practise favours the species. As species become more complex there is a movement away from incest ( but again, there are examples within higher apes).
Debora Lieberman suggests that with us there is a strong psychological repulsion to incest, particularly with people who share the same living space. So evolution seems to tend towards greater diversity of genes and away from incest.

The thing with homosexuality is that is widely distributed through numerous species, but it should have died out ( for obvious reasons). Since it continues then there must be a reason ( I share your view that the answer is not likely to be a single gene; much more complex than that). In the article I sent you it was suggested that perhaps there was an advantage to having extra care givers for the community, to help provide for children etc. without being encumbered by their own responsibilities. Maybe. The research is ongoing.
Another good theory I heard was hormonal. That during a time of stress at a critical part of foetal brain development part of the brain dealing with sexuality is changed. This would make sense in a time of overpopulation ( such as nowadays?), since this would be a great cause of stress.

The fact is homosexuality appears to be hard wired very early on. So simply saying it's a choice, or a " lifestyle choice" ( like choosing new curtains for your home) is wrong.

However, we can debate the current thinking in evolutionary science, but would that even be accepted by most people on here?

 

[Locoponydirtman]

This is not what the researchers are saying.

There is a problem with researchers, many have agendas based on govco interest, so I am careful about them. I usually read the observations and not the conclusions.

 

[vashweb2]

Thanks Vashweb.
I read the article you sent. It makes very interesting reading. Nathaniel Wheelwright says creatures evolve from asexual methods of reproduction to sexual as genetic mixing is favoured to perpetuate a more robust, healthy species. He mentions examples of incest, particulary on islands (as there are usually limited options) and where the practise favours the species. As species become more complex there is a movement away from incest ( but again, there are examples within higher apes).
Debora Lieberman suggests that with us there is a strong psychological repulsion to incest, particularly with people who share the same living space. So evolution seems to tend towards greater diversity of genes and away from incest.

The thing with homosexuality is that is widely distributed through numerous species, but it should have died out ( for obvious reasons). Since it continues then there must be a reason ( I share your view that the answer is not likely to be a single gene; much more complex than that). In the article I sent you it was suggested that perhaps there was an advantage to having extra care givers for the community, to help provide for children etc. without being encumbered by their own responsibilities. Maybe. The research is ongoing.
Another good theory I heard was hormonal. That during a time of stress at a critical part of foetal brain development part of the brain dealing with sexuality is changed. This would make sense in a time of overpopulation ( such as nowadays?), since this would be a great cause of stress.

The fact is homosexuality appears to be hard wired very early on. So simply saying it's a choice, or a " lifestyle choice" ( like choosing new curtains for your home) is wrong.

However, we can debate the current thinking in evolutionary science, but would that even be accepted by most people on here?

It isn't a debate, Homosexuality isn't "hard wired". Homosexuality is a personal preference. Here are all my sources to back up this undisputable claim. If you still believe despite the overwhelming scientific evidence than I'm afraid not even God would be able to change your mind for you have already chosen a path uncritical of it's direction.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/08/30/health/gay-gene-study-trnd/index.html
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/no-evidence-that-gay-gene-exists
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...le-genetic-cause-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/

 

[kaylagrl]

Hi Vashweb2
As the report indicates it is a very complex picture. Scientists and psychologists still have no conclusive answer.
From my own experience, being gay is not a choice. Certainly not one I ever remember making. It has always been there. It is just something one becomes aware of as one grows up. So I think this is what gay people mean when they say they were born that way. Sexuality is just not a choice in the way that going out to buy a new pair of shoes is.

I see you aren't a Christian. Are you here seeking answers? Just wondering what reason you have for being here. Personally I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. If sex is just a choice then it isn't wrong to have sex with a child, or an animal, whatever you feel you are sexually attracted to.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Homosexuality also occurs in the animal kingdom so this would surely mean it is not really a choice.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/190987/scientists-explore-evolution-animal-homosexuality/

actually, we are seeing the results of a fallen world

a world enmeshed in sin that contaminates everything in it

some are born hermaphrodite ... yet we cannot say God made them that way as He plainly did not

the choice we actually do have, is to believe God and CHOOSE to believe what He portrays as the truth and not as our willful emotional excuse rendering brains would provide

scientists without Jesus are certainly not going to portray the obvious

animals, while not morally responsible, are at the mercy of what sin has created

Jeremiah 12:4
How long will the land mourn and the grass of every field be withered? Because of the evil of its residents, the animals and birds have been swept away, for the people have said, "He cannot see what our end will be."

Romans 8
18I consider that our present sufferings are not comparable to the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the revelation of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but because of the One who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

22We know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until the present time. 23Not only that, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved; but hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he can already see? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet see, we wait for it patiently.

26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know how we ought to pray, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groans too deep for words. 27And He who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Your theory makes one big mistake: Incest is found in nature as well and therefore natural as well. If you used the animal kingdom to posit homosexuality as natural than incest is too. Here is an article to back up my claim that incest is natural in Nature: https://www.livescience.com/2226-incest-taboo-nature.html

everything on this planet is laboring under sin and no longer perfect as was first created

incest is also not of God and not natural

animals are not our moral compass (I know you are not saying that, but honestly for a person to point to animals as an excuse...I know you are not actually doing that...is just one more example of the unregenerate mind at work

Romans 8
18I consider that our present sufferings are not comparable to the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the revelation of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but because of the One who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

 

[vashweb2]

After the Fall, yes. Before the Fall Adam and Eve's children only had each other. But after the Fall, God gave us the Law which determined how marriage works. And then was upgraded by New Covenant later on. There are now, today, not only moral issues wrong with incest but also health issues. I learned in my biology class that if dysfunctions with the genes become more potent the more they are maintained within the same gene pool. Diversity, meaning non-incest propagation, leads to weakening of dysfunctional genes.

 

[Dibby53]

It isn't a debate, Homosexuality isn't "hard wired". Homosexuality is a personal preference. Here are all my sources to back up this undisputable claim. If you still believe despite the overwhelming scientific evidence than I'm afraid not even God would be able to change your mind for you have already chosen a path uncritical of it's direction.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/08/30/health/gay-gene-study-trnd/index.html
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/no-evidence-that-gay-gene-exists
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...le-genetic-cause-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/

I understand that there is no single gene responsible. I have never thought that. The articles you sent me say that there are multiple genes involved in sexuality, alongside hormonal and environmental factors. Much more research is needed. However, neither is there the case you make that it is simply personal preference. It is interesting that you cite these scientific studies; but you do so, it appears to support a theological claim.
I,m open to having my mind changed. But since I have no fixed opinion on the cause of homosexuality there isn't much to change at the moment. I,m open as to the causes.
Perhaps I was hasty in saying sexuality is "hard wired" generally. It appears to be more so for men than women:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/.../201105/sexual-orientation-is-it-unchangeable
If you don't wish to debate that is fine. You have certainly made me think more about it....so I will have to research further. It's a fascinating topic.
However, behind all of this are real people, with real feelings. Maybe if you want to know how a gay person experiences their sexuality then I guess you could talk with him or her.

 

[Dibby53]

I see you aren't a Christian. Are you here seeking answers? Just wondering what reason you have for being here. Personally I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. If sex is just a choice then it isn't wrong to have sex with a child, or an animal, whatever you feel you are sexually attracted to.

Many years ago I was a fundamentalist christian. To cut a very long story short I thought I was done with it all. It has taken much research and spiritual seeking and experiences of God to see the beauty in the message of Jesus. I,m here to see if what I have discovered stacks up.
Sexual attraction is not the same as sexual activity. It is wrong to have sex with a child or animal as they cannot give rational and informed consent.

 

[vashweb2]

What people always do when they are wrong is say what they didn't mean when it is perfectly clear what they meant. Changing the meaning to previous mistake doesn't make it all of a sudden correct. You clearly stated "hard wired". This is wrong with the evidence I have provided. Please don't try claim you meant something else or that I didn't understand what you meant. That sort of debating tactic is used all the time by politicians. Please admit the truth that no one is "hard wired" to be that way and do not try and say you meant something else or that I misunderstood you, no one misunderstood you. The article says many things influence same-sex, just look at how many things influence your desire for chocolate icecream rather than vanilla, and is definitely not "hard wired". This phrase would be properly used for the natural impulse for a baby to suck (eat) right after birth. There is nothing natural about homosexual relationships for if it their were, then if every single human were homosexual, humanity would go extinct. This is basic logic. One thing necessary leads to the other unless you introduce a heterosexual component to the equation. Logical is based off mathematics btw. Let us call the production of children X, heterosexual relationships Y, and homosexual relationships Z. Z cannot perform X without physical help from Y. A component of Y is the ova, which Z does not have. Z therefore cannot perform X, and therefore cannot be deemed anything natural Y displays. Unless we decide to call non-production and extinction natural, which, whether atheist or Christian, cannot be considered so.

 

[kaylagrl]

Many years ago I was a fundamentalist christian. To cut a very long story short I thought I was done with it all. It has taken much research and spiritual seeking and experiences of God to see the beauty in the message of Jesus. I,m here to see if what I have discovered stacks up.
Sexual attraction is not the same as sexual activity. It is wrong to have sex with a child or animal as they cannot give rational and informed consent.

I wanted to come back and make clear that I am not holding myself up as a perfect Christian. I have personal struggles and fight the inner man (woman) as much as anyone else. And the last thing I would ever want to do is to be a stumbling block to anyone seeking the Truth. By fundamentalist, may I ask was it non- denominational, if you don't mind sharing. Blessings.

 

[EleventhHour]

What people always do when they are wrong is say what they didn't mean when it is perfectly clear what they meant. Changing the meaning to previous mistake doesn't make it all of a sudden correct. You clearly stated "hard wired". This is wrong with the evidence I have provided. Please don't try claim you meant something else or that I didn't understand what you meant. That sort of debating tactic is used all the time by politicians. Please admit the truth that no one is "hard wired" to be that way and do not try and say you meant something else or that I misunderstood you, no one misunderstood you. The article says many things influence same-sex, just look at how many things influence your desire for chocolate icecream rather than vanilla, and is definitely not "hard wired". This phrase would be properly used for the natural impulse for a baby to suck (eat) right after birth. There is nothing natural about homosexual relationships for if it their were, then if every single human were homosexual, humanity would go extinct. This is basic logic. One thing necessary leads to the other unless you introduce a heterosexual component to the equation. Logical is based off mathematics btw. Let us call the production of children X, heterosexual relationships Y, and homosexual relationships Z. Z cannot perform X without physical help from Y. A component of Y is the ova, which Z does not have. Z therefore cannot perform X, and therefore cannot be deemed anything natural Y displays. Unless we decide to call non-production and extinction natural, which, whether atheist or Christian, cannot be considered so.

There is evidence that behavior does cause structural changes in the brain and that behavior also controls the brain.

So when they state that it is not a choice, it may have become hard wired, but at some point it was a choice, since there is no evidence that homosexuality is hard wired into the brain prior to the behavior.