Christianity and homosexuality

[sledheavy]

ok, so I've been wanting to just ask this for a freakin' while. And frankly I love the comment because everyone I know (i.e. conserv. republican types) that hear it gets CoMpLeTeLy pissed.

If god didn't desire gays, why did he create a prostate? Or more corrrectly, why'd he put it so close to the anus?

maybe this was already discussed on the forum, but I swear the reaction is classic.

Honestly though. I think it's interesting that the majority of classic nations (if politically correct) all experienced some form of homosexuality along their timeline.

[AClockWorkOrange]

BOUT TIME YOU SHOW UP!

thank you, very much.

i went hiking/ camping with some friends for about a week.

[micatala]

Hello Micatala,

"No, this is not what I pointed out, nor is it correct.

If genetics played no role at all, then the percent of twins separated at birth who were both gay should be closer to the percent in the general population. This would be at the very most 10% and more like 2% to 5% from the various estimates I have seen. Since the percent for these twins was 50% and not 5%, this means genetics plays a definite role in being gay. We can argue about how significant this role is, but statisticians would say that any variable that can explain 50% of the effect in another variable would be explaining a lot." Micatala

The study that you are referring to (I believe) was conducted by M. Bailey and J. C Pillard and showed that 52% of identical twins was gay and 22% of fraternal twins were gay. However, Bailey and Pillard only recruited subjects from homosexual publications and not from the general population. I can assure you that such a sampling technique will greatly skew any findings and conclusions and has led to the rejection of this study by peer reviews.

Another twin study by Bailey and Pillard showed that 25 percent of identical twins were homosexual and 12.5 percent of fraternal twins were homosexual (the results almost half of their original study), but even this study drew criticism. You correctly pointed out that only about 2% of the population in gay. So why would 12.5% of fraternal twins be homosexual since they share no more genetic material that other non-identical twin siblings. The numbers simply do not add up.

Yes, I did get back to this study and this is the one I believe I had previously seen and referred to.

Here is one link discussing the study.

With regards to the sampling bias Dale alludes, the article cites another much larger study from Australia.

And Bailey has looked for confirmation abroad. His recent study out of the Australian Twin Registry, with almost 5,000 participants (roughly 1,800 sets of twins and 1,300 unmatched twins), also tracked the same pattern. Bailey is quick to emphasize, too, that his initial study wasnt the first along these lines. A somewhat informal study in the 1940s, in which the researcher persisted in calling his subjects members of the "underworld," also found a very high probability that if one identical twin was gay, the other would be as well.

Thus, while I do not deny that a more rigorously random sampling process would be desirable, the evidence does not justify dismissing the study because of the sampling method.


Here is what I see the numbers 'adding up' to.

The incidence of homosexuality in maternal twins is significantly higher than for fraternal twins. This is strong evidence of a genetic component to homosexuality. It is almost surely not the only component but it is clearly one component.

The incidence of homosexuality among fraternal twins is significantly higher than in the general population. As stated in the article:

Fraternal twins, from different eggs, are as genetically close as any other siblingsabout a 50 percent match. But, like identical twins, they share what scientists call a "twinned" environment. They develop in exactly the same amniotic fluid, equally exposed to whatever the mother eats or drinks. They age at the same rate, playing more closely than siblings separated by many years. Identical or fraternal, they are treated by others as a unit in the way that other siblings are not. If you want to search for heritable influences by comparing the tightly matched genetics of an identical twin to the standard genetic link between siblings, fraternal twins are the best way to do so. They let you filter out environmental interference.

THus, there could also be a non-genetic, but "in born" component to homosexuality as well. For example, one study, cited by Bailey in 1991, indicates one possible biological difference between homosexuals and non-homosexuals. This difference is very unlikely to be the result of 'environmental' factors.

A recent study by Simon LeVay, a neurobiologist at the Salk Institute, reported a difference in the hypothalamus, a part of the brain that develops at a young age, between homosexual and heterosexual men.

Finally, post-birth environmental factors could also play a role. However, I have never seen any credible study that explains why homosexuality occurs better than the Bailey and Pillard study.

Has anyone identified any other factor that has better than even a 25% rate of association?

The only one I have heard of that even comes close is that the more older brothers one has, the more likely one is to be gay. This is not exactly an 'inborn' trait, but neither is it in any way a choice. See this article for a discussion of the older brother phenomenon and other possible factors associated with homosexuality.

"This seems a highly arbitrary and unfounded assertion. How can you assert this comparison is ridiculous or that there is no comparison? What basis do you have for this assertion? Is this simply a subjective impression that homosexuality is immoral and left-handedness is not? I don't mean to be flip, but the fact that both of these phenomonon are partially but not completely genetically determined seems absolutely relevant to the issue of the 'naturalness' of homosexuality." Micatala

The reason I can make this assertion is that homosexuality is not genetic.

I am not saying homosexuality is completely determined by genetics. However, it is incorrect to say homosexuality is 'not genetic' if by that you mean that there is no genetic component. The evidence for substantial genetic influence regarding homosexuality is only accumulating.

[melikio]

I am not saying homosexuality is completely determined by genetics. However, it is incorrect to say homosexuality is 'not genetic' if by that you mean that there is no genetic component. The evidence for substantial genetic influence regarding homosexuality is only accumulating.

And I think/believe that MOST people (even certain fundamentalists) realize that there is indeed a genetic component to human sexuality period. People surely DO NOT "choose" homosexuality, as a preference (like favorite foods or type of mate they desire); being gay is as innate as eye color or which hand we tend to write with.

Some have gone so far as to say/imply, that a "homosexual" person cannot be in a spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ. I believe that's ludicrous, and they can never prove that biblically (surely not to everyone), but many tend to say it as if it's practically the ONLY definition of "non-Christian" (i.e.... "There is no such thing, as a homosexual Christian."...etc.). That they are so wrong at many levels, shows me (repeatedly) how religious bias, is selected by many OVER reason (it has an effect or signature to it, that is difficult to mistake).

I just got tired of the B.S., and let go of closer relationships with certain types of Christian people altogether; the people who manage to HATE homosexuals, while (with a smile, and much piety) claim to LOVE them. I couldn't stand it anymore, so I learned to not trust people like that; you cannot be yourself around them, and they have such an aversion to things-homosexual, that they literaly become neurotic about CHANGING YOU (for your own good). IF that means OUTING you to a larger audience, or bringing pressure to bear upon you socially, religiously or professionally... they WILL do it (that's why I cannot trust people who think in that manner), they will HURT you . It's a kind of "love" that I avoid period.

Being gay, is not something criminal or demonic, but some "Christians" do not mind painting it (and things related to it) that way, and ignoring the scientific evidence we have to support truth to the contrary. I was "Christian" before I knew I was gay, but everything that has be "gay" about me, was in place from an age so early it astounds even me. And such astonishment comes as a result of people teaching that being gay is somehow as direct result of something being taught or NOT being taught something (biblical).

Most Christians I eventually calm down enough to actually discuss homosexuality, figure out and learn themselves, that despite how a given individual turns out (gay/straight), that there is an enormous struggle at some point(s) in a person's life, that cannot be trivialized. I'd bet a good sum of money, that the proper reserach, would reveal that nearly 70-90% of born-again Christians, do not actually understand what they are dealing with (socially, morally and spiritually) inside of most homosexual people. And I feel that way, because of much of what I've heard many right-leaning Christians say, either ignores what science has presented for consideration, or casually discounts the same. Before I accepted my homosexual-orientation as a matural part of being human, I was looking for a demon over each shoulder, and somehow managed to HATE MYSELF, using the same reasoning as many bigoted religious folks tend to.

But a person cannot STAY in such a self-destructive mode, without something reacting to the cognitive dissonance set up by such real mental, social and spiritual conflict. For me, my faith was the primary casualty. And while I don't see that as a badge of honor, I do respect the magnitude of the intimate struggles related to it; that very thing is what too many Christians ASSUME they understand about being "homosexual" (they often play it down, almost like it's nothing; when it explains most of what most homosexuals would ultimately confide in them, if they actually could).

The reality is, that science provides reason where religion tends NOT to. Not that religion isn't importnat or useful to human beings, but that with "homosexuality" as other things in nature, it canot be trusted completely to impart a COMPLETE understanding of things. Remember, there were people who actually believed that the world was FLAT. And while I see great wisdom in the Bible and other holy books, I can HARDLY go there to learn as much about the intricasies of human sexuality, as I can by spending 8 hours reviewing the topic at http://www.webmd.com/.

I think that the social and moral hostility toward gay people in general, will open the door to more understanding of homosexuality, and subsequently help many more people on ALL sides of the arguments deal with it period.

-Mel-

[melikio]

I said:

I think that the social and moral hostility toward gay people in general, will open the door to more understanding of homosexuality, and subsequently help many more people on ALL sides of the arguments deal with it period.

It should have read:

I think that reducing or mitigating the social and moral hostility toward gay people in general, will open the door to more understanding of homosexuality, and subsequently help many more people on ALL sides of the arguments deal with it period.

-Mel

[Cryopyre]

I see that the discussion of genetics has been taking place, but has anyone mentioned that Hamer in Washington D.C. found the gene pairs themselves. Apparently the gene called Xq28 was pinpointed to have at least some effect in homosexual men.

[Cathar1950]

I guess now the Holy City will have the wrath of God down on them and and end to the peace.
I found this intersting. Both the reaction and the numbers surprized me.
I wonder if Homosexulaity can bring them all toether?

"He estimated that 60,000 gays live in metropolitan Jerusalem."
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/220/story_22067_1.html

[spiritletter]

People who deny homosexuals the same rights as those with other sexual preferences are not acting according to any spiritual knowledge. They are, quite simply, bigots. The mode of their bigotry is usually psychological. Some are unconsciously homosexual and project their self hatred outside themselves. Others are just stupid or insecure about their own sexuality, and hate everything that presents with any kind of complexity.

Christ spoke of mercy and tolerance more than anything else. God is merciful, compassionate, and, unlike some of those who claim to know his mind, tolerant of a wide range of difference. No one has ever been able to show me how homosexuality is perverse, or how homosexuals do any damage in the world; whereas it is easy do demonstrate that many of the people who disapprove of them do: in Saudi Arabia, they kill them. In some parts of the US, this hatred is strong enough to do the same; fortunately there are laws against murder.

People who deny homosexuals their right to marry or to love as they are inclined, are contributing to a general bigotry that causes the death of homosexuals all over the world: this country not excluded.

[melikio]

People who deny homosexuals the same rights as those with other sexual preferences are not acting according to any spiritual knowledge. They are, quite simply, bigots. The mode of their bigotry is usually psychological. Some are unconsciously homosexual and project their self hatred outside themselves. Others are just stupid or insecure about their own sexuality, and hate everything that presents with any kind of complexity.

Christ spoke of mercy and tolerance more than anything else. God is merciful, compassionate, and, unlike some of those who claim to know his mind, tolerant of a wide range of difference. No one has ever been able to show me how homosexuality is perverse, or how homosexuals do any damage in the world; whereas it is easy do demonstrate that many of the people who disapprove of them do: in Saudi Arabia, they kill them. In some parts of the US, this hatred is strong enough to do the same; fortunately there are laws against murder.

People who deny homosexuals their right to marry or to love as they are inclined, are contributing to a general bigotry that causes the death of homosexuals all over the world: this country not excluded.

Amen.

You've made excellent points by what you've shared above.

Too many 'Christians' have dehumanized homosexual people in far too many ways; in the name of "God" and "Christianity". They have caused more harm (corporately) than is often admitted.

That gay people see virtually little to no help in dealing with most Christian people, is evident, and answers many questions (even as they might be asked).

-Mel-

[StephS]

One of the reasons I left Christianity is because of the rampant hypocrisy I see going on when it comes to gays. I've seen so many preachers say "hate the sin, love the sinner", but then I see guys like Jimmy Swaggart (or as I call him, LOSER!) threaten to kill a gay person if they're so much as touched by one. I want no part of that.

[sledheavy]

One of the reasons I left Christianity is because of the rampant hypocrisy I see going on when it comes to gays. I've seen so many preachers say "hate the sin, love the sinner", but then I see guys like Jimmy Swaggart (or as I call him, LOSER!) threaten to kill a gay person if they're so much as touched by one. I want no part of that.

At my school, we had talked about it to some degree, but it was always open ended. Hense the hate the sin, love the sinner idea. We'd be told that exact statement, and then we'd pray for gays to 'see the light and truth in jesus christ'.

That's sending quite a few messages, and a lot of people had their own interpretations on the matter.

The problem seems that for half of the concensus (at least to me) of christian believers is that it's a typically assumed and mute issue. And that could be said about any topic. There's always the one guy just repeating what he read in newsweek that morning, or the person who just tries to 'sound smart'.

Some people just look to say what others are wanting or knowing to agree upon for a lot of reasons. Half the time they just don't want to sound stupid.

But that tends to lead to the worst of scenarios. At least if people are complaining openly about something, there views are known and expressed. But if it's all agreeable most of the time and no one's put much thought into their general ideas the whole group becomes infatuated with stupidity! lol.

And yet my favorite bible teacher, hell, one of my favorite teachers of all time gave us an article of a 13 year old boy getting tied up and sodomized by two men, and saying something to the effect that 'we didn't know of the full extent of the evils of homosexuality'. And because he's a teacher, and we were students, a lot of the classmates agreed!! There was no love the sinner, forget the sin here. Most of em considered it an unspoken word that no one had spoken.

That's disapointing.

It's provoking reactionary irrational responses that aren't necessary upon christian youth. And to what effect? It takes just one person to return the same evil because he thought the general population would agree with his or her action, even though it's deamed wrong by a 'fallible' system of government.