Yes, I'm saying orientation is not present at birth and that it develops during childhood.

Is lung cancer a "natural" consequence of smoking? Just because many people who smoke do develop lung cancer does not make it a "natural" consequence.

No, what Romans 1 is saying is that all those other sins listed in Romans 1:26-32 came about as a result of humanity's first forays into idolatry. There is no such thing as "genetically predetermined orientation" and what the Bible refers to when referring to homosexuality is to thoughts and behaviors.

What we call "attraction" (whether to the opposite sex or to the same sex) is something I very narrowly define as the autonomic physiological and emotional response that we experience. Everything that occurs after the moment of the autonomic response (thoughts, lusts, actions) is a choice.

PaPaDon,

I don't know if you are married, have kids, grandkids, or what. If you do, may I ask, Did you chose to be attracted to your wife? Did you chose to fall in love with your wife? The choices you make regarding your wife and kids (again, assuming they exist) is influenced by your unchosen love and natural affection for them.

On a more specific and less philosophical level, did you chose your stature?; your foot size? your hairline? None of us have directly chosen any of these attributes YET we make decisions based on their naturally progressive existence (i.e., what kind of clothes and shoes to buy, what kind of hair products to use, etc.).

So it is with orientation. It is a naturally developing, God-given, human experience that is not determined by choice. What we as humans do choose, however, is how to physically respond to our natural psychological and emotional development.

On what morning, say around the onset of puberty, did you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex?

There's no doubt that acting on some unnatural same-sex attraction is sin but your post is typical of so many Christians who really don't even understand their own "sexual orientation" much less those orientations that are clearly contrary to God's created design for male and female.

Well, non-heterosexual orientations are not "naturally developing" but, instead, are aberrations that are contrary to God's created design.

Does this make it any less genetic or natural?

From a scientific perspective, thougts and lusts are NOT autonomic responses but, rather, psychological responses which have the potential to elicit physiologic responses.

Did you make a choice to be heterosexual? No, you didn't. That was something that developed during your childhood. You don't have to believe it, but it's true.

Think about it. You didn't suddenly think one day, "I think I'll prefer a girl for a mate." No, but instead, throughout your childhood, you chased girls around the playground, stole a quick kiss when the teacher or mom wasn't looking, and went out on dates as a teen.

Sexuality develops during childhood.

That being said, I also believe that in the case of homosexuality, there are people who make that choice out of curiosity or whatever. I don't believe that to be the case with many, or should I say most, homosexuals.

You cannot make a claim that homosexual orientation is not "naturally developing" unless you can prove that heterosexual orientation IS naturally developing and that homosexual orientation is not.

No, thoughts and lusts are what you choose to do with the autonomic physiological and emotional response. The attraction occurs first, the thoughts, lusts and actions follow.

HeavenlyOne! We actually have found something BOTH of us can agree on. I realize this doesn't change your argument but I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who acknowledges this fact.

Brad, I'll play along here and agree that you were born to be homosexual. Here is your problem....we were all born with the predisposition to sin. We are sinners from birth.

That said, do we excuse people from sinning because we were born that way?

That would become a problem, because then we wouldn't need the legal system to judge folks who commit crimes. One sin isn't worse than another in the eyes of God, and since He is the judge, you can't complain if someone wants to come into your house and rip you off after cutting your throat.

After all, they were born that way.

Since "naturally developing" means that which develops the majority of the time and is normative for the species, it is self-evident simply by observing the species that heterosexual orientation is naturally developing and that all other orientations (because they are not normative for the species and do not develop the majority of the time) are aberrations.

Brad, arguing genetics is fruitless considering that no proof of a genetic tie has yet to be found. I think you need to find a different excuse.

That's funny. You can make claims without proof but you tell someone else they can't make claims without proof.

:hypercoffee

Genetic specifically refers to the presence of genes. There is no evidence of a specific "sexual orientation" gene or other evidence of something existing in the person from the womb that causes one to develop a sexual orientation. Further, "genetic" does not mean "natural." While I realize that many people like to define "natural" as simply "that which occurs in nature," I prefer to equate "natural" with "normal" or "normative," i.e. that which occurs in nature the majority of the time and is normative for a particular species.

It has been said that there is a "genetic predisposition" toward breast cancer in certain women. However, just because there may be a genetic predisposition doesn't automatically mean the woman is going to develop breast cancer. So also, even if it can be shown that there is a "genetic predisposition" toward homosexuality doesn't mean one is automatically going to become homosexual.

So you now agree that sexuality develops during childhood?

Cause that was not only stated in my post you agreed with, but it was the point of my post.

It's not really worth debating but I can tell you that you would be hard-pressed to find anyone in the scientific community (including psychologists, physicians, physiologists, etc.) who will affirm that thoughts and lusts are autonomic responses. At the MOST, there are areas of the brain that may react to thoughts and lusts; however, their actual cause/source is unknown.

And I'm not saying they're autonomic responses, I'm saying they occur after the autonomic response and are entirely chosen.

I agree it develops during childhood but based on a genetics (i.e. puberty takes place during adolesence but is genetically predetermined). We may vary a bit on our specifics but the truth is that orientation is not a choice. I think THAT is where we are in agreement (even if your view is that only heterosexual orientation is not a choice). Either way, we have some commonality.

As I've stated before (by the way, these are grossly hysterical examples you are making), murdering God's creation is not a God-given, natural desire. Human companionship is. I have agreed all along that homosexuality deviates from the first human relationship (Adam & Eve) but believe that it deviates as the result of a naturally occuring genetic mutation (such as hermaphroditism, intersexism, or any other genetically altered deviation). This belief is based on the fact that orientation is most definitely genetically determined due to the amazingly high correlation that exists between chromosomal sex and orientatin (i.e., most males are attracted to females and visa versa).

Because I know from first hand experience that I COMPLETELY lack an attraction to females and, instead, have an attraction to males, I know that my genetically determined orientation has deviated from the norm but is real, true, and natural nonetheless. This disqualifies me from being an individual who has been turned over to homosexuality because of idolatry.

I have stated from the beginning of this thread that homosexuality deviates from the normative sexual orientation of humans. However, that does not make it unnatural.

Let me present this to you and other readers. If heterosexuality is natural and homosexuality is not, then why is it that homosexuals are not ALSO heterosexual? How does something unnatural mystically replace something you say is natural? Wouldn't homosexuality behavior have to co-exist with a natural, heterosexual orientation?

First of all, it's not an excuse. Second, I am justified in arguing genetics because it is a rebuttal to other arguments that hetersexuality is the genetic norm.

Let me also make a bold statement that may cause most in this room to roll their eyes in complete in total disbelief.

I have given the majority of my life to prayer over this issue and have not come to these conclusions lightly or of my own ability. I have laid in bed, countless nights, sobbing and begging God to help me understand all of this.

I know in my heart that I love God yet I could never accept His love because I could not reconcile that fact that I was one of the idolaters of Romans 1. It was after asking God to show me His will and to truly help me understand why I was gay that I began to see things from the perspective I am sharing with you in this forum. No man will ever be able to take away the divine understanding that I have received from God. I am only here to share it and to do so with as much clarity and conviction as I can and in hopes of helping someone who may be dealing with the same confusion, lonliness, bitterness that I once faced on a daily basis.

All I've ever said (to my recollection) is that you cannot say homosexuality is unnatural while saying that heterosexuality IS natural. In order to prove homosexuality is unnatural one must begin by attempting to prove that heterosexuality is natural. Of course, by proving heterosexuality is natural you have to admit that orientation is natural because heterosexuality is directed toward BOTH males and females and is only sex-specific based on the GENETIC construction of the individual with the orientation. Therefore, a genetic orientation toward someone of the same sex is no more unnatural than being born with any other genetic variation from the norm.

First, let me suggest that "genetic" refers to not only genes but the epigentic system as well. For example, there are genes for certain traits but those traits are often determined as the result of the genes interaction with the environment (height, eye color, skin color, handedness, etc.). Epigenetics must and are included in the discussion of genetics.

Second, natural and normative are two totally different terms. Natural is a scientific termed used to refer to that which occurs naturally - though anyone can chose to use the word "natural" however they want to. Normative, however, is less a scientific term as it is a sociological term. Because homosexuality (as well as this thread of discussion) has many scientific AND sociologic influences it is possible that all of us have used the terms out of context.

Homosexuality is an aberration, a deviation from the norm. That is why it is "unnatural" (is not the norm within nature). Homosexuals are not heterosexuals because homosexuals do not have a heterosexual orientation.

So, while you say there are "genes" for specific traits such as height, eye color, skin color, handedness, etc., you're also saying there is at least some part of these that is determined by environment? For normal people (people outside of "science"), the term "genetic" suggests only one thing: that a person is born that way. Has anyone ever been able to show us a specific gene and show it actually causing a person to have a particular height, eye color, etc.?

So-called "science" today is based on a wicked, worldly philosophy called "naturalism." On that basis alone it is to be automatically treated with suspicion. To normal people "natural" means "normal." As for sociological terms, I'm sure at least some sociologists would object to you essentially saying that sociology is not a science, i.e. the study of society.

What makes an influence "scientific"? Is it that someone has applied the scientific method to it? Is it that atheistic, humanist and otherwise scientists who adhere to naturalism have expressed opinions about it?

you may scoff at my remarks as I have not kept up with this thread but one comment struck me as ludicrious.....you cannot say homosexuality is unnatural while saying that heterosexuality IS natural.

if this were the case, it wouldnt have been Adam and Eve in the Garden, it would have been Adam and Bob, or Eve and Lucille....

God meant for man and woman to be together as one complete unit..one man, one woman.

anything else is an unnatural adaptation b/c of sin.

Genetic? I dont think so, its a variation b/c of sin and becoming an accepted "mutation" of what God designed.

people can try to justify it all they want, it's wrong.

but then so again is hatred, malice, envy, strife...all those nasty things we all can be party too..


just my :2cents

carry on

1. Morally unprincipled; shameless.
2. Rejected by God and without hope of salvation.

But you have no proof that it's genetic, other than your saying so.

Puberty onset isn't a genetic predetermination either. It's hormonal, not genetic. Major difference.

Again, you have a big problem. You are making claims as fact when there is no proof. I cannot have honest discussion based on that.

Attraction to people isn't genetic. It's a development over time that has occured, just like other things you enjoy.

For instance, I like to fish. I didn't make that choice one day, but it stems from experiences and other things that happened when I was younger.

I like to watch Nascar and football. I didn't make that decision one day, but it's something that attracts me to those activities.

I HATE baseball and basketball. I couldn't watch those games if I tried. Oh, and I've tried. I lived in the Chicago area when the Bulls won their first three-season winning streak. I just couldn't get into it. No appeal to me whatsoever.

However, NONE of the above is based on genetics. It's just how I am. I don't know why I prefer football to baseball, but that's how it is.

This is how you are with your attractions also, but you can't base it on genetics when the research says otherwise.

Regardless, homosexuality is a sin, plain and simple. Just like lying, stealing, and murder are sins. Yet, we were all born with the propensity to lie, steal, and even murder. It's not in our genetics, but our sinful nature.

It's the same with you. I mentioned that before but you blew it off. You refuse to see what the Bible plainly says, and yes, when you use genetics as a reason, and one that was unfounded a long time ago, it's an excuse.

Why is it an excuse? Because it makes you feel justified if it was truly genetic. You have no justification if people tell you it's just the sinful nature we are all born with. I'm not saying that to be nasty, but I call it as I see it.

IF homosexuality was set in stone at birth; there would not be a single set of identical twins that weren't of the same sexual orientation. But this isn't so.

This is why no one has to fear finding a homosexual gene (that has been as elusive as Santa Clause and the tooth fairy). The church isn't about to run into a freight train contrary to some people's point of view. :cool:

Again, you are speaking an assumption, not a fact.

You are the one arguing genetics. Not anyone else. You have yet to find proof for that, especially since that was thrown out a long time ago by those who were seeking for that proof. It doesn't exist.

This is why it's so important to separate the underlying unnatural/abnormal attraction (which is not chosen) from the sin (the choice of embracing and acting on the attraction) and deal with each separately. Yes, the underlying attraction is contrary to God's created design for male and female but, no, it isn't chosen. Regardless, it's still sin to embrace and act on the attraction.

I can not stay with your line of thought and I think it is far more supportive of a "design apart from one's self" viewpoint, even though your position is that these life preferences do not pertain to genetics.

We make choices all along our lives concerning what we will consider, study, inquire about , explore, experiment in, advance or reject.

Take your basketball example; I lived the first 37 years of life with almost a complete repulsion to watching NBA players run up and down a court and shoot into a metal ring. Then a friend of mine, who was well-versed in the coaches, strategies, back-stories, and player skills shared much of this with me and I was OPENED up to a place where I could enjoy watching the sport be played. I would tend to believe that there was some worthwhile or valid experiences, or maybe a good surrounding or a needed escape, that led you to appreciate fishing.

If we look to the childhood experience (often preceeding readily available memories), and consider that some development got derailed because of trauma, neglect, rejection, embrassement, etc we find a need to acknowledge a series of subsequent actions (choices) that have subsequently been solidified and reaffirmed by a lifestyle.

Events that were very real, leaving in their wake, distortions of one's personal self. If the giftings within God's body ministry are not functioning in this area, then there is no remedy apart from a person's private experience with calling upon the name of Jesus for a transformation by being able to receive a new 'mindedness'.

We have countless examples of this being vainly attempted with many other manifestations of sin's bondage (resentment, bitterness, lascivousness) . If a sincere attempt to get free is not found in their private world, what remedy will they find if they come to you, me, or any other member of the body of Christ?